File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hello /p/

Is when looking at the "white" lenses online they appear to be solid white, but today when looking at them in store the seem to be more greyish. what's the deal with that?
>> Anonymous
No.
>> Anonymous
that's because they're not white

the only white white ones are Sony's

Canon's are almost beige, and Nikon's are white grey
>> Anonymous
>>302810
someone uses too much flash in their product shots.
>> Anonymous
Maybe it's your monitor?
>> Anonymous
They are white so that they wont distort due to heat aight! BAM!
>> Anonymous
thanks guise!

p.s. I am picking up a 70-200L f/4 IS for $450CAD. from a local store, it was owned for one month and is mintttt. shityaaah!!!!
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>302848
Dammit. That's almost exactly the deal I just missed :/
Lucky guy.
>> Anonymous
I also bought a new (open box) 40D body for $675, excited to try out the lens tomorrow. haha it will be my only lens for now. They also have a 17-40L for $675, which I was considering, but I can't pass up the 70-200 and I don't have the cash for both...
>> Anonymous
>>302848

eh

the f/4 never really caught my eye.. even with IS

i like having freedom with my dof
>> Anonymous
>>302848

enjoy your used f/4 non IS
>> Anonymous
>>302878
I'm doing that since a few months as well
>> Anonymous
>>302878
It is IS fgt. I fondled it
>> Anonymous
>>302884
wtf wut? IS for THAT PRICE? never, they tricked you.
>> Anonymous
>>302885

well we'll see about that tomorrow, I will provide pictures/ receipt
>> Anonymous
2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

Fuck the price difference

it's glass you'll keep for years. you want the best. it's worth the extra investment
>> Anonymous
>>302903
over 1000 dollars difference of you're talking 2.8 IS.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>302903
Define "best". If you don't need the 2.8IS, the F4IS is better in every way other than vignetting. Sharpness, contrast (iirc), chromabs, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>302906
you are confusing sir, using proper sentences would help.
>> Anonymous
>>302903
nobody needs 2.8 except for sports.
f4 is lighter, sharper, and with IS more than suitable in low light as well.
>> Anonymous
>>302908

or anyone who actually likes to use a smaller dof for stylistic purposes?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>302907
Correction:
You are confusing, sir; using proper sentences would help.

If you're going to criticize easily understood (if not grammatically perfect - I transposed a period and a comma ending a sentence that should not have been ended) posts, I suggest you successfully compose your own with perfection on all technical counts.
>> Anonymous
soooooo the F/4 IS is better in every way other than vignetting, sharpness, contrast (iirc), chromabs, etc?

orrrrr

The F/4 IS is better in every way other than vignetting. Though in sharpness, contrast (iirc), chromabs, etcetera the F/4 performs better when compared to the f/2.8 version.
>> Anonymous
>>302911
How about instead of trying to get the last word you clarify your sentence so I can figure out which lens has got the better "Sharpness, contrast (iirc), chromabs, etc"
>> Anonymous
>>302909
if that justifies carrying around double the weight and double to triple the price for you, then fine.
f4 gives me a fine shallow dof at 200mm at least more than enough for me.
>> Anonymous
>>302966
forgot: for "artistic purposes" a 200mm 2.8 fixed would be the better choice imho.
>> Anonymous
>>302968

Why?
>> Anonymous
How about we sage this crappy thread.
Seriously, why do people feel the need to come to a photography board, when they can just go to dpreview and ask questions on a fucking gear board?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>302970
since when has /p/ been anything other than a bunch of kids screaming about the fact that
"2.8 is better than 4 because it is a smaller number!"
"yeah well there is more that goes into a lens than the apert-"
"FUCK YOU! 2.8 IS BIGGER THAN 4! AARRRGHHH!"
>> Anonymous
0.53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jshe65EE0So
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
get the 2.8
>> NotKordox !X5MdOLLFAg
White lenses suck
>> Anonymous
White lenses take better photos, a scientifically proven fact.
>> Anonymous
>>303015
true...
they reflect more light, allowing them to expose more of the spectrum
>> Anonymous
>>303017
>>303015
actually they're white so that they don't heat up as much in the sun which causes the lens to change shape and affect the pictures
>> Anonymous
>>303029
>>303017
>>303015
seig heil!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
So you'd think non IS wouldn't you...

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G9Camera SoftwareQuickTime 7.5.5Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:28 15:01:02Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width900Image Height409RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh shitttt

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G9Camera SoftwareQuickTime 7.5.5Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:28 14:49:53Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width900Image Height675RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
enjoy your pricing error
>> Anonymous
>>303162
>>303164
fuck, I hate you.
>> Anonymous
>>303164
>>303162

FFFFFUUUUUUUUU-
>> Anonymous
maybe he bought a f/4
took photo of receipt
returned it and bought f/4 IS
took photo of lens
post on /p/
raaaaage
???
and profit
>> Anonymous
>>303162
Henry's receipt in Canada....
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>303370
yep, it was from Henry's.

Their mistake is fine with me. Though now it is the only lens I have for my 40D, I was going to get the Tamron 17-55 or the Sigma 30 1.4, but couldn't pass this up, and I don't think I'll have the money for another lens until after christmas.

Anyways, I'm happy.

Haven't had too much time to play with it or my 40D yet, but the IS is great, fuck, the lens is so cool. I was handholding 1/10 with little problems.

Pic not related, but still IS at 1/30

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareQuickTime 7.5.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:29 02:51:40Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
and a couple of guys, they were up to no good, started makin trouble in our neighborhood .

I think I'll be having fun with this lens.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareQuickTime 7.5.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:28 16:09:12Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard