Full Shutter Shades With Lenses

full shutter shades with lenses

    shutter shades

  • Shutter Shades are a design of slatted sunglasses commercially available since the 1980s, designed by Alain Mikli.


  • A piece of glass or other transparent substance with curved sides for concentrating or dispersing light rays, used singly (as in a magnifying glass) or with other <em>lenses</em> (as in a telescope)
  • (lens) genus of small erect or climbing herbs with pinnate leaves and small inconspicuous white flowers and small flattened pods: lentils
  • (lens) (metaphor) a channel through which something can be seen or understood; "the writer is the lens through which history can be seen"
  • The light-gathering device of a camera, typically containing a group of compound <em>lenses</em>
  • (lens) biconvex transparent body situated behind the iris in the eye; its role (along with the cornea) is to focuses light on the retina
  • An object or device that focuses or otherwise modifies the direction of movement of light, sound, electrons, etc


  • Straight; directly
  • beat for the purpose of cleaning and thickening; "full the cloth"
  • containing as much or as many as is possible or normal; "a full glass"; "a sky full of stars"; "a full life"; "the auditorium was full to overflowing"
  • full moon: the time when the Moon is fully illuminated; "the moon is at the full"
  • Very
  • Entirely (used to emphasize an amount or quantity)

full shutter shades with lenses – NEW 2

Has anyone ever told you that you are going through life with blinders on? Well, now you can tell them “They are not blinders, they are shutters!” These shutter shades have been made one of the hottest MUST HAVES this year by Kanye West and his global hit video “Stronger”. Stars like Paris and fashionistas from New York to L.A. are sporting these sturdy, high quality, and oh so cool sunglasses everywhere from the nightclubs to the mega concerts. Leave it to Kanye to start yet another hot fashion explosion. Get them while you can, these are going fast, fast, fast!

Moon revisited

Moon revisited
Had another crack at taking a half decent pic of the moon and am pleased to say I more or less got it.

As with the last time, to illustrate my method so others can follow and avoid the mistakes I made or point out where my thinking may be wrong, I’ll give an account of how I went about taking the shot.

First off, the moon was near full but waning (getting smaller with the darkness extending from the right). To be more correct its phase was waning gibbous. It was a superbly clear night and warm enough so I wasn’t freezing like last time I took a serious shot of the moon.

Of course I used a tripod and decent ball head, which were all locked tight and steady. I noticed however that my setup still suffered with some wobble so took extra steps to check that both before I went to take the shot and out in the field.

I took off the battery grip and ended up taking the neck strap off too. The battery grip had too much play in it (I used a cheap Chinese equivalent instead of usual Canon one though believe they’d behave more or less the same since I have the Canon grips for my 40D and 350D and they wobble a bit too). Even the remote shutter release I was careful to hold above, allowing the cord to bend and so eliminating any interference from cord pull/movement at time of button press. This made a surprising difference to shot stability as did removing the weighty and unwieldy strap.

The lens collar on my 400mm prime lens (f/5.6) had been loose from the last time so I fitted some plastic packing material (like white cloth but more spongy) and cut it to size to get a really tight grip. All these measures to minimise vibration etc as necessary when using slow shutter speeds combined with long focal length. Hand holding it’s advised to use at least equivalent shutter speed to focal length (so 1/400th second) but ideally one and a half times the focal length so 1/600th second as movement is exaggerated with the considerably smaller angle of view of a telephoto lens. Anything in the distance will be off even more than with something wider, like a standard lens or wide angle. Even mounting your camera on a good quality tripod won’t necessarily eliminate all vibration and this is of course more important for night time photography when you’re shooting the moon at relatively slow shutter speeds like 1/60th second or whatnot.

So, it being summer and warmer and the night more inviting, I took off – by foot – to the downsland nearby and set up the tripod in the shadow of a hawthorn since the moonlight was very intense and lit up the landscape quite dramatically on this ultra clear night and I wanted to really shade myself from any extraneous light coming in from the side like streetlights etc. There was still plenty of light pollution from the nearby town of some 40,000 residents but I’d done my best to get away from it (being car-less, lazy and a little scared of the dark or rather, what nutter with a hammer might be out there since people are the only real monsters left in the world).

Reviewing the pictures, and after manually adjusting exposure, they still looked quite soft. I should say at this point that along with the 400mm f/5.6 lens I used I also had attached a teleconverter with a 2x magnification (a Kenko Pro 300 Mk1 in this case). This doubles not only focal length but also halves, then halves again, the amount of light coming in so reducing the maximum aperture from f/5.6 to f/11, which is very slow and possibly just outside a normal lens’ sweetspot of use, that is in this case from f/5.6 to probably f/9 or f/10 max so no picture taken would really take full advantage of the main glass and strength of the 400mm lens. Though, using the teleconverter and having double the reach is the trade off and worth it! Diffraction is also a point in fact with high (or small) apertures but that’s another (and more academic) matter.

So, back to the pictures I’d taken and their general softness. I wasn’t best pleased since I’d really worked hard to eliminate any variables I could think of that might be the cause of any possible wobble or shake. Using mirror up or live view on the camera’s rear monitor should have helped too so what was wrong, I wondered.

