# Oops, did it again !



## Haydn1971 (Jan 4, 2013)

So there I was, nice looking deal on a second hand Canon 17-40mm lens, down to the shop, the lens offered just the right focal range for me on my 6D, but the lens looked well used and had loose rings... Asked how of tern they had them in, quite often came the reply, what about the 16-35 I asked, oh we don't get many of those second hand... Can I try one please ? Out comes a 16-35mm II, onto the camera, snap, out comes the credit card for a new lens. Naughty me. ;-)

I'm guessing many of us do this with camera equipment, what's your tale and did you get into trouble with your significant other half ?


----------



## enice128 (Jan 4, 2013)

I follow these practices too LOL! I went in to upgrade my 17-40 to the 16-35 II also but decided on a used 1D Mark IV coming about an additional $1,000 out of pocket! So i traded in my 7D for this body which is a huge upgrade for my attempting to break into sports. Then i said to myself after the holidays i'm done spending $.....now i have the fever to upgrade the 17-40 to the 16-35 II! SIgnificant others can be a touchy subject LOL! My wife knows i have great camera gear but doesnt really know the full value of my stuff..... . If she did she'll prob divorce me LOL! Hey just tell her it could be worse like drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitutes, etc 8). Its funny, my wife took some pics w my 7D body & 50 1.4 a few days before xmas then a couple days later i upgraded to the 50 1.2 AND 1D Mark IV. Again she used my gear & NO questions! Big difference in weight btwn these two setups & she even made a comment it was SO heavy but thats as far as it went! I'm sure she realizes something but i guess im very fortunate to have a wife as i do ;D. Anyways, getting back to the 16-35 II, how do u like it ? I love my 17-40 & i use for my main wedding/sweet 16, etc. lens which was previously on my 7D. I havent done an event w my 1D yet but have some upcoming parties. I just have this 2.8 stuck in my head which i love to shoot at, even shooting people like w my 70-200 2.8 II, esp in low light its a huge upgrade. My camera shop offered me $400 for my 17-40 & $1,200 for an excellent+ 16-35 so with filter should run me about $900 total. One last thing.......i always pay CASH! DAMN THIS HOBBY!!!!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 4, 2013)

I buy online and order what I planned to order when the price is right.


----------



## enice128 (Jan 4, 2013)

i know this has nothing to do with this topic but i cant seem to find when searching in this forum.....how do i add a signature at bottom of my gear? its not listed under Profile anywhere!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 4, 2013)

enice128 said:


> i know this has nothing to do with this topic but i cant seem to find when searching in this forum.....how do i add a signature at bottom of my gear? its not listed under Profile anywhere!



Select PROFILE, then FORUM PROFILE. Scroll down to Signature.


----------



## Dukinald (Jan 4, 2013)

Option won't be there until you have enough posting (10 if I remember correctly)


----------



## enice128 (Jan 4, 2013)

i swear it just popped up there....i never saw it! i guess due to 10-post minimum.....thanks so much!


----------



## candyman (Jan 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I buy online and order what I planned to order when the price is right.




I usually buy in the shop my lenses. But, I got a good deal online, so first time order online. A bit of a gamble not being able to check the lens as you can do that when buying in the shop.


So today my 16-35 f/2.8 MK II arrived  


I also got a B+W slim filter for it. Weird experience with this slim filter (is a first too) The lenscap cannot be attached to protect the filter ??? 
That's a first too. With my other regular B+W UV filters on other lenses this is not a problem.
Is this something common with slim filters?


----------



## enice128 (Jan 4, 2013)

Never heard of the slim one sorry. i just always buy the B+W which has the gold writing on it & all my lens caps seem to fit. It is an extra cost being an 82mm but a high-rated filter is always a must so no downgraded images plus more importantly the protection!!! Enjoy that 16-35....now youre gonna make me run to the store today & its still early!!!


----------



## killswitch (Jan 4, 2013)

candyman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I buy online and order what I planned to order when the price is right.
> ...



