| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2013 09:26:39 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
There is no real advantage to buying everything at once. Work with 18-55 and see if bothers you not to have the extra width. It may turn out you hate zooms and want to look at weird wide primes like the Rokinon 14mm If you can put the various lenses in your hand before you make a decision. |
Sound advice, thank you. |
|
|
|
02/26/2013 10:08:54 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Hi  giantmike one of the things that I learnt at film school was that wide angle lenses flatten images. Telephoto, on the other hand, not only compresses fg bg perspespective but accentuates the tallness of the mountains and the deepness of the valleys. I think that's what I learnt. Your stiching process may be a good idea.[Not for me just yet]
So if you took a series of telophoto images and stiched them, I guess you would see taller mountains and deeper valleys. My concern, however, is Vanishing Point. Are we able to see a distinctive landscape or would it appear like a mural, particularly with 6 images. |
Ah, this is actually where my technique shines. I use a 50 mm lens which means its very close to what the human eye sees. Very little compression, and very little exaggeration. Here is a good example of this technique, using 6 images.
Week 42 - Cloud Streams
One other thing I would suggest, depending on your budget, is skipping that 18-55. I originally had that lens with my 50D, but was never happy with it. I quickly upgraded to the 15-85, which has much better optics, range, image stabilization, focus, everything. However, it does cost a good bit more. |
|
|
|
02/26/2013 10:10:58 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Lens Protection Filter
unless you spend the money for the very best. if you have good glass, why would you want anything that would diminish it's capabilities? Skip |
there are a number of factors to consider when looking for a filter, thickness, coating, and mount, to name a few. cheaper filters can produce glaring which results in diminished image quality, unwanted vignetting, and lens flares. higher-end filters are slimmer, will mount very tight, close to the lens, and are double or triple coated.
read more here |
|
|
|
02/26/2013 04:31:14 PM · #29 |
|
|
|
02/26/2013 05:04:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I prefer the sense of separation between foreground, middle ground and distance, and an ulltra wide can take a small object in the foreground and give it power enough to compete for attention against a strong background in a way that is fundamentally different than the more flattened feel of a longer lens. |
Agreed. It's a nice trick to stitch photos taken with a 50mm to achieve a panorama or scenic shot. Resolution is excellent. But an ultra wide should really be used for more than this, as it can get up close to something ΓΆ€” even small things ΓΆ€” and create interesting and powerful foregrounds. My Sigma can focus a foot and half away, and I often have to back off foregrounds to get beyond this range. Kind of a different animal. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 04:29:23 AM · #31 |
My Sigma can focus a foot and half away bohemka. I notice that your Sigma is 12-24 f4.5 Is there any reason why you did not choose the 10-22?
Do you normally find yourself shooting more at the 12 end or more at the 24 end? |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 05:06:07 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
There is no real advantage to buying everything at once. |
Definitely agree with that. See how you feel with the lens before feeling you absolutely require an UWA.
But I disagree about the Sigma 10-20 being full frame. It will MOUNT and will physically WORK but you won't like the results, as it's designed for a small sensor. It will work great on an APS-C, but will provide a small image circle and a VERY heavy vignette. Trust me, I've used it on my film body. So if you're thinking that you can use it if you upgrade to full frame down the line, I would say that's mistaken. The difference between it and the Canon EF-S 10-22 is that EF-S lenses cannot physically mount to full frame Canon's because they protrude into the mirrorbox and will damage your camera if used. The Sigma 10-20 will not damage your camera, but the results are undesirable for general application.
The Sigma that Scott has IS designed for full frame, however.
For cost on the tripods/BH, you need to think ahead a little bit and think about what sort of weight your biggest setup will have. Do you foresee yourself doing lots of wildlife work? If so, you may want a beefier setup. If not, you can get a midweight setup that will keep you happy for many years. In any case, it's important to realize that with tripods, as with some other things, you can have any two of the following, but not all three Cheap, Strong, Light. You should also think about how tall you are, as you will want a tripod that can extend high enough for you to use it while standing without extending the center column. Keep in mind the ballhead will add a few inches to that number, and your camera will as well because it's several inches from the base to the viewfinder. All carbon fiber tripods are more expensive than their aluminum counterparts. They are also lighter, dampen vibrations better, and don't get horribly freezing cold and freeze your hands to their surfaces. But this comes at a premium.
A reasonably priced option that is very versatile, has good strength, and is well made is the 055XPROB. You will find many here who use it. If you do not require quite that high of strength or height, the 190XPROB is another option and weighs a bit less.
There are lots of options for ballheads, and those tripods often come as a package with a similar weight spec'd head. I don't personally like Manfrotto heads, because I don't like proprietary quick release plates, but that isn't to say they aren't wellmade. I, however, have less knowledge of them and the heads I do know more about are more than you'd like/really should spend for the type of setup you're looking to use.
ETA: clarity
Message edited by author 2013-02-27 05:09:37. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 06:01:50 AM · #33 |
Don't want to hack the thread but a short question: Does anyone know about Rollei tripod (can also be used as monopod.)
