I'll start

[Silver Bullet]

I've been shooting with a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM on a 30D. The compactness is excellent, but a f/2 would sure be nice.

[Donek]

Yeah, he said he got a Nikon. Great cameras, but their lens selection is lacking a mid-pro level. You either have to get that 70-200/2.8VR or settle for a consumer grade lens. All my shots in that ECES gallery were taken with a Canon 30D and 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is a pro lens but one stop slower (f/4 vs f/2.8) which saves like $600. It's "only" $1100.

I almost always turn the VR off on my 70-200 these days. Doing so speeds up the focus. I rarely shoot below 1/500, so the VR is pointless. The only time VR will be helpfull on a lens like that is if your subject is stationary and you're shooting below 1/300 (1.5 crop) or 1/200 full frame.

The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is a fairly popular substitute. It's $889 at BH. That's almost half the price of the 70-200 f2.8 VR. If you're shooting sports, get the 80-200. I shoot highschool sports with a young guy who just got Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 ($759 at BH). He says that it focuses faster than the two 70-200 F2.8 VR nikon lenses he has. Sigma's warranty isn't anything like Nikon's and my 50-500 sigma was in the shop being repaired just 16 months after I bought it. I'm not impressed with the Sigma build quality, but then I use the lens a lot, so at the consumer level it may not be an issue.

[Vahur]

I shoot highschool sports with a young guy who just got Sigma's 70-200 f2.8 ($759 at BH). He says that it focuses faster than the two 70-200 F2.8 VR nikon lenses he has. Sigma's warranty isn't anything like Nikon's and my 50-500 sigma was in the shop being repaired just 16 months after I bought it. I'm not impressed with the Sigma build quality, but then I use the lens a lot, so at the consumer level it may not be an issue.

Sigma makes decent lens but the 70-200 copy I had (bought in 2005 IIRC) was not so good wide open and as I've read from reviews it's quite common. Nikon's 70-200 is quite an exception in this regard, as it's quite sharp already at maximum aperture and it gets even better from there on. It could be that newer Sigmas are better in this regard, but I don't care anymore as I have Nikkor now. Nikkor's focusing speed is good enough for me and VR is good addition to this lens, making it usable for low-light sports photography (e.g. chess )
Of course if there is enough light for shooting with lens stopped down 1-2 stops then Sigma is good choice.

[Jack Michaud]

I almost always turn the VR off on my 70-200 these days. Doing so speeds up the focus. I rarely shoot below 1/500, so the VR is pointless. The only time VR will be helpfull on a lens like that is if your subject is stationary and you're shooting below 1/300 (1.5 crop) or 1/200 full frame.

The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is a fairly popular substitute. It's $889 at BH. That's almost half the price of the 70-200 f2.8 VR. If you're shooting sports, get the 80-200.

I wasn't aware of the 80-200/2.8, cool. I've never shot a x-200 without IS/VR, but I'd be verrrry hesitant to buy one without trying it. I've come to love the IS on my lens. I agree at shutter speeds faster than 1/400 it's more of a luxury, but it's so nice to see the viewfinder just settle down when the IS kicks in.

I and I think anyone with kids or anyone shooting people shoot slower than 1/400 often enough to make it worth it. I used mine to shoot my son's school concert from the back of the audience at ISO1600 with no flash, and it did quite well. The IS definitely helped. This shot was taken with a shutter speed of 1/40... you can't handhold that at 200mm without IS:

[Pow]

Heres one of me yesterday, opening day at Jiminy. My first run on the alpine board (I had been riding the longboard while my girlfriend was getting used to her new skis) and it was a little wierd trying to get used to it, but by the end of the day I think i pretty much got everything back. I hope I can get out next weekend, its all up to the weather and my workload

[Jack Michaud]

Cowboy... do you have heel lift on your front foot??

[KingCrimson]

Looks like outward cant and then his pant leg blowing in the wind maybe?

[colintkemp]

Profile photo seems to show toe lift on TD2s. Funny "heel lift" illusion in the picture for sure.

[Pow]

colntkemp is right. definately came out strange. And a plausable conclusion with the wind (which was going at a brisk pace of ~16mph that day) id mainly call it awkward start though as i didnt really get it together until the end of the day.

[KingCrimson]

You sure cant ride like this..



Kill me now..

[Pow]

that would be awkward

[JJFluff]

Looks like you got it down.

Seperate the knees, I've heard thats the way to go.

[Pow]

who'd you hear that from? surprisingly i think my knees are usually too close which is a problem I was trying to correct at the end of first season (with spectacular carves resulting, i might add), looks like maybe i was thinking about that and overcorrecting this time? I dunno, hopefully ill have better pictures next time that dont look so goofy

[KingCrimson]

Looks like you got it down.

Seperate the knees, I've heard thats the way to go.

I don't know anything about technique, but I have to say, the knees together doesn't make any sense to me, on top of looking very strange. The problem is with your style, you're so damn relaxed on the slope

[Pow]

Finally got another riding picture this season...


But its still not quite what i was hoping for! About halfway between the initiation and the apex, so a split second or two away... and a bit blurry.