Random Snap Shot Thread

[Cbacarella]

I have never needed the 2.8 IS. The 2.8 has always been just fine for me! Even in lower light times it has always been real nice! I used the non-is for all the snowdrift photos. I also used it for any football photos for CMU i had to take. I've shot that lens in the pouring rain, blizzard, and indoors with crappy light. It has always been fine!

.Chris

 

[Tin]

 

[93 saturn sl2]

I like taking pics of it.

 

[slideways]

Thats a nice looking Z400 remindes me of my old quad

 

[Violent J]

Just sitting around!

 

[Stinger1982]

 

[69 mach]

Nice .

 

[little2v]

You are better off getting the 4.0 IS vs 2.8 non IS. As far as low light goes, the IS 4.0 will step down to a slower shutter speed than you would gain light from the 2.8 vs 4.0.

 

[StockNotch]

 

[dirtybird]

Mid Ohio Pan 1/25th shutter by izthistaken, on Flickr

 

[scotthidley]

You are better off getting the 4.0 IS vs 2.8 non IS. As far as low light goes, the IS 4.0 will step down to a slower shutter speed than you would gain light from the 2.8 vs 4.0.

In theory, but it will still require a longer shutter meaning if the subject is moving you can't get a still shot.

 

[dirtybird]

Street Light Love [Explored] by izthistaken, on Flickr

 

[WayFastWhitey]

Awesome pic matt,

 

[lucky7]

dang, tear that ish up matt.

 

[kovacs32]

hey Matt, do you do wedding photography?

 

[dirtybird]

Awesome pic matt,

Thanks buddy!

dang, tear that ish up matt.

I'm learning this photogra

hey Matt, do you do wedding photography?

It seems I do. I don't advertise that I do, most of my work is word of mouth. I'm not really sure if I want to keep doing it or not. It's a lot of work.



Daytona Super Performance Coupe by izthistaken, on Flickr


Mid Ohio Pan 1/25 by izthistaken, on Flickr

 

[Stinger1982]

hey thats me in the #46!!!

 

[kovacs32]

 

[mdhmi]

 

[lucky7]