Nice series.
I really like the blurry black and white one the best, because even though it's technically flawed, it's a very dramatic shot and more so because of the flaw.
The subject also fills the frame which adds impact.

^ quality! what lens was menna using.

is that mrs. gestalt giving us the two finger salute?

A simple footplate is all you need for a monopod. A ball head gets too wobbly, and a monopod gives you so much flexibility anyway, whihc providing a stable rest. I have a ball head you can borrow if you want to try it.

Hey, I keep meaning to mention, we have a Canon 70-200L IS USM for sale.
The lens is in very good condition, with no marks or scratches on the case or glass. This is the most useful lens you can have, it's just been superceded by the 200 prime in our home, and was planned to be sold to hel;p pay for the new lens. Retail is currently around $2300 at teh cheapest. We are looking for $1600.
Also have a Canon 2x extender in perfect condition, for $300. Again, nothing wrong with it, just don't need it now we have the 400mm.
PM me here or call on 0405 386155

Gestalt said...

hmm, i have read that some people like the ball heads on the mono's some don't also.

i'd love the 70-200 but my next purchase will be the tokina 116 wide angle for work purposes.

next on the list after that is the 100-400 IS L or maybe the 70-200 with the converter. not sure if the converter will work on the 40d so something to look into. probably just go straight to the 100-400 and put a converter on that if it fits and try and get an more reach.

there was a chat on seabreeze a while back about the 70-200 with converter versus the 100-400. both excellent options.

For reasons I don't understand, if you use an extender on a lens with an aperture greater than 2.8, you lose auto-focus. It is not dependent on the body, just the lens.
You also double your aperture value, so if you put an extender on teh 100-400 f4.4-5.6, you lose AF. If you put it on the 70-200 f2.8, you retain AF, but 2.8 becomes 5.6, which the 100-400 is at 400 anyway.
Beyond that, the 70-200 is probably a superior lens for general use. It is certainly a lot more easily carried around and easy to use on a daily basis.
They seem like a big lump when you first get one, but after a while, they are become unremarkable. Ther 100-400 always has that slide out thing if you let it dangle around your neck. Great lens though. I've got some great dolphin shots I took from CApe Byron looking down with one.
The deciding factor though, is that with teh 70-200 you can take teh extender off have get f2.8, which you can never do with teh 100-400.
So what, you say ?? Trust me, you don't know what you are missing until you have it.
It's like comparing a good free-ride board with a sppeb board on the speed bank. ONe is good, the otehr is better.

You can borrow the ball head to try out if you want.

the monopod was $55 and the tilting head was about $50 from memory. I think it all came from teds. For some reason at the time they could match or beat the online american stores for tripods and bodies, but not lenses

it's an alloy manfrotto, not carbon. i bought it before the financial crisis hit and all gear was cheaper at the time


i only use it for the sports stuff. i've got a proper tripod with front & side tilting with a fluid video head for everything else. It's slow for still shot setups, but it can do everything a ball head can do.

i broke an expensive canon cpl, and now just use the cheap $60 hoya purple. the $250 canon one was better (very thin & fragile), but not 3x better

that's the tripod. again it was teds that bet everyone. legs and head came to about $300

lol, no just one. the top half can go vertically or horizontally. there's a button on the base of the top section u press and it can pivot

this shows the top set vertically, and u can set the legs so it has a huge footprint for stability. the pic shows the left leg set fully out while other two are at their most vertical position. it's beaut for shooting into a light tent, and quite versatile

there's a cheap hoya blue green too. I've never noticed a yellow cast from either one??

Gestalt said...

ah, i see. that is the best explanation i have read to date. cheers, now i understand. i'm not so keen on increasing the aperture so i'll give that idea a miss with the bigger lens and most likely just go the bigger lens.

yep, i'm keen to try out a ball head.

thanks again.

Not to labour the point but at 400mm, the 100-400 is going to give you 5.6 as your max aperture. A 70-200 with the 2x extender to give 400mm is also going to have a max aperture of 5.6.
To get a bigger aperture, you have to buy bigger glass. The 400mm or 500mm f4 primes might be worth looking at too, as they not only give you a bigger aperture, but much better lens performance, and are much more affordable than the f2.8's which require a bank robbery or a dead rich relative.
Non-zoom lenses sound less versatile, but for windsurfing stuff you are going to be at your max focal length anyway, where clarity degrades and f stop is least.

OK, I'm totally on drugs, the 400 f4 is about $6K, whereas teh 100-400 is about $2K. It was a nice thought, but should have researched the prices before I made that suggestion.
I think that's how I wound up buying the ones for my wife. Doh !!!!!
Mind you, it's like buying teh best windsurfing gear. You don't regret it and teh extra zing is worth it.

So, I'll shut up now. See how you go wiht the monopod, call me if you want the ball end, and I'll post it to you.

Haircut said...

not sure if u guys have tried it, but the 70-200 2.8 i've used for a time was less sharp at 100mm f4 and 200mm f5.6 than the 100-400, plus the 70-200 had noticeably more distortion and CA at the edges. i've got some photos i've taken comparing the two. It gets noticeably even less sharp with the 1.4 extender, when using the extender only the centre point is reliable on the 40d (which is what i used it with), and it's heavy - but if u gotta have 2.8 u could live with it

Wifelet has a familial tremor, so she is always after more aperture, plus teh horse stuff she does is possibly some of the most difficult stuff to do. Flipping hose guys think it's all abotu them, and indoor arenas are a beotch.
That's an awesome tripod you have. I particularly like teh extension handle for smooth panning.
Prett much every lens mounts on teh tripod at the back, which turns small camera movements nito large movements at teh end of the lens. That handle has the opposite effect.
Not reccomending teh seller, btu this type of gimbal head is the shizzle for handling big lenses.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Gimbal-Head-Ball-for-Canon-400-2-8-Nikon-800-5-6-Lenses_W0QQitemZ130374798844QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories?hash=item1e5af18dfc

Gestalt said...

i've never really felt any issues with my middle of the range lens at f5.6 with windsurfing. if the sun goes away i just remove the cpl.

i would htough like to be able to shoot at 100 or 200 iso in the surf. 400 is ok, i don't mind a bit of grain, makes the image feel nicer.

my concern with the 70-200 with the converter is the loss of quality, i think the 100-400 will beat it every day for quality.

with my wider lenses though i want as open an aperture as i can get because of handheld nightime shots i do plus the indoors stuff.

the wish list also contain a 35mm and 50mm prime, i mate just grabbed the canon 50mm F1.4, it's build quality didn't seems so good but the images are fairly sweet.

Have to agree on teh image degradaation wiht teh 2x extender. It's all about getting the right lens for teh job at hand.
Surf stuff is usually bright light. Menna is often in crappy light, and needs all the shutter speed she can muster with IS and aperture.
That 50mm prime sounds sweet. An f1.4 is pretty neat. Maybe it just feels really lightweight compared to your bigger lenses. ONe of teh cheap kit lenses we got once , an 18-55, feels like a cheap piece of junk, but Menna loves it, and gets great shots with it. It hangs in the bag wiht her other gear, for sure.
I just got a 100mm MAcro for documenting some of my surgical work, and it is pretty cool too. Good general lens, and amazing macro ability.
I've always been the assistant, but I'm loving the macro stuff. It's a whole other world down there in the details.
I'm like one of the squints from Bones !!

the one cheaper non L lens i own that i think was really worth the money is the canon 100mm Macro

Is this a windsurfing forum or a camera forum?
Was a bit confused when I saw a pic of a T Bag.