| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2004 08:49:05 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
but what if you would like it to fill the image? ;)
maybe for a larger print, or greater detail? |
That was my thought as well. As soon as you crop, you reduce the maximum enlargement. If you're trying to do fine art, reducing your maximum pixels is not a good thing. Works great for snapshots though.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 09:11:40 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
but what if you would like it to fill the image? ;)
maybe for a larger print, or greater detail? |
In a vast majority of cases you can simply use your legs to zoom. Sports is the one place I can think of where you would NEED a long zoom.
Another advantage to primes is that you pick the perspective that you want and then adjust your position to fill the frame. You can do the same with a zoom only if you have the self discipline to select you perspective rather than simply using the zoom action to fill your frame.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 09:15:29 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Another advantage to primes is that you pick the perspective that you want and then adjust your position to fill the frame. You can do the same with a zoom only if you have the self discipline to select you perspective rather than simply using the zoom action to fill your frame. |
And on the flip side, with a zoom you do have the option to change perspective. With a prime, your perspective is fixed no matter what, and you don't have any ability to vary it. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 09:48:28 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Sports is the one place I can think of where you would NEED a long zoom. |
How about Nature? You can't always move your hiding spot when you're a few mm short on focal length, and cropping isn't always good enough.
How about landscape? You can't always walk forward when you're on the edge of a cliff.
Your technique might cater well to primes, but it's a fact that many techniques are well suited to zooms. I'm not saying primes won't work in some of these scenarios, but to claim that sports photography is the only place where a zoom is relevent seems a bit myopic.
The decision really comes down to discipline and personal technique. If someone is not a disciplined photographer, then neither primes nor zooms should be their first concern.
Message edited by author 2004-12-15 09:49:14.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 09:51:59 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Sports is the one place I can think of where you would NEED a long zoom. |
How about Nature? You can't always move your hiding spot when you're a few mm short on focal length, and cropping isn't always good enough.
How about landscape? You can't always walk forward when you're on the edge of a cliff.
Your technique might cater well to primes, but it's a fact that many techniques are well suited to zooms. I'm not saying primes won't work in some of these scenarios, but to claim that sports photography is the only place where a zoom is relevent seems a bit myopic.
The decision really comes down to discipline and personal technique. If someone is not a disciplined photographer, then neither primes nor zooms should be their first concern. |
Seems like most of the pro sports photographers I've seen use long primes anyway. The need for speed (shutter speed) often forces them in to primes. (not that they don't use zooms - but the big glass in sports photography is typically very fast, long prime telephoto lenses |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 10:01:21 AM · #31 |
I saw an article recently on a NFL photographer and they showed his typical gear for a game. He used a 400mm f2.8, a 300mm f2.8, a 70-200 f2.8 and a 50mm f1.8. Each lens was mounted on a 1DmkII and he had 20 2GB CF cards. Pretty sure he had at least one peon to help tote all that stuff.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 10:17:02 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
...Sports is the one place I can think of where you would NEED a long zoom... |
Not quite! Sports Photogs use Long Fast Primes like 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4
They do use the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom for closeups...
|
|
|
|
12/15/2004 10:21:55 AM · #33 |
| The original question was about a general-purpose starter lens on a tight budget, but this discussion has since wandered off into sports photography, wildlife, and L glass. Repeating an earlier PM, I strongly suggest the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR (check out the ratings). It's sharp, fast and cheap, with enough zoom range to provide some worthwhile flexibility over a prime. For the alternate suggestion, I would pick up a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and macro coupler. You can buy both lenses for just a bit over $400. Save up for a Canon 70-200mm f/4 later. Happy shopping. |
|
|
|
12/15/2004 07:38:43 PM · #34 |
Hi!
I took an online Photography class and this was the lens my instructor suggested, especially where I was just starting out (still am :) and wanted the zoom for my son's soccer games but be able to get up close as well, especially without having to change lenses and take the chance of getting sand/dirt/etc in the camera.
Here is the tamron website I found:
//www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_di.asp
You can see, from the following website, they are a lot less expesensive than on the tamron website...not to mention you can buy it used (if you want to take the chance) and get it cheaper from ebay or amazon.
//www.adorama.com/TM28300XEOS.html?searchinfo=tamron%2028-300%20eos&item_no=2
|
|
|
|
12/18/2004 05:39:40 PM · #35 |
i've been looking up tons of lenses (including all those that you guys suggested) that go up to around 200 or 300mm, starting from 80 or less. (ie: 70-200s and 75-300s) However, if the reviewers (users, not a staff) rate something high and say they like it at photographyreview.com, the sites that kyebosh and scalvert provided tend to rate the lens quality low. i would be more inclined to believe the general reviews of the public, since it takes other things into account and maybe some of the quality issues aren't important to the common user.
but, anyone know why this discrepancy might exist between the resources? (the two optical quality sites tend to agree, but also tend to disagree with photographyreview.com)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2004 05:42:23 PM · #36 |
| Depends on the optical review system. Some of them base the tests of MTF charts and strictly controlled test strips. People actually using them don't have the same strict tolerances these reviewers do. I think, a lot of the time, the actual increase in quality is much less apparent with "real world" shots than the optical quality reviews would sugest. As a caveat, it depends on what you want to use the lens for, that matters most. |
|
|
|
12/18/2004 06:46:28 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by lebowski:
the canon 50/1.8 is a must |
I agree ... but if you have a little extra budget I would loom at the Canon 50mm f1.4.
