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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Lukasz Grabun choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out: For the print sizes that you mention, I don't think you have a lot to worry about for picture quality, stopping down the aperture won't hurt of course Build quality at this price range may vary more between lenses than brands... So, it is more like lucky pick of a lens from tens of boxes I will be offered, yeah? I'e heard an opinnion that these third party products tend to be diffetent even among one model i.e. two lenses of same model can differ between each other. Is it true? The phenomenon has some anecdotal support, and extends to manufacturer lenses also... trying everything out to the level of obsession present on the Internet is probably not good for you though -- ______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________ | __ "The Internet is where lunatics are | (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light. | __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
As far as 50 mm topic is covered he well, this focal length is within
range of my kit set; should I bother purchasing another one? I noticed that much too often objects I take photos of are too small and too distant. Sometimes I make photos from behing the fence and zoom is so nice to have in such situations. I find that the 50mm lens is the most versatile for shooting landscapes (if you do not care about the pupil of the grouse bathing in a lake 3km away from where you are ;-) ) and since you can have it with f1.4-1.8, the latter being extremely cheap (~$100) it is a nice lens you can use with an ISO100 in a moderately sunny day and get all the color there is out there. Anyway, this was not the issue of your initial post, so forgive me for the divergence. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
As far as 50 mm topic is covered he well, this focal length is within
range of my kit set; should I bother purchasing another one? I noticed that much too often objects I take photos of are too small and too distant. Sometimes I make photos from behing the fence and zoom is so nice to have in such situations. I find that the 50mm lens is the most versatile for shooting landscapes (if you do not care about the pupil of the grouse bathing in a lake 3km away from where you are ;-) ) and since you can have it with f1.4-1.8, the latter being extremely cheap (~$100) it is a nice lens you can use with an ISO100 in a moderately sunny day and get all the color there is out there. Anyway, this was not the issue of your initial post, so forgive me for the divergence. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I find that the 50mm lens is the most versatile for shooting landscapes (if
you do not care about the pupil of the grouse bathing in a lake 3km away from where you are ;-) ) and since you can have it with f1.4-1.8, the latter being extremely cheap (~$100) it is a nice lens you can use with an ISO100 in a moderately sunny day and get all the color there is out there. Anyway, this was not the issue of your initial post, so forgive me for the divergence. Well, OK, I get your point. I've browsed the forum with respect to *sizes* of prints one wants to be sharp. Seems like 75-300 Mark III is a pretty good choice and I'll stick to that for this reason (many people mentioned 8x10" prints of good quality - this exceeds my requirements of about two levels but you never can tell with sizes of prints one will opt for in the future). But then again I started considering fixed focal length lens. Seems to me that the offer of fixed lens is much broader (and also cheaper) than zooms' one. Fixed focals have simpler construction and are less money-consuming to manufacture. You lose flexibility but gain speed and - I guess - the quality. So, as my next buy will be Canon 75-300, I am thinking of 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 as next "acquirements". I've heard many good things on these two. Now, the question arises - is this set (let alone the quality) complete? I mean, are main focal lengths covered? How does a complete lens set look like? At the moment, I think I am missing 35mm within the set. Would you second that? -- Lukasz Grabun |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I find that the 50mm lens is the most versatile for shooting landscapes (if
you do not care about the pupil of the grouse bathing in a lake 3km away from where you are ;-) ) and since you can have it with f1.4-1.8, the latter being extremely cheap (~$100) it is a nice lens you can use with an ISO100 in a moderately sunny day and get all the color there is out there. Anyway, this was not the issue of your initial post, so forgive me for the divergence. Well, OK, I get your point. I've browsed the forum with respect to *sizes* of prints one wants to be sharp. Seems like 75-300 Mark III is a pretty good choice and I'll stick to that for this reason (many people mentioned 8x10" prints of good quality - this exceeds my requirements of about two levels but you never can tell with sizes of prints one will opt for in the future). But then again I started considering fixed focal length lens. Seems to me that the offer of fixed lens is much broader (and also cheaper) than zooms' one. Fixed focals have simpler construction and are less money-consuming to manufacture. You lose flexibility but gain speed and - I guess - the quality. So, as my next buy will be Canon 75-300, I am thinking of 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 as next "acquirements". I've heard many good things on these two. Now, the question arises - is this set (let alone the quality) complete? I mean, are main focal lengths covered? How does a complete lens set look like? At the moment, I think I am missing 35mm within the set. Would you second that? -- Lukasz Grabun |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
(Lukasz=A0Grabun) wrote: So, as my next buy will be Canon 75-300, I am thinking of 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 as next "acquirements". I've heard many good things on these two. (snipped) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D These two are very good inexpensive lenses. The EF 24 f2.8, 35 f2.0 and the 85 f1.8 USM are good inexpensive lenses too. Cody, http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Lukasz,
I've browsed the forum with respect to *sizes* of prints one wants to be sharp. Seems like 75-300 Mark III is a pretty good choice and I'll stick to that for this reason (many people mentioned 8x10" prints of good quality - this exceeds my requirements of about two levels but you never can tell with sizes of prints one will opt for in the future). I shoot slides with my sigma (velvia 100) at 300mm and scan them with my minolta 5400 at maximum analysis, which results to canvas dimensions of something like A1. And they're razor sharp. But then again I started considering fixed focal length lens. Seems to me that the offer of fixed lens is much broader (and also cheaper) than zooms' one. Fixed focals have simpler construction and are less money-consuming to manufacture. You lose flexibility but gain speed and - I guess - the quality. So, as my next buy will be Canon 75-300, I am thinking of 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 as next "acquirements". I've heard many good things on these two. Now, the question arises - is this set (let alone the quality) complete? I mean, are main focal lengths covered? How does a complete lens set look like? At the moment, I think I am missing 35mm within the set. Would you second that? I bet there is someone pore proffesonal to answer those questions here, all I am going to say is my personal experience. Now, 35mm is wide enough for architecture, I like 50mm for its natural perspective and 90mm is good for portraits - they say so, I do not have one. At first you might think that fixed focal lens reduce flexibility. I also thought so. One day I decided to mount a 50mm lens to my old pentax manual slr. The lens came with the camera but I never did use it because of flexibility and stuff. I grabbed a couple of films and shot great pictures! Not only it did not reduce flexibility, but instead it made me frame my subject correctly - not zoom in some interesting detail, but capture it in its environment. That's my opinion, others will have different opinions. I am about to get a couple of new lens myself, fixed probably, though I am checking out the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 Di also. I think I am going to buy used but better stuff with one thing in mind: lens that have full time manual focus. Hope this helps, Dimitris |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Also I forgot:
check out these http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/ http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&sort=7&thecat =2 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
- I guess - the quality. So, as my next buy will be Canon 75-300, I am
thinking of 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 as next "acquirements". I've heard many good things on these two. Now, the question arises - is this set (let alone the quality) complete? I mean, are main focal lengths covered? How does a complete lens set look like? At the moment, I think I am missing 35mm within the set. Would you second that? If your concerned your not covering enough range with your current lenses or the ones mentioned, I shoot with the 75-300 III USM and the 22-55 USM(discontinued and cheap) and 50mm F1.8. I can cover a lot of range with this setup. I love the 22-55 for a general purpose lens and it is quite sharp stopped down.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
sure, but even big $ brand name lenses vary significantly, see many examples at http://medfmt.8k.com/third/variations.html ;-0 bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|