Sentosa Thread IV


Status
Not open for further replies.
nightwolf75 said:
actually, i was thinking of the 120mm mortar base-plate... u know, the one the mount on the M113 APC floor... :sweat:

Wah that one :sweat: :sweat: :sweat:

Angel will surely mati... then really become DA :bsmilie:
 

Garion said:
50-500 f2.8.... :bigeyes:

Imagine how big the front element would be. It would weight...8kg? :bsmilie:


I wonder if DO technology helps here :think: :think: :lovegrin:
 

DarkForce said:
DF technology better :devil:

DF got what technology? Dark using whites... only become gray cards leh...lol :bsmilie: :sticktong
 

CYRN said:
DF got what technology? Dark using whites... only become gray cards leh...lol :bsmilie: :sticktong

18% Grey or 12% Grey ? :sticktong
 

DarkForce said:
18% Grey or 12% Grey ? :sticktong

That's where yout "Force" comes to play... you can be any shades of grey... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :sticktong
 

DA, MS amk has 3 new sets of 17-40L. just arrives.
u may want to check it out.
 

CYRN said:
That's where yout "Force" comes to play... you can be any shades of grey... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :sticktong

DF technology is to connect your camera , lens and flash to the Car battery for more POWER ..... :bsmilie:

Super damn powerful :bsmilie:
 

scud said:
DA, MS amk has 3 new sets of 17-40L. just arrives.
u may want to check it out.

Hi Scud,

Could u enlighten me why go for 17-40L instead of 16-35L ? 17 better than 16 ?
 

u pay the dif in price, then i get the 16-35L.
:bsmilie:
 

DarkForce said:
Hi Scud,

Could u enlighten me why go for 17-40L instead of 16-35L ? 17 better than 16 ?
Well... e price difference of cos!!! Nearly $1000 :bigeyes:
Actually seldom will shoot wide angle at f2.8. Can make do with f4. For group shots normally shoot f4 to f5.6
 

DarkForce said:
Hi Scud,

Could u enlighten me why go for 17-40L instead of 16-35L ? 17 better than 16 ?

Cheaper price and lighter weight? But at the expense of speed.

Some say the picture quality of 17-40L is better than the 16-35L or 17-35L? :dunno:
 

gryphon said:
Well... e price difference of cos!!! Nearly $1000 :bigeyes:
Actually seldom will shoot wide angle at f2.8. Can make do with f4. For group shots normally shoot f4 to f5.6

Diff by $1000 ? Wow .....

Now I see.

Thanks
 

AJ23 said:
Cheaper price and lighter weight? But at the expense of speed.

Some say the picture quality of 17-40L is better than the 16-35L or 17-35L? :dunno:

Better picture quality ? Then who own that lens must be a happy guy loh ;)
 

DarkForce said:
Better picture quality ? Then who own that lens must be a happy guy loh ;)

That I don't know. ;)
 

AJ23 said:
Cheaper price and lighter weight? But at the expense of speed.

Some say the picture quality of 17-40L is better than the 16-35L or 17-35L? :dunno:
speed? i can make do with f4. no way i will pay $1K for additional 1 stop.
workaround, i can either push iso higher or using slower shutter speed.
compared pic quality, 17-40L is better than 16-35L at f4.

AJ, u gg to seed tml?
 

AJ23 said:
Cheaper price and lighter weight? But at the expense of speed.

Some say the picture quality of 17-40L is better than the 16-35L or 17-35L? :dunno:
Yes i hear but can't verify tat claim.
Besides, DF, u dun shoot landscape (scenery) at f2.8.
U dun shoot portait wif 16-35 due to distortion of wide angle, so no need f2.8 to blur background.
The only time i think to shoot wide angle at f2.8 is at events wif poor lighting & yr flash can't throw light too far or in places where flash not allowed, like at some churches.

Thats why f4 L lens are one of the reasons why ppl choose Canon over Nikon :thumbsup:
 

AJ23 said:
That I don't know. ;)

Well if you pay the diff to let Scud get one, he should be very happy :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top