|
whereismyshoe posted:Yeah I bought one for my girlfriend and she loves it, has a lot of awesome semi-pro features like back button autofocus and the nipple (can't remember the actual Canon term for it) Multi-controller. Yeah, it's good as long as you don't need to go past 800. 1600 is a little rough, 3200 is poo poo. It's also one of the earliest models that can use interchangeable focus screens and it has a dust-reduction sensor.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
_adam posted:All very good points. Think I'll go with the 17-50... Especially since I plan on buying a 70-200 this year as well. Welp, my friend messaged me and said he was selling his 17-50 so I couldn't say no. Here's the first shot with it.  Handheld, 1600 ISO, f2.8, 1/20 shutter and still very sharp in the focus area. Not too shabby!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Nice looking cat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
So i bought myself a Tamron 70-300 VC based on input from you guys! Thanks! It is quite enjoyable to use, and i have taken around 300 exposures this weekend. I quickly noticed however, that i am rarely all the way out to 300mm (although i did get a few cool pictures all the way out) , i also noticed several times that i wish i could zoom out more, 70mm started out being too close to many of the photos i wanted to take. I had to be like 15 meters away from my wife to get all of her in the picture, and she is a tiny woman. I suppose there are multiple options here Canon/sigma 18-200 Tamron 18-270 Tamron 28-300 Canon 28-300 (holy crap expensive) The reviews on these aren't too bad but not very good either. It seems most of them start lacking when you zoom far out I realize that if there was "1 lens for everything" with sharp good image qualities across the board then everyone would have that lens, so i need to make some compromises somewhere. I am also not entirely sure what focal lengths i need for various types of pictures apparently, since the 70-300 doesn't really do what i need. There seems to be a good selection of 20ish to 70ish lenses. 20ish on the low end seems more what i need, but 70ish feels like it will be a bit too little. An alternative here would be the 18-135 canon, which is an EF-S mount so i can't bring it to a full frame camera if i buy that. The 24-105 canon lens is very tempting, but very expensive. It goes on like this, every lens has a good and a bad bit. I have no idea what to do. There will be drawbacks to anything i go for which is what i end up focusing on, instead of seeing the benefits. It's also a bit stressful to not really have the experience to know what i want, and/or to look at the specifications of a lens and envision how pictures taken with it will look like. This got way too wordy... Maybe someone can give me some examples of lenses that can do as many of these things at once, in order of priority: -Urban photography -Long exposure night time pictures -Close up (very close, though not necessarily macro) -Sharp pictures -Preferably EF mount -Landscape -Pictures taken of something decently close, but where the background looks way closer than it really is. (No idea what this effect is called)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
Welcome to photography. Many people struggle with this question. The key is to not let it become an excuse for not shooting more. Everyone will have a different opinion and budget. I personally use 4 primes: 20/35/50/135 on full frame and find it sufficient for what I enjoy shooting. Some people swear by the f/2.8 zooms: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. Just starting out, typically the best bang for your buck is a 17-50 (or 18-55) and 70-200/300. Use those for a while and see what you actually like shooting with. If you don't want to get an ES-S mount 17-50, there's the Sigma 24-70 out there which is cheaper than the Canon offerings and covers full frame sensors. The super zooms are typically frowned upon due to their complete suckiness in everything except for zoom range and sometimes price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Captain Catapult posted:-Pictures taken of something decently close, but where the background looks way closer than it really is. (No idea what this effect is called) It's called perspective compression, distance compression or something like that, and is the effect of being far from the subject. The ratio between the distance from observer (camera) to two objects determines how large/distant they seem to be relative to reach other, so to get that effect you must be physically far away. Typically, large focal lengths help get that effect because they force you further away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
I recently picked up the Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and I'm in love with it. I've been able to shoot 300 foot waterfalls from 30 feet out with it at 15mm, and I can also get in tight to get nice detail shots as well. Might work well for what you're after, then something like a 70-200 zoom to cover the rest of your range. It's an EF-S lens, but from what I've seen if you take care of your equipment you can subsidize a switch to full frame later by selling your EF-S glass to the next beginner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Welcome to photography. I guess I am on the other end of your spectrum. I do enjoy the 2.8 zooms very much. I was playing with a friend's 50mm for portraits and not being able to zoom was bothering me to no end. I was constantly zooming with my feet. Though I suppose a crop would be just as effective, now that I think about it. Also, L zooms are great if you want to carry the minimum amount of lenses or aren't sure what you might need. I don't know, I don't have enough experience with primes to see it from a different perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
