Two questions unrelated!

[Rats01]

What would be the best considered site for photo storage? I see a number of people using Flicker yet I also see many using Photobucket. I am new to this and very naive in these issues.
Second question: I am seriously looking for a 70-200mm lens and would like some experiences on the new Sigma 70-200 APO with OS compared to the Canon 70-200 IS F2.8. Prices are a 'no comparison' but I am interested in performance.

[Kym]

I use Flickr, but only low-res for web sharing.

[markjaffa]

Cant answer the second question except to say I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II and its great. :)

As for your first question - are you looking for off site STORAGE or an online DISPLAY website? You dont want to be uploading ALL your photos to Flickr, but that makes it a display of your "keepers", not storage. Uploading full sized images would be a killer on time and usage. So which are you looking for? :confused013

[fillum]

I have a Flickr account (a few actually). It's ok for storage, but I feel the user interface is a bit clumsy and not particularly well suited to people unfamiliar with Flickr. So if you are looking to use it to show off your work at its best (to mainly non-Flickr users), there might be better options.

Flickr has restrictions on the number of images etc with the free accounts, the "pro" accounts cost around $25/year.


Cheers.

[kiwi]

I wouldn't use any website for photo storage, that's what hard drives are for. If you want for photo display thats another thing, if for comments that's another thing, for sale that's another thing....so...what do you want to do ?

The canon will be better wide open, but there will not be a lot in it

[Rats01]

As it is I use hard drive (& will continue to) for all my storage. Was mainly interested in the concept for display purpose. This is a hobby to me and I'm certainly not in the 'selling' category. Thanks for the comment on the lens. That's pretty much what I thought. For a 'hobbyist', the price might be the decider!!

[ameerat42]

FWIW, and it's free if you have a Hotmail/Windows Live (also free) account, is SkyDrive.

25GB storage space
Max photo/file size is 50MB

What's wrong with it? 1. Uploading at full size is slow, but if you use their recommended 1600-pixel wide size it is much faster - about 1 minute to do 2 or 3 pics.
But its upload speed might be due to my (mere) 250KBit upload speed. It's a bit different from 10MBit download.
I don't know how upload speeds compare with others, like Flickr.

2. It's a bit confusing to work with at first, but I can't compare it with Flickr.

Here's a link to it http://explore.live.com/windows-live-skydrive
Am.
Oh and a big PS: I agree it's strictly for sharing.

[William]

FWIW, and it's free if you have a Hotmail/Windows Live (also free) account, is SkyDrive.

25GB storage space
Max photo/file size is 50MB

What's wrong with it? 1. Uploading at full size is slow, but if you use their recommended 1600-pixel wide size it is much faster - about 1 minute to do 2 or 3 pics.
But its upload speed might be due to my (mere) 250KBit upload speed. It's a bit different from 10MBit download.
I don't know how upload speeds compare with others, like Flickr.

2. It's a bit confusing to work with at first, but I can't compare it with Flickr.

Here's a link to it http://explore.live.com/windows-live-skydrive
Am.
Oh and a big PS: I agree it's strictly for sharing.

Wonder if you can link to AP , Anybody tried it ?

[Scotty72]

I have both a pro Flickr and pro Photobucket.

I got both for a year so I could decide.

Both have goods/bads: but, I will not be continuing the Photobucket account. For all the cons with Flickr, I find it less clunky and more presentable than the other.

As for the lens, I have both the old (non-OS) Siggy 70-200 f:2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f:2.8 IS II.

You get what you pay for - the Siggy is ok at medium apertures as long as you don't have the barrel at full stretch (200mm).

At f:2.8 it tends to struggle for sharpness and the same at >170mm

If you really want to use the full reach and use it wide open (ie. Sports ESP indoors) - get the canon. For general us at narrower appertures, the sigma will do.

Scotty

[ameerat42]

Wonder if you can link to AP , Anybody tried it ?

Long answer: Have a look @ almost any of my threads. When you get into my Skydrive a/c, click on the image to enlarge it.
Shortest answer: {}
Am.

[Rats01]

Thanks to all for the comments. Will look at the posting sites and consider options when I have something suitable to add to them. As to the 70-200 lens, I am now confused (as usual).

[dulvariprestige]

I've just bought the sigma OS, its so much better than the non OS, it's actually very good wide open, i'd have to say its as good as the canon MKI IS that I shot with a while ago, it wouldn't be as good as the MKII, but at half the price, you couldn't expect it to be.