If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Zoom Only These Days?
The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with
Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... sigh Back then, the main thing I learned was that it takes a LOT of money to purchase a truly GOOD, brand name lens. I also recall that one of the main "issues" with zoom lenses was that such lenses are optically "slower" than a fixed focal length lens. Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM lenses. What has changed? Are you using a zoom lens as your "main" lens? I'm finding the 18-55 kit lens that came with my 20D is providing satisfactory results, to say the least. (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) Of course, I am thoroughly enjoying the flexibility that a zoom lens provides. I was accustomed to a fixed, 50mm lens on my AE1 and T90. I have a 70-210 FD zoom but, after getting a fixed 300mm, I didn't use it much. Heck, I just took the (family) Photo of the Century using this "kit" zoom lens. The jpeg is already printed 8x10 and Mrs. MacWidow is framing it today! I was considering the purchase of a new lens for shooting the upcoming birth of my third grandchild. Now I am beginning to believe that the 18-55 would be sufficient to record this wonderful, if not particularly news-worthy, event. I am planning to hand my new toy over to my son-in-law for HIM to use during the delivery - flashless. The MOMENT he emerges with my camera, he gets back his little POS (oops, I [also] meant P&S) camera and I get MY rig back. I'm now convinced that, especially at ISO 1600, and considering the LUMENS in a delivery room/suite situation, this lens would work OK. Perhaps JUST "ok", but it would work. Without testing ON SITE beforehand, would you attempt to use this lens (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) for such a shoot? JR |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Redelfs wrote:
The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... sigh Back then, the main thing I learned was that it takes a LOT of money to purchase a truly GOOD, brand name lens. I also recall that one of the main "issues" with zoom lenses was that such lenses are optically "slower" than a fixed focal length lens. Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM lenses. What has changed? Zooms over the last 20 years have been generally in two categories, consumer and pro. The consumer lenses go from cheap to not so cheap with qualities of terrible to pretty damned good. Consumer zoom have conservative (2:1) to outlandish (10:1) zoom ratios and esp. in the later case, pretty severe aperture restrictions. Pro zooms typically have a zoom ratio of 2.5:1 or less. They have constant, fast apertures. They oftn employ the more exotic glass and coatings. A pj's bag will often have three key zoom lenses: 17-35, 28-70|80 and 70|80-200. all f/2.8's (Usually he will have two or three bodies so each lens almost permanently attached to a body). Needless to say, these lenses are not cheap. But they are damned good. Are you using a zoom lens as your "main" lens? My main lens is my 100 f/2.8. When I'm shooting a specific subject matter, I avoid zooms if I can. I have 20, 50, 100 and 300 primes. For social events, parties, etc., the 28-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 are the ticket. For sports, the 300 f/2.8 and 80-200 are the lenses of choice. I prefer the primes, but the zooms are usually the best when time is short/pace if fast and events are on the move. I am planning to hand my new toy over to my son-in-law for HIM to use during the delivery - flashless. The MOMENT he emerges with my camera, he gets back Without testing ON SITE beforehand, would you attempt to use this lens (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) for such a shoot? When my son was born there was no objection to flash being used. The lighting in the OR is usually fairly brioght all over, and most intense in the area of concern. These kinds of shots should be achievable at 800. Make sure your SIL understands how to set the ISO to get a reasonable shutter speed. (Say 1/125 or faster should be his target). Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message ... The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... sigh .... I'm now convinced that, especially at ISO 1600, and considering the LUMENS in a delivery room/suite situation, this lens would work OK. Perhaps JUST "ok", but it would work. Without testing ON SITE beforehand, would you attempt to use this lens (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) for such a shoot? JR I came up through the same route as you AE1, T90 when primes were the thing and zooms best avoided ! Since moving to AF with EOS 3 and 10D I find zooms have improved tremendously. There are some dissappointments, 75-300 is soft, 24-85 never produces much above average particularly on the 10D. The thing I find is that zooms are slow, unless you pay plenty on money for the L series so I regularly use the primes, mainly 85 1.8 & 400, and for landscapes etc a 20-35 which will probably get replaced by a 17-40 one of these days. Test out your camera and lens beforehand and you might find 1600 a bit noisy but neatimage or noise ninja will certainly help. All the best |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Redelfs wrote:
The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... sigh Back then, the main thing I learned was that it takes a LOT of money to purchase a truly GOOD, brand name lens. I also recall that one of the main "issues" with zoom lenses was that such lenses are optically "slower" than a fixed focal length lens. Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM lenses. What has changed? Zooms have become better, espcially the "pro" versions. I'm willing to pay some extra to get a good zoom rather than having to carry 3-4 prime lenses. I now have 2-3 lenses that will cover almost anything I could imagine shooting and only one is a prime, a fast macro lens that doubles as a portrait lens. In the past zooms gave up optical quality, now they don't. -- Stacey |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The last time I was "into" lenses was when I became somewhat familiar with