You can't beat the speed of a prime and yes, feet are the daddy of all zooms. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:40D is a drat good camera still if you don't plan on shooting over like ISO800. whereismyshoe posted:Yeah I bought one for my girlfriend and she loves it Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, it's good as long as you don't need to go past 800. 1600 is a little rough, 3200 is poo poo. It's also one of the earliest models that can use interchangeable focus screens and it has a dust-reduction sensor. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:I guess I am on the other end of your spectrum. I do enjoy the 2.8 zooms very much. I was playing with a friend's 50mm for portraits and not being able to zoom was bothering me to no end. I was constantly zooming with my feet. Though I suppose a crop would be just as effective, now that I think about it. Also, L zooms are great if you want to carry the minimum amount of lenses or aren't sure what you might need. I don't know, I don't have enough experience with primes to see it from a different perspective. I find it easier to just move myself than to have another control to deal with. Hands change camera settings, rest of my body deals with framing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
I like primes because they force me to think about composition. It’s easy to fall into the zoom trap of “I’ll just twist the ring until the subject fills the frame  ”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I like primes because they force me to think about composition. It’s easy to fall into the zoom trap of “I’ll just twist the ring until the subject fills the frame What's the trap with zooming to fill the frame? I could see it being a downside with a non-constant aperture zoom lens, but perspective and composition are generally better as a result. There is less warping at longer focal ranges. I could also see people trying to zoom on the telephoto end of the lens. I'm not trying to troll, but rather would genuinely like to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:What's the trap with zooming to fill the frame? I could see it being a downside with a non-constant aperture zoom lens, but perspective and composition are generally better as a result. There is less warping at longer focal ranges. I could also see people trying to zoom on the telephoto end of the lens. I'm not trying to troll, but rather would genuinely like to know. I think Platystemon is saying that the natural tendency with zoom lenses is to just widen or narrow the lens to fit the scene neatly. Which is fine for everyday stuff, but your composition is going to be based on just that... everything fitting into the frame, and maybe not fitting into the frame in a way that's interesting. When you're out and all you've got is an 85mm, you know what your coverage is, and you're out looking for opportunities to exploit that specific field of vision in a way that's interesting. Walking around with a long prime lens really forces you to find interesting ways of capturing a lot of action in a relatively small area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:What's the trap with zooming to fill the frame? I could see it being a downside with a non-constant aperture zoom lens, but perspective and composition are generally better as a result. There is less warping at longer focal ranges. I could also see people trying to zoom on the telephoto end of the lens. I'm not trying to troll, but rather would genuinely like to know. Sometimes the composition is better with the subject filling the frame. Sometimes it’s better with more negative space. Sometimes a portion of the original subject makes a better subject than the whole. Sometimes I do want the subject filling the frame, but I want it to fill the frame from a different distance or angle. When using a zoom, I find I don’t always stop to consider these possibilities before turning the ring and snapping a photo. With a prime, I invariably do consider them before I step forward or backwards or, if available, swapping lenses. I’m not sure what you mean by “less warping at longer focal ranges”. bisticles posted:When you're out and all you've got is an 85mm, you know what your coverage is, and you're out looking for opportunities to exploit that specific field of vision in a way that's interesting. Walking around with a long prime lens really forces you to find interesting ways of capturing a lot of action in a relatively small area. That, too. If you can zoom to 24 mm, you’ll almost never consider taking landscape or architectural photos at 85 mm. You’d be surprised how many 85 mm opportunities there are when you’re forced to start looking for them. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
The other way around you get a lot of distortion though. If you're lazy and don't feel like stepping back (of if it's cramped) you'll get distortion on ~17mm or less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I shoot primes so that I can be smug as gently caress to zoomhavers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I shoot primes so that I can be smug as gently caress to zoomhavers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I shoot a prime because I'm lazy. 900g 24-70/2.8 vs 180g 50/1.8, why yes I'll take prime how did you guess? I shoot whatever, because I have a good tripod 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I shoot whatever is in walking distance of the car because I have a good tripod Yeah me too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
I use bunches of helium balloons to offset the weight of larger lenses. Reduces camera shake too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Yeah me too. Maybe it's actually a tricycle?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Primes are lighter? Why didn't somebody tell me?  500mm f-4.5 (2 of 2) by Execudork, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Leaving the car to take photos? Why not just be Ansel Adams and shoot from the roof of your car?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Shoot from the back of a speeding motorcycle tour de france style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:I shoot whatever, because I have a good tripod
