anyways just came back from eating the truth - here is the closes I have gotten to a real mexican burrito without being in Cali ..
took this one just to post - I was bored - nice or nice is not?
The effect you get is pretty much the same that is shown with the Lomo fisheye. So if you don't want to use film to have that effect, then $40 might be worth it.
On that same note, I am sure people have seen this but anyone see that homemade fisheye using a peep hole insert? I wish I knew about this just when I had a point and shoot for fun.
And check out this dope air force photo over SF:
Thanks for the info! I was also curious about the 14-40 f/4L as a walkaround, but I sort of felt as if the f/4 was a bit too slow, especially since it doesn't have IS. Is my concern justified?
Right now I'm shooting with the XSI, the 18-55 IS kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8. After shooting with the 50, the sharpness and speed has absolutely blown me away. Now, I know I won't get such wide apertures with zoom lenses (without spending the big $$$$ at least ), but what I'm really looking for is a reasonably priced replacement for the kit lens. As of now, I'm sorta looking into the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM kit that comes with the 40d/50d, but I'm worried it might not be wide enough for a walkaround. On the plus side, if offers me a really wide zoom range to play around with (important I feel, as a beginner). I'm also not sure how much of an upgrade it will give me in image quality when compared to the 18-55 kit.
So my dilemma is as such: get the 28-135 and keep the 18-55 for wide purposes OR sell the 18-55 for whatever I can get (peanuts), and get the 17-40 f/4L as a walkaround? Image quality is important to me. It was like the heavens cleared once I started shooting with the nifty fifty.(Granted, I know I could also buy the 17-55 f/2.8 EFS or 24-70 f/2.8L, but right now the cash flow just aint there . ). Any advice?
BTW awesome pics everyone, I'll have some posted up soon