Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

14119_109337229103949_109335895770749_68735_5965474_n.jpg


I swear I've seen this photo before, and not on this persons facebook.
 
Last edited:
marcos_eirik said:
Isn't 28mm a bit narrow in the wide end...? That lens is meant for use with 35mm film cameras, not crop...
Click to expand...

It is a bit narrow in the wide end, but mainly what I was looking for was USM and larger zoom range than the kit. They pack the 28-135 lens as a kit with the 50D so I don't see why it can't be used with the crop-sensor camera that I have. But in any case..

The 15-85 and the 17-85 look great. IS and USM with a higher range than the kit.

The f2.8 on the 17-55 is great, but that looks expensive and it still doesn't go beyond 55. And at that price I can get the 24-105 f/4L IS USM: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-USA/Canon_0344B002AA_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html

Iz tough call for sure. Do the super zooms have a better optical quality than the kit?
 
The 28-135 is stupid. 18mm is barely wide enough, 28mm is like... why would you even. They bundle them with 50Ds because there's far too many of them and they don't sell any that aren't in kits because nobody wants that lens.

So, you mostly want reach? You do not have tele lens? Get a 70-300mm and call it a day. I would say that or a 55-250, but you say you want USM and the 55-250's AF is pretty slow, as long as you don't mind the price of the 70-300. NB: I said 70-300mm, not 75-300mm, the 75-300s are utterly useless.

But the 15-85 is pretty nice too, especially with it's extra wideness.

Whatever, the priority is up to you, but I would suggest to get a tele lens before you upgrade your wide.
 
Well today the shop I worked in closed down. I say this here, as it was one of those small, one of a kind, family-run, local camera shops. It was ludicrously expensive, had some weird stuff in it, but it was nice. You could get decent friendly advice without an attempt to be sold something. The closing down of this kind of shop saddens me. There is another camera shop in my town, but its part of a franchised business, and isn't that great. Such a shame that many small shops are dissappearing simply because of the internet and the dying appeal of 'going into town' for something (here at least). This camera shop has been going since 1930 (and has been in a couple of different locations, culminating in the town centre) and was owned by the current owner's father.

The only good thing I got out of this (really - the ONLY thing: part of me isn't sad at the loss of this particular shop - I'm against the closing of small shops like it, but I won't go into the reasons why) is this nifty tool which allows me to have a wireless flash :) Its basically an adaptor with a light sensor attached. I use the on-board camera flash and as long as that thing can see it, it'll fire the flashgun. Thats the only feature I would want that the D50 doesn't do.

2h7l8h4.jpg
 
Ramseus said:
The 28-135 is stupid. 18mm is barely wide enough, 28mm is like... why would you even. They bundle them with 50Ds because there's far too many of them and they don't sell any that aren't in kits because nobody wants that lens.

So, you mostly want reach? You do not have tele lens? Get a 70-300mm and call it a day. I would say that or a 55-250, but you say you want USM and the 55-250's AF is pretty slow, as long as you don't mind the price of the 70-300. NB: I said 70-300mm, not 75-300mm, the 75-300s are utterly useless.

But the 15-85 is pretty nice too, especially with it's extra wideness.

Whatever, the priority is up to you, but I would suggest to get a tele lens before you upgrade your wide.
Click to expand...

$549 for the 70-300 IS USM seems very reasonable actually. At least when compared to 700/800-1200 for some other models. So that's one more to consider then, sweet. Thanks.
 
LurkerPatrol said:
$549 for the 70-300 IS USM seems very reasonable actually. At least when compared to 700/800-1200 for some other models. So that's one more to consider then, sweet. Thanks.
Click to expand...
There's also the Tokina 50-135mm f2,8 which gives you about the same field of view on you're crop camera, as a 70-200 does on full frame while being significantly smaller. It was about $500 but, but is sadly discontinued in the US. It might be worth a look on the second hand market, though.

p763979790-4.jpg


Compared to the 70-200/4

p520049846-4.jpg


There's also the Sigma 50-150mm f2,8.

Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-On-40D.jpg
 
Last edited:
Speedtouch said:
The only good thing I got out of this (really - the ONLY thing: part of me isn't sad at the loss of this particular shop - I'm against the closing of small shops like it, but I won't go into the reasons why) ...
Click to expand...

Funny that. There's a shop where I'm from that's been around for decades, father son operation, shelves stacked with all sorts of stuff. The son was very friendly and remembered my name (my brother dated his sister, I think). But then one day they refused to budge on the price of a 20D cos they were popular and didn't have any in stock so I went to another small, family-owned shop that had just opened and they offered my a discount without my asking and they had one in stock. Found out later the owner of the first shop used to go around to swap meets etc and buy up used gear in order to keep prices inflated - prices for used gear were/are ridiculously high.

Moral of the story, small, family-owned does not always mean best or great for the community.
 
Speedtouch said:
Well today the shop I worked in closed down. I say this here, as it was one of those small, one of a kind, family-run, local camera shops. It was ludicrously expensive, had some weird stuff in it, but it was nice. You could get decent friendly advice without an attempt to be sold something. The closing down of this kind of shop saddens me. There is another camera shop in my town, but its part of a franchised business, and isn't that great. Such a shame that many small shops are dissappearing simply because of the internet and the dying appeal of 'going into town' for something (here at least). This camera shop has been going since 1930 (and has been in a couple of different locations, culminating in the town centre) and was owned by the current owner's father.

The only good thing I got out of this (really - the ONLY thing: part of me isn't sad at the loss of this particular shop - I'm against the closing of small shops like it, but I won't go into the reasons why) is this nifty tool which allows me to have a wireless flash :) Its basically an adaptor with a light sensor attached. I use the on-board camera flash and as long as that thing can see it, it'll fire the flashgun. Thats the only feature I would want that the D50 doesn't do.

2h7l8h4.jpg
Click to expand...
We had a shop like that. Guy running it closed down last autumn. It's sad, in a way.
 
Warning: frustrated rant.

I've been looking at lots of photography and noticed that most of the pictures that really come out well are just... well, crisp. They are just really sharp, which makes them oh, so much better (there are exceptions, of course). Now, why are some photog's shots so sharp and mine aren't? I know I need to clean my mirror/sensor but even when I first got my camera my shots weren't as crisp as some others'. I've always thought (secretly hoped) that its 99% down to the man behind the camera and not the gear itself, but is it actually down to equipment in this case? DoN has the same (camera) body as me and his sharpest shots are with his L glass... Is it possible that shooting higher f-stop could help (I almost always shoot between 4 and 5.6 but I really doubt that's the issue here)? Maybe I should bump the ISO up more often instead of trying to shoot at 1/50th because my body moves enough in that time frame to make the resulting image less sharp?

That said, if its gear that's the issue, I can live with that - I've been tossing around the idea of getting a new body anyways (currently have a 350D - its a tad old). However, if the issue is me and not my camera, then I don't want to mask the real problem by getting a fancy body...

Any ideas?
 
Trust me, it's you. Whether it be technique, aperture selection, subject, processing, etc., it's definitely you. Even when Canon makes a dog of a lens, it's still capable of sharp results when used properly.

Good news: you don't need to spend money on new gear.
Bad news: you have to swallow your pride ;)

Post a shot of yours that you believe to be "non-sharp" along with EXIF for better feedback.
 
These aren't really non-sharp at all; they look pretty much on-par and the focus is fine. Lenses perform the weakest at their extremes; you seem to be using your lens at or near its widest aperture. Stop it down and adjust the ISO or shutter speed to compensate (whichever one you deem more appropriate for the situation).

But more than that, you're really using the light to your disadvantage as it looks harsh and ugly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top