The B+W XS Pro series are slim, plus it supports the lens cap. All my filters are XS Pro and the caps fit quite well for a ultra slim profile, never had any problems with it. You may want to get them for your UWA lens


----------



## enice128 (Jan 4, 2013)

Just emailed my camera guy & he apologized over the holidays the 16-35 II was sold! I'm a bit disappointed but whats meant to be is meant to be! I guess i can put away that $ meant for the lens.....FOR NOW until he gets in another! Now he owes me one....maybe a bit more off the asking price of the next one! Hey Haydn1971, lmk how the 16-35 II treats you & send me a message in my inbox...im curious, thanks! Like i said, i luv my 17-40 but 2.8 is big w me so its prob worth the upgrade!


----------



## candyman (Jan 4, 2013)

killswitch said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...




So you're saying that the B+W SLIM UV filter 82 mm MRC does not support the lens cap? Oeps, that's a first for me. Just paid 104 euro for it, ouch. I bought this filter on recommendation because of the UWA lens. 
I have to contact the dealer to see if exchange is possible.


----------



## curtisnull (Jan 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I buy online and order what I planned to order when the price is right.



Same Here


----------



## curtisnull (Jan 4, 2013)

Dukinald said:


> Option won't be there until you have enough posting (10 if I remember correctly)



I think mine was more like 14 or 16 before I could set up my signature.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 4, 2013)

killswitch said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


I've been considering getting XS Pro's for all my lenses. Currently they're all exposed. The XS Pro was the only was I was considering for my UWA since the slim is not compatible with normal caps. I might go for a slim CPL, since it will only be on the lens when in use. Unfortunely, a good 77mm filter (UV or CPL) will be considerably more expensive than what I paid for my 19-35mm.

I haven't really gotten in trouble with my wife for buying camera stuff. I hunt daily for really good deals and broken equipment to fix (I've fixed dozens of cameras and a bunch of lenses). My photography hobby pays for itself.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 4, 2013)

enice128 said:


> Just emailed my camera guy & he apologized over the holidays the 16-35 II was sold! I'm a bit disappointed but whats meant to be is meant to be! I guess i can put away that $ meant for the lens.....FOR NOW until he gets in another! Now he owes me one....maybe a bit more off the asking price of the next one! Hey Haydn1971, lmk how the 16-35 II treats you & send me a message in my inbox...im curious, thanks! Like i said, i luv my 17-40 but 2.8 is big w me so its prob worth the upgrade!



Man, it's always a drag when that happens but it's sort of a relief too. (In a 'guess it wasn't meant to be' sort of way.)

Have you considered the 16-35 v1 lens? Maybe this suggestion will draw a lot of critics but I've always loved my v1 16-35 and the filter is 77mm, not 82mm so it may match some of your other lenses. You might even get it for less!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2013)

candyman said:


> So you're saying that the B+W SLIM UV filter 82 mm MRC does not support the lens cap? Oeps, that's a first for me. Just paid 104 euro for it, ouch. I bought this filter on recommendation because of the UWA lens.
> I have to contact the dealer to see if exchange is possible.



Correct - the Slim mount has no front threads, so you must use the provided slip-on cap (more like a slip-off cap, unfortunately). The Slim filter is 3mm thick, the XS-Pro mount is 3.4mm thick, has a front thread, and will not vignette on the 16-35L II. The 82mm XS-Pro is the one to get...


----------



## enice128 (Jan 4, 2013)

That's funny u mentioned that! He replied back to me he has a v1 copy in excellent+ condition listed for $1,000 but sure I can get for about $900 based on my history there. For $300 (maybe $250) more for the v2. That's my only concern which is I've been thru upgrading all my original lenses so I do t wanna go thru this again in the future because its so costly! All my glass is L-glass now! I know $300 is $300 even though I'm sure the v1 is fine. As far as filters r concerned, that's ANOTHER damn expense I could save however I would need a 77 regardless since my UVs never come off my current lenses. So the cost btwn a 77 & 82 can't be that much!


----------



## Ewinter (Jan 4, 2013)

Went in for a 70-200 2.8 II and walked out with 2. 
"It's for the business, dear. This is our future i'm building!"


----------



## Viggo (Jan 4, 2013)

Well, it's not exactly the same, but I had decided I wouldn't buy another lens for quite some time, but saw a a 70-200 f2.8 L for $360 and just bought it, who would pass? ;D


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 5, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Well, it's not exactly the same, but I had decided I wouldn't buy another lens for quite some time, but saw a a 70-200 f2.8 L for $360 and just bought it, who would pass? ;D


Where exactly did you find that deal? I'd cal that a "once in a lifetime" find.


----------

