TDU 505

Congratulashuns Diablo and the rest of the guys. Great place, lovely to see it's doing well. :)

How do you do the vertical take off thing?

Press the button which you would typically use to decelerate the aircraft.

Untitled by MARK1992-, on Flickr

Lightheaded. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

Singapore Skyline and Marina Bay Sands Panorama by MARK1992-, on Flickr

1 more. :)

Thanks guys. :D

@Kelv - Balloon A-Klasse!

Singapore Skyline Panorama. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

Yep they are HDRs, and I use Photomatix Pro 4. Quite a lot more intuitive than Photomatix Pro 3 - and thanks a lot guys! :)

@Z06 - your panning is WOW. Very well done! :)

Untitled by MARK1992-, on Flickr

Untitled by MARK1992-, on Flickr

DeliciouSLS. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

DeliciouSLS. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

DeliciouSLS. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

New Addition II. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

New Addition II. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

@Homer_Bart: Is that the green GT3 RS and garage from the flooding article from a few weeks back?

Eeeee no. That was at St Regis. This I think is at his place. :)

EDIT: Whoops didn't see the next page.

I totally agree with you Tom .. I've another time edited my lastest post where I said which lenses I actually own .. I do not have the choise I take the 17-85 because after it I have a 80-200mm so this is the best purschase I could do now and it makes quite good pictures as I saw on the link Tom post before.

TDU 505 I wasn't speak about you but about some websites which say criticism about this cam's.

One thing i'm sure I'll buy some L lense a day ...

I'll let you know my choise on this thread .. I hope to say okey to the seller tonight

Price of the cam's with 17-85 : 970 € so the price of the cam's with a 18-55 ...

Hahahaha relax I was just joking. :)

If the 17-85 isn't going to cost you more, then you'd might as well pick it up. It's a well, live-able lens. And USM is nice to have.

Personally, I'd grab a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but even that costs more, albeit slightly.

Hallo Chris! Remember me? :p

The 18-55 IS is actually sharper than the 17-85. You're paying for a slightly wider and longer lens, with USM focusing motor.

Optically, it's actually worse.

I think peoples who critic it don't are really photographers

I'm taking offense. :)

Check out this guy's Flickr. He's a friend of mine and he uses a 60D and the 17-85 Canon Lens. His results are generally pretty nice with it. Based on what I see there I'd say it's a good investment. Of course user skill impacts results greatly.

I don't wish to be the devil advocate here, but at 1024 on the long end, you probably can't see much of it's optical flaws. Although this does mean one thing - if you, MANTE, aren't going to be printing your pictures but merely posting it on the web, it should be fine. I'm a bit unsure about the 18-135 though. It does perform decently, but I'm fairly sure you'd want more fairly quickly.

Yes, but you failed to mention cost two to three times more than a 55-250.

Definitely ignore the 75-300s. All of them.

There's really no beating the 55-250 IS if you're only willing to spend that much.

The Tamron 70-300 I heard, is a bit better than the Canon 70-300, but both are a bit more than the 55-250.

Stretch a bit more, and you might find a 70-200 f/4L USM. Lovely L lens, but without IS, you might have a problem.

I would recommend the 55-250. There's really no beating it's price vs performance.

EDIT: Or as Tom recommended, the Sigma 70-300 (Look for the APO version) isn't shabby either, but you're not getting any form of stabilization, which might put you off.

Ghost Town. by MARK1992-, on Flickr

-snip-

Seen the set before! Was on Supercarsdubai I think. :D

I can imagine this is what Martijn looks like in da club!

Harlow Marc! MARK1992 here, just in case you don't recognise my new nickname.

Welcome back!