that's right. I have a blog.

phew! finally the weekend. I need to admit; doing a blog at 5am is hard. don't be surprised if you dont see many more 5am posts.

well, lots of work to do this weekend...again.

Oh well, i have made it a habit to go outside and shoot some more. I'm doing more macro, and wish to start some more star trails, and maybe..just maybe some wildlife.

oh, and i want a macro flash...badly.

Then my collection will almost be complete! my dream setup was this back in the day=

5D
17-40 f/4
50mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.8 macro
70-200 f/4
400mm f/5.6
Mr-14 ex

THAT would have been a fun setup. I don't know what path to go on...I could also stray this path (my thought back then)=

30d
10-22
50mm 1.4
100mm macro
70-200 f/5
400mm 5.6
mr-14 ex

The only difference is the 10-22. If i could get a 5d, a 17-40 would be soooo cool. It would basically be the 10-22 on the wide end. I would _love_ to get a full frame dslr. With thee 17-40...oh my= pure magic for landscapes. Pure magic. Of course, I would keep the macro for my xt work..

thats conflicting i suppose.

with the 30d I would still be able to use the same camera with the macro lens (apc sensors= better macro weapons) And the 400 and 70-200 would have greater range. Of course, the counter arguement is that i would go wider on the 70mm end.


hmmm..

well, either way I need to build my army first.

Next on my list is the mr-14 ex.

After that..well, I like to expand before improving. So, i could get something like a 50mm 1.4 next, but it's the same focal length. Instead, getting a different lens in a differet focal length is better. So...I'm thinking the 400 could be next. *but* i dont know how much I would use her :(. I don't venture out very often to shoot birds (although i love bird pics when i get them. SO much easier than macro). And even then, 400 is considered a low level telephoto lens. Or as my dad says "telephoto starts at 200." and then when I talk about bird photo he says something redunt but true like "200 will work, but 400 or 600 will get you closer." Thanks, Dad. Well, he has a point. 200 does work for birds, but you cant get close. 400 would work, but only for semi-close birds.

I'd go telephoto before getting something like a 17-40 or a 10-22 because I already have the kit lens which basically covers that area (basically.) I have nothing that can come close to replicating a 400mm lens.

another problem is that I can't carry another lens in my pack. My pack can only carry 4 medium sized lenses, but I have modified it to fit 4 lenses which includes a 70-200 (which technically shouldnt be able to fit.) With a 400...ouch.

Well, maybe I could get a TC. That would give me an effective 448mm on 35mm terms with my 70-200.

well, I could just not get a 400mm and start on the lower end..

I'm rambling, arent I? you can see how excited new gear makes me.

ah, oh well. a discussion for a later day (not a rainy day, because I have a camera housing that is water proof. I can do macro in the rain!)

-KD