Ramblings and questions about lenses (EOS)

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

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.

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.

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

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

(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

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

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

- 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..

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*************************