Apart from the faster speed it is apparently better built, unless you find an old 1.8. I have not seen the f1.8 myself to compare them, but the f1.4 is sensational.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 07:27:20 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Originally posted by lebowski:
the canon 50/1.8 is a must |
I agree ... but if you have a little extra budget I would loom at the Canon 50mm f1.4.
Apart from the faster speed it is apparently better built, unless you find an old 1.8. I have not seen the f1.8 myself to compare them, but the f1.4 is sensational. |
Don't want to come across as rude, but you should get your hands on both before making that statement. I've shot with both, although more with the 1.8. The 1.4 is an EXCELLENT lens. HOWEVER, given the $200+ price difference, I think the 1.8 is a better buy. It's a smaller lens that's well built and extremely sharp. I can see springing for the 1.4 later down the line once this hobby/calling has taken hold more, but for a beginner, I don't think there's any justification for spending that much extra money. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 07:46:46 PM · #39 |
| If I were just starting out again, I would be inclined to use this well designed site to it's fullest. Look at the lens section under equipment in the bar above, and you will see a ton of images taken with different lenses. Find the ones that look like shots you would like to have taken, or are similar in style to how you shoot. Some lenses help certain shooting styles more than others, the techincal flaws of lenses can be learned form others, but only you can know which will suit the way you shoot. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 07:52:15 PM · #40 |
Nobody mentioned a Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 EF IS USM
That's relatively cheap and decent for almost all types of photos
And as others pointed the 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for 80$ |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 07:54:30 PM · #41 |
| wow, this thread is over a year old =-O!!! |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 08:06:42 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
wow, this thread is over a year old =-O!!! |
So it is. Sorry, I found it via google (I'm new to the site) and didn't notice before I replied. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 08:21:49 PM · #43 |
right on! More people need to use the searches - way to go :)
I actually found this year old thread interesting ;) |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 08:22:52 PM · #44 |
Hehehe
I nearly replied earlier without notricing the original date.
Now I'm replying just to increase my threads killed stat. :)
bazz. |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 09:19:39 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
...Zooms offer more compositional creativity and ease of use... |
'Ease of use' -yes, 'more creativity' -no, no no.
Substituting the zoom for 'framing' shots as part of the compositional exercise is, IMHO, a very bad habit, which confuses and distorts precisely the kind of sense one would come to via a fixed lens, by walking. We cease to interact with the subject. We loose an intimate sense of locale. We view the world with an angle alien to our natural eyesight. How are we going to learn decent composition, if we have done everything to avoid a natural sense and 'feeling'?
Zooms are great and a fantastic convenience, but they're hardly a compositional tool. If composition is any consideration, and shouldn't it be for a novice photographer, please let us try taking pictures with something fixed at a near-normal focal length first. Let's get a sense. Let's get used to having one and employing it. Then, and even then not 'always', get a zoom.
The trouble is the zoom doesn't come off enough anymore, if there is no 'tangible' purpose for taking it off. Everyone I know, including myself, zooms too much and 'partakes' too little.
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 21:20:34.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 09:24:19 PM · #46 |
| yes but when I walk up to the kids in the park the moms always start hitting me, and without the zoom lens I don't have enough to hit back with! :D |
|
|
|
12/30/2005 09:30:11 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
yes but when I walk up to the kids in the park the moms always start hitting me, and without the zoom lens I don't have enough to hit back with! :D |
Don't ya think a pitcher of half a dozen irate moms swingin a wailing baby over their heads is more interesting than the kind of pitcher your mom took of you a few years back?
Message edited by author 2005-12-30 21:30:30.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2005 09:52:01 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by brianlh:
...Zooms offer more compositional creativity and ease of use... |
'Ease of use' -yes, 'more creativity' -no, no no.
Substituting the zoom for 'framing' shots as part of the compositional exercise is, IMHO, a very bad habit, which confuses and distorts precisely the kind of sense one would come to via a fixed lens, by walking. We cease to interact with the subject. We loose an intimate sense of locale. We view the world with an angle alien to our natural eyesight. How are we going to learn decent composition, if we have done everything to avoid a natural sense and 'feeling'?
Zooms are great and a fantastic convenience, but they're hardly a compositional tool. If composition is any consideration, and shouldn't it be for a novice photographer, please let us try taking pictures with something fixed at a near-normal focal length first. Let's get a sense. Let's get used to having one and employing it. Then, and even then not 'always', get a zoom.
The trouble is the zoom doesn't come off enough anymore, if there is no 'tangible' purpose for taking it off. Everyone I know, including myself, zooms too much and 'partakes' too little. |
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! (or, don't zoom, walk up to it) Nothing else to say :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 02:26:45 PM EDT.
