This photo of the Mexican Pavilion is just an ordinary "grab" shot, nothing worth writing home about. As I was looking at it, I noticed all the antennas and equipment on the roof, stuff that is hidden from view when you're right at the base. There are the lightning rods, some antennas, a weather station, and what looks like 2 video cameras on a post. Interesting stuff. Maybe someone else knows more about what exactly the equipment is. By the way, I'm really impressed with the lens that took this (if anyone is looking for Santa to bring them a nice zoom telephoto lens for Christmas). Its the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM. Somewhat expensive, but its the perfect travel telephoto because of its small size, and its sharpness speaks for itself. Just about all of my Disney people photos that I've been posting lately were taken with this lens. This photo was shot handheld, at 300mm (which on the 5D is a real 300mm). [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
Well it looks like the camera is aiming towards backstage (saw that part of backstage on NYE). You like the DO lens? I was thinking about renting it's big brother if (when) I go to the Aransas NWR.
Well, I love the complete lens itself. The "DO" is part of that, so yes, I like the DO lens (for those who don't know, "DO" stands for "Diffractive Optics", and its a way to make a long telephoto into a quite small lens. Click HERE for a good explanation from Canon). I would go ahead and rent the 400mm DO for your trip to Aransas, but you might find that you'll want to buy one when you get back! Here's another blowup from the photo above, this time from the lower left-hand corner. You can actually recognize faces from across the lake! [This attachment has been purged. Older attachments are purged from time to time to conserve disk space. Please feel free to repost your image.]
scott, i can see how you love that lens. i have been eyeballing the 100-400L IS USM as a potential replacement for my 70-200 f/4 L. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... 616&is=USA they are within about 300 bucks of each other, same f/stops, very similar. the L is bigger and i am sure much heavier though, but with full frame edge sharpness and the extra focal length are important. what is your opinion?
I found a review of the 70-300 DO lens {HERE}, with a picture of it with the 75-300 and the 100-400. The 100-400 is twice as big and probably twice as heavy. When I travel, weight is a very important factor, but you've indicated in some of your other posts that its not as much a factor for you. Therefore, I'm sure you'll be happy with either one. You do get a bit of extra reach with the 100-400, while giving up the 70-100 focal lengths. As I said above, I really like the fact that the 70-300 is so small, and so sharp. I wasn't expecting it to be after reading some early reviews.
Well, the pictures just above were taken with my 5D, so that's good FF performance, especially the crop from the lower corner.
i must agree with you on this lens, then. you might have just saved me a few hundred bucks and some poundage in the ol' backpack.
Now you're making me think about renting that lens too for Feb! I wouldn't need my 70-200 - I'm not planning on going to see F!. Well maybe for Nemo....
