than i was about my new lens...sad isn't it? lol. and yes, you read that right. $50!
there is a back story, because i would never in my wildest dreams spend $50 on a stupid cookie cutter. i'm kinda sorta an addict when it comes to cookie cutters. i have over 60 of them!
so, a few years ago when i was 8 months pregnant i was sitting on the couch in our super tiny apartment watching martha stewart (the talk show). they were making christmas cookies. particularly santa sugar cookies.
they were the CUTEST cookie i had ever seen in my entire life and i had to have it. martha stewart even stopped while decorating to let us know, "you can get these cute cookie cutters from macy's blah blah blah". and like a good brainwashed pregnant housewife, i waddled my butt to macy's that day looking for them. they were out. i called every single macy's in the DFW area looking for these stupid cookie cutters. NO one had them. i was upset. i was pregnant, fat, miserable, and i just wanted these stupid cookie cutters. i remember even crying about it, (i was pregnant, don't look at me like that). i went to martha's website forum to find out where i could get a set. the only place that had them in stock was the chicago macy's (huge store). i called them to see if i could buy a set and have them ship it to me. no such luck, "sorry you have to come in"! few days later i noticed they were being sold on ebay for about $70, (they sold for 15.99 at macys!). it was crazy! "i would never spend that much money on a cookie cutter", i thought to myself. then last christmas i was stillllll thinking about the stupid cookie cutter (issues anyone?). i even googled and checked ebay to see if anyone was selling theirs yet. nothing! then a few weeks ago i thought about them [again] ::chuckles::. i was surprised to see 3 brand new sets being sold for $50. i was hesitant since $50 for a stupid cookie cutter was pretty pathetic. don't you agree?!. i loled at the description, "the much desired and rare santa cookie cutter featured on martha stewart". deep inside i was hoping someone would hate their set and sell it used and i would score an awesome deal or something. but when i got back from my trip to colorado, i checked the amazon store again where they now only had one in stock! i bought it! i had a bad feeling that if i didn't, i would forever be stuck in this twilight zone episode where the stupid santa cookie cutter ruined my life! ha. the other cookie cutters in the set are cute, but it's funny to me that this ONE little cutter is the backbone to the set. i love it. not one bit of regret that i wasted $50 on it!
oh and while i was in a "lets spend good money on overpriced cookie cutters" state of mind, i bought their other desired and rare collection of martha stewart spellbinding cookie set..
not as much as the $50 ones but more than what it was originally sold for at macy's. i'm happy with it and just in time for halloween! so, if you are SMART go to macys right now and buy up all of martha stewart's cookie cutters and in a year (or whenever she discontinues them), sell them. apparently that's how it works! :o/. and i am just going to call it now because i know in a year or two i will be right and david will eat his words! the star wars cookie cutters at williams sonoma.. are going to be collectibles in a few years. worth more than what they were sold for. and when that happens i have this blog post to shove into david's face with a not so polite, "i told you so". hehe
now on to my new lens, the canon 24-70L. i was hesitant to buy the zoom after some other photographer friends claimed they weren't that impressed with it. i love primes. they're sharp, perfect bokeh blah blah blah. but there are times, (especially now with a mobile toddler), i wish i could switch out to a wide angle in record time. i'm pretty impressed with the zoom. it's a known fact that zooms are not as sharp as primes wide open. but my copy is pretty freaking sharp wide open. and sharper at 3.2. also please excuse the baby boogers. he had just gotten up from his nap (still a little sick) and i was excited to get some test shots and didn't bother wiping his nose until later. eeww i know. mother of the year!
100% crop: taken wide open at 2.8! 70mm
sharp right?! bokeh isn't too bad either. here at 70mm..
of course if i shot at 2.8 with a prime my image would be SUPER sharp but that's besides the point. i knew that i would have to sacrifice something for the zoom and sharpness is part of the deal. my only complaint (so far) is not with the lens but the package (shipped by UPS). it (shipping box) arrived severely DAMAGED. i opened the box and my lens box has also been damaged. it looks as if a heavy item was on top of it and indented the boxes. the lens appears to be okay. but if i sold my lens, i'm afraid i will have a problem selling it due to the damaged box. i could return it, but i received a sharp copy of this lens and if i return it i could get a dud. so i'm stuck. i don't know if i will ever sell the zoom. even though i am a prime girl, i think a zoom is a good thing to have no matter what. BUT what if?! i'm torn. i don't know what i should do. what would you do? i have less than a day to make up my mind since you only get two days to report shipping damage.
here are some shots where i closed down to 3.2. i don't think i will shoot above 3.2. this test is more of a real world test for myself. i'm sure if i did a real controlled test. the sharpness or something would be off. but for me this is good enough.
and i just thought this was hilarious..