Canon's FD lineup (1979). Well, so much for THAT anymore... sigh Back then, the main thing I learned was that it takes a LOT of money to purchase a truly GOOD, brand name lens. I also recall that one of the main "issues" with zoom lenses was that such lenses are optically "slower" than a fixed focal length lens. Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM lenses. What has changed? Improved computer-aided design, fabrication, and other factors have allowed manufacturers to produce zoom lenses that are much better than zooms of a few decades ago. A very high-quality zoom of today might compete (in some areas, at least - not all) with a medium-quality prime lens, but overall, prime lenses are still going to be better in most characteristics in most all situations. The difference that still remains is, of course, cost, as the zoom lenses are usually quite a bit cheaper than prime lenses. As the design, fabrication, and all of the rest lets manufacturers make better zooms at lower prices, they become more attractive. They'll never replace a prime lens, but then again, there are a lot of people who really just don't need (or could ever afford) anything like a 300mm f/2.8 prime, a 300mm zoom (even if it's f/5.6) would fill most of their needs satisfactorily, and at a tiny fraction of the cost. Are you using a zoom lens as your "main" lens? I'm finding the 18-55 kit lens that came with my 20D is providing satisfactory results, to say the least. (EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6) Of course, I am thoroughly enjoying the flexibility that a zoom lens provides. I use a combination of the 18-55mm kit lens and a Sigma 28-105 f/2.8, and find that they cover a tremendous range of uses for me, although I am but a novice! The largre aperture of the Sigma lets me soften backgrounds for portraits (and use a somewhat faster shutter or lower light than the kit lens). It doesn't (of course) give me the bokeh of something like a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, but it covers a wide varieties of situations that a 50mm f/1.8 wouldn't. Overall, for me, it's been a matter of looking at my wants and budget, and finding the best fit. So far, I've been pretty happy. I'd really like to take some wildlife shots, so I'll probably add something like a 300mm zoom this summer. If I were selling wildlife portraits at a good premium, I'd go for a 300mm prime, but I'll never make a penny off of these shots, so I have to stick to a much more modest budget. steve |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dust is much more an issue with digital than film. Changing lenses
opens the mirror chamber to dust infiltration (there's argument whether the digital sensor tends to attractt dust). In any case, zooms reduce the need to change lenses. I use a 24-85mm AF-S Nikkor-G as my main lens. Tom Nelson Tom Nelson Photography In article , Jim Redelfs wrote: Today, most everything mentioned and discussed seems to regard ZOOM lenses. What has changed? Are you using a zoom lens as your "main" lens? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Nelson wrote:
Dust is much more an issue with digital than film. Changing lenses opens the mirror chamber to dust infiltration (there's argument whether the digital sensor tends to attractt dust). In any case, zooms reduce the need to change lenses. Hmm. I was told by the people who service my cameras that zooms, not being airtight, tend to pump air into the mirrot box and make dust problems worse... Andrew. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article , andrew29
@littlepinkcloud.invalid says... Tom Nelson wrote: Dust is much more an issue with digital than film. Changing lenses opens the mirror chamber to dust infiltration (there's argument whether the digital sensor tends to attractt dust). In any case, zooms reduce the need to change lenses. Hmm. I was told by the people who service my cameras that zooms, not being airtight, tend to pump air into the mirrot box and make dust problems worse... Andrew. With some lenses that is true, but its no more problematic than it was/is with film. The truth of the matter is: If you are going to shoot in a dusty environment you need to be prepared to clean the camera and the lens, or pay someone else to do it for you. -- Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:22:00 -0500, Larry
wrote: snip problems with dust and zoom lenses With some lenses that is true, but its no more problematic than it was/is with film. I used to wonder why everybody seemed to make such a fuss about dust in digital SLRs and thought "it must have been/is the same with film" (I'm relatively new to SLR of any type). Then something made it click: with film, you effectively get a new, (hopefully) dust-free sensor with every shot. With a dSLR, the dust will just build up and up. Regards, Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk) -- There are 10 types of people in the world; those that understand binary and those that don't. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:54:25 +0000, Graham Holden
wrote: On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:22:00 -0500, Larry wrote: snip problems with dust and zoom lenses With some lenses that is true, but its no more problematic than it was/is with film. I used to wonder why everybody seemed to make such a fuss about dust in digital SLRs and thought "it must have been/is the same with film" (I'm relatively new to SLR of any type). Then something made it click: with film, you effectively get a new, (hopefully) dust-free sensor with every shot. With a dSLR, the dust will just build up and up. Just be glad you don't have to send off your sensor to the labs for scratching through their fast processing machines, and dipping in murky second-hand chemicals. Film gets visible damage the first time round, so the sensor would be useless after a few rolls. -- Owamanga! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film vs. digital zoom on P&S | Mr.Bolshoy Huy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | February 20th 05 07:58 PM |
Film vs. digital zoom on P&S | Mr.Bolshoy Huy | Digital Photography | 16 | February 19th 05 04:04 PM |
optical + digital zoom question | JW | Digital Photography | 15 | November 27th 04 05:56 PM |
The digital zoom myth busted | bob | Digital Photography | 14 | October 28th 04 01:01 PM |