Knuckledragger

I like the view-through-the-columns shot, Salty. I might try it at -1/3 or -2/3 EV, however. The columns themselves wouldn't suffer from being darker, and you'd get more detail on the building behind. I went and saw a local 2-piece band last Thursday. The shots of them weren't very interesting, but afterward I took a few pix of my friend Alyssa outside the bar. 17-40L @ 23mm, F/4, 1/30th, ISO1250. 30D's white balance was set to fluorescent. No edits at all.

Bonus Stupid:

Those early prototype stats weren't very practical.

Uh-oh. The Vikings are invading.

Via Our Terrible Wonderful Past

hai

R&J!

Reading comprehension fail on my part. I didn't parse that you already owned all of the abovementioned glass (hey, I was in a nightclub at the time.) In that case, maybe it is a good idea to lug the 100-400L, so you can get a chance to put it through its paces.

Doing lights in the biggest club in NoHo, which is a lot less exciting than it sounds. It's not even 11:30 and the dnb DJs are slinging the temper tantrum techstep like it's going out of style (which hopefully it is.) There was an MC in here, who was so bad I was seriously considering putting my lighting rig on autopilot and going out to smoke a backwoods. In fact, I think I might do that anyway.... As an aside, when I smoke Backwords cigars at events that attract WASPafarians and other would-be Rastas, I invariably get questioned "Is that a blunt" or "yo, let me get a hit." One of these days, I'm going actually let them do that and watch the coughing fit ensue.

There are a few remotely danceable tracks on Selected Ambient Works: 85-92 (henceforth referred to as "SAW8592") and when it came it out, "Digeridoo" was something of an underground dancefloor anthem. That's no mean feat as the track is 150BPM. As I said before, "IDM" is more than a bit of a misnomer, and the meaning of the term has changed significantly over the years. RDJ's label (Rephlex) has never endorsed the name "IDM." They prefer the eyeroll-inducing "Braindance" instead.

All of those lenses are nice, but make sure you really want the 100-400L. At the short end, its performance is weak by L standards (and not great by "normal" standards). It is a heavy piece of glass (over 3 lbs) and a push-pull zoom. Certainly, nothing else covers the range of focal lengths as well as the 100-400L, but personally, I'd rather have a 70-200 F/4 IS and maybe a 300mm or 400mm prime, later. YMMV, of course, but deffo try out the lens (try to rent it for a day or two) before you cough up for it. The 17-40L wins on full frame, APS-C, and APS-H sensors. It's also a "bargain" by L standards. I'd start with it.

- Knock knock. - Who's there? - To. - To who? - To whom. ...I'll get my coat.