I’d been careful to set the focus point manually as is necessary using the teleconverter (which with a relatively slow f/5.6 lens is unavoidable since you lose AF as another trade off). This was through the lens (TTL) using the viewfinder. This meant I was viewing the moon with my naked eye with dioptric correction to correct short sightedness but with the low viewfinder magnification of the Canon 5DM2 likely not helping much either. What looked sharp wasn’t quite as sharp as it could’ve been as I discovered.

Focusing at infinity is not an option when taking pictures of the moon since most often, the focal point has gone shooting past the subject. As all lenses define infinity differently it really pays to experiment and not just crank the lens fo

The impossible choice: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L or Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS

The impossible choice: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L or Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Photo taken on a 5D Mark II with Sigma 50mm f/1.4.

One difficult choice for Canon photographers is between the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 24-105mm f/4L IS. It’s a choice because as, both lenses cover pretty much the same medium-range zoom length, instinctively it seems sensible to own one or the other and not both. However, each lens offers a slightly different but seemingly balancing set of advantages and disadvantages so it’s difficult to know which set of characteristics to go for and which to try to manage without.

This dilemma is a regular topic on photography forums. In some discussions, more people prefer the 24-70; in others, the 24-105 comes out on top. Some people have switched from one lens to the other and back again. Some professionals recommend the 24-70; others the 24-105. It seems that there is equal preference for each lens.

I am a photography enthusiast – not a professional – so I didn’t think the differences between these two lenses would be something I would need to think about anytime soon. But then I booked a three week holiday to Japan and decided I wanted to take the best gear I could with me, especially as I could sell my 24-105 and replace it with a 24-70 for relatively little net cost. So, a couple of days ago I bought a 24-70 anticipating that I would either sell the 24-105 or return the 24-70.

As I have spent so much time trawling through photography forums trying to work out which of these lenses is the one to keep, I thought I would summarise my findings here with a view to helping others now or in future facing the same choice. I have added a few preliminary thoughts on the 24-70 and will flesh out my findings once I have used it more.

(1) Focal length

The 24-105 covers 35mm extra on the telephoto end than the 24-70. Numerically, the 24-105 covers 76% more range than the 24-70; the 24-70 covers 56% of the range of the 24-105.

A number of people have commented that the additional 35mm of the 24-105 can come in very useful, particular when traveling. However, some of those say that the lens is weaker in the 70-105 range. Those who also own a 70-200 lens appear to prefer that lens above 70mm.

On my 24-105, I shot various scenes at 70mm and 105mm to get a feel for what I would miss if I exchanged the 24-105 for a 24-70. I realise that I could manage with the 70mm limit because (i) as the 5D Mark II produces very high resolution files I would not hesitate to crop photos at 70mm slightly and (ii) I would always prefer to use my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS when reaching beyond 70mm.

Having experimented with the 24-70 this evening, it seems that its quoted zoom range does not correspond with 24-70mm on the 24-105. The 24-105 seems slightly wider at all lengths.

(2) Aperture

The aperture of the 24-70 is f/2.8; the 24-105 is f/4. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop. This means that the 24-70 collects twice as much light. In the real world, with the 24-70 set to f/2.8 and the 24-105 set to f/4, the 24-105 requires twice the shutter length to take the same photo. In a poorly lit scene with moving subjects, those moving objects would be twice as blurred on the 24-105 as the 24-70. That can make the difference between keeping and deleting a photo.

The other differences are depth of field and background blur (bokeh). f/2.8 is shallower than f/4 which means that out of focus subjects become more out of focus on the 24-70 than the 24-105. Although one stop extra is relatively small, it can make the difference between the background being pleasant or distracting – and therefore whether a photo is to keep or for the bin.

Some say that with challenging backgrounds the 24-105 is can produce an uneven bokeh or give unpleasant artifcats and the 24-70 more often gives a smoother result. It’s amazing to think that the precise shape of the aperture hole can make so much difference, but these comments are backed up with fairly good evidence.

Others have commented that they use a 24-105 in conjunction with fast prime lenses where significant background blur is required and that a fast prime lens would produce much more blur than a 24-70. These points are compelling, but as my eye naturally picks up on subjects which contrast with the background, I have found that I have used my 24-105 very rarely because f/4 has been inadequate in so many situations. And yet when I have used my 50mm f/1.4, I have not infrequently selected an aperture of f/2 to f/2.8. This indicated to me that I could benefit from the 24-70’s f/2.8 aperture greatly.

(3) Image Stablizer (IS)

The 24-105 has a three stop IS. The 24-70 has no IS. In certain poorly lit scenes with no moving subjects, it would be possible to take a sharp photo hand-held on a 24-105 but not on a 24-70. If that same poorly lit scene had moving subjects, as IS compensates only camera movement, those subjects would be blurred on both lenses.

The 24-105 is therefore favoured by those who primarily shoot static sub

full shutter shades with lenses

Light up LED Shutter Shades Multicolor Rockstar Sunglasses Red Green & Blue
21st Century Spin on retro shutter glasses. Unlike other glasses of this style, we added our lights on the inside to light up the frame and shutters. Push the button between the lenses to change the flashing mode or push the button 3 times to cycle through the different flashing modes. The look on these glasses is unique. Don’t accept cheap knock-offs. Please note this product will not fit most children under the age of 7. Product is for novelty purposes and should not be warn when optimum visual conditions are required such as driving. Product contains 2 CR927 batteries, included, non-replaceable. Run time is 12+ hours. LED Colors are Red Green and Blue