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
ahmeni posted:Leaving the car to take photos? Why not just be Ansel Adams and shoot from the roof of your car? I drive a convertible. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
I do a lot of birding and some street stuff. Should I invest in a polarizing filter? If so, which one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
smallmouth posted:I do a lot of birding and some street stuff. Should I invest in a polarizing filter? If so, which one? It's a matter of taste. Polarizers offer an interesting way to cut down on glare and add contrast between your subjects and the sky. I'd say if there was a time to use them, it would probably be with birds. They can introduce odd effects sometimes when set up at a weird angle, so they definitely take some experimenting. There is a ridiculously exhaustive comparison of polarizing filters here that's worth checking out. Basically, Tiffens are meh, Hoyas are better, B+W's are excellent, but the Marumi DHG Super Circular P.L.D comes out in second place and is one of the lower priced offerings. That's what I've been using lately and have no complaints.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Polarizers are also good for street photography. You can cut the glare from windows and therefore take pictures that show inside shops, inside cars, etc., or you can emphasize the glare from glass and go for a social-commentary angle (pun intended) about people anonymously locked away inside their moving metal boxes. Plus good things to skies and water (including puddles).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
My only beef with polarizers is you'll drive yourself mad constantly removing it when shooting outdoors.. if the angle of the sun and the direction your camera is pointed isn't quite right you'll get a banding effect in the sky which is extremely distracting. But in those cases where you can shoot perpendicular to the sun, polarizers are the best thing in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I drive a convertible. That's paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
bisticles posted:I think Platystemon is saying that the natural tendency with zoom lenses is to just widen or narrow the lens to fit the scene neatly. Which is fine for everyday stuff, but your composition is going to be based on just that... everything fitting into the frame, and maybe not fitting into the frame in a way that's interesting. When you're out and all you've got is an 85mm, you know what your coverage is, and you're out looking for opportunities to exploit that specific field of vision in a way that's interesting. Walking around with a long prime lens really forces you to find interesting ways of capturing a lot of action in a relatively small area. Most zooms have a lock switch that keeps it at a single focal length
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Most zooms have a lock switch that keeps it at a single focal length Where? Im looking at my 17-50mm now and it only locks at 17mm. Looking at my 80-200, 70-200VRII, there is no lock. Just a focus lock.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Most zooms have a lock switch that keeps it at a single focal length
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Primes are lighter? Why didn't somebody tell me? bet that's lighter than that crazy sigma 200-500 or whatever though
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
I'm crossposting this from the landscape threat in hopes that someone will have the same filter: Does anyone own a Singh-Ray Galen Rowell ND-3G-HS (P-size)? I'm looking for a photo of that particular filter and it's case, if possible. I suspect I just got sold a counterfeit filter (which, is insane that such things even exist). I already have other Singh-Ray filters, including the ND-3G-SS, and there are too many small differences that are making me wonder...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
A couple of weeks ago, I did some drunken eBaying and picked up what I thought was a great deal - a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8, which I understood was a rebadged Optik-Meyer Orestor with a 15-blade aperture. I was wrong, and ended up getting the later 6-bladed version. Given how cheap I got it for and how expensive it would be to ship it back overseas, I'm going to keep it - might as well get something for my trouble. Since I'll be picking up an m42 adapter, I might as well look into getting some other m42 glass. Does anyone have any recommendations for m42 lenses that will keep up with a 24mp FF sensor, have radioactive coatings, and can be found for $100 or less?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:A couple of weeks ago, I did some drunken eBaying and picked up what I thought was a great deal - a Pentacon 135mm f/2.8, which I understood was a rebadged Optik-Meyer Orestor with a 15-blade aperture. I was wrong, and ended up getting the later 6-bladed version. Given how cheap I got it for and how expensive it would be to ship it back overseas, I'm going to keep it - might as well get something for my trouble. The takumar 35/3.5 might be worth looking at. Depending on whether you want the super multicoating (SMC) they can be found between 50 and 100 bucks, even on keh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Welcome to the wonderful world of Former Soviet Union (FSU) glass! Why were so many  For to take pictures capitalist running-dog bourgeoisie lackeys, comrade! Look for Jupiter, Kiev, Zenitar, FED, KMZ, and Helios. All are rip-offs of WWII German optical designs - rocket scientists weren't the only experts captured by the advancing Red Army, and suing for copyright infringement only works if you don't believe all property is theft. Most of them are based on 1930's-1940's Zeiss designs, but without the Teutonic passion for precision engineering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:17
|
|