I saw it in the shop and I liked it. Seemed robust and compact, yet light. I would sacrifice height for something light and sturdy. I do travel for work and a tripod is a bit of a drag. I carry a Bogen Table tripod with me but is far from useful with a DSLR.
I used Velbon Sherpa 750 that i bought 9 years ago form my Canon 350D but is not that great an dis heavy.
Thnx
Tibi
|
|
|
|
02/27/2013 06:30:29 AM · #34 |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 07:02:40 AM · #35 |
hiya John...what would i do differently a year later?
i would get the 18-55 kit lens to have at least some measure of wide angle and a little zoom capability, and it's really not expensive when bundled with the body. truthfully, before borrowing a friends 10-22 i was looking at picking an 18-55 up used just to have SOME wa! there's no landscapes to be shot with a prime 50 or a 75-300 :)
reading the thread i think the best advice is not to overcommit initially, maybe just get the 18-55 and shoot the hell out of it, see what's lacking, you find yourself wanting more zoom? or wider angle? or a faster lens?
speaking of faster, you'll hear very little bad reviews of the "nifty 50" it's about $100 new, you can pick one up used around $50, and it's FAST! now, having borrowed a couple of good lenses (as you have with the L glass)i though, and you'll think, "what a piece of crap" because it really is a very plastic-y cheap feeling lens....but it's a great learning lens and takes some great portraits.
bottom line is get your body, get a kit lens, and see what you like and how you want to expand before dropping a lot of cash initially. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 07:08:03 AM · #36 |
To expound a bit upon my suggestion-
I get the feeling you're not entirely sure what you really prefer to shoot, so I hesitate to suggest a more specialized lens like a UWA to start out. Having said that, I also generally recommend people avoid the kit lenses if at all possible, but to do so requires one have a bit of an idea exactly what they want to do. For the price, the kit lenses are great for exploring and getting an idea of what you want to really pursue once you start specializing, and some people are admittedly plenty happy having only ever used kit lenses. But they offer poor resale value in the event that you do upgrade down the line, and don't offer the same performance, which isn't surprising since they cost quite a good deal less. So in many situations I'd suggest a different path, but in this one I'd lean towards the kit lenses and just getting familiarized with the whole premise and camera to begin with and increasing your setup once you know where you're going with it. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 07:29:52 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Don't want to hack the thread but a short question: Does anyone know about Rollei tripod (can also be used as monopod.)
I saw it in the shop and I liked it. Seemed robust and compact, yet light. I would sacrifice height for something light and sturdy. I do travel for work and a tripod is a bit of a drag. I carry a Bogen Table tripod with me but is far from useful with a DSLR.
I used Velbon Sherpa 750 that i bought 9 years ago form my Canon 350D but is not that great an dis heavy.
Thnx
Tibi |
I've not seen the tripod you speak of in person, nor can I even find a dealer for it in the US, so it's a bit hard to say.
I would question it's usefulness in terms of height, though, even as a lightweight/travel tripod. I use a Gitzo 1228mk2 as a travel tripod, and I find it to be too short periodically (I should note that I am 6'0 tall), but accept that due to it's small size and portability. Keep in mind the 1228mk2 is a good bit taller than the one you linked.
The other thing is that because it IS so short, the monopod might be nearly worthless. To properly use a monopod, it has to be pretty long or you cannot achieve the stances used to enhance stability. Does the monopod allow the use of a head or no? Again, a monopod without a head is of very little practical use, IMO. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 07:56:57 AM · #38 |
back to your OP, im going to suggest to not get a 650D, you are already used to a 60D and you are going to be giving up a great control layout, basically you will be downgrading. but the body is your choice get wiwhat world for your budget and style.
I'll offer two suggestions:
get the body only and get a 50mm/1.8. your portfolio is rather small so i have no idea what you mainly shoot but you like to shoot portraits i can tell, the 50/1.8 will be much better suited to those that he kit lens could ever be, why? because the kit lens is only good if you have great light. at 50mm you are stuck at f5.6 which is limiting for a number of reasons, mainly you are stuck using it outdoors, at very high ISO (if at all indoors), or worse with the popup flash. if you you like to dabble in landscapes, stitching is always an option as suggested earlier and with today's software its done practically seamlessly.
if you prefer to have a zoom, i'd get a body of your choice and look for a tamron 17-50/2.8 non-vc they can be had for $300 USD used. I have never used one, but i have heard nothing but great things about them, you get a very sharp lens, a constant 2.8 aperture even at 50mm and you get 17mm on the wide side. plus you could sell it for almost what you paid for it if you decide to upgrade later.
also I'd forgo the tripod and get a flash instead. if you don't know if you need a tripod or a monopod, you don't need a tripod yet. Buy things when you know you need them, otherwise you will sink tons of money that you wont ever use.
Message edited by author 2013-02-27 07:57:15. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 08:20:44 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
back to your OP, im going to suggest to not get a 650D, you are already used to a 60D and you are going to be giving up a great control layout, basically you will be downgrading. but the body is your choice get wiwhat world for your budget and style. |
mike_311 thank you for your comments.
1. Even though I have used my nephews 60D, I don't own one so I won't be downgrading.
2. The 650D seems about right, price-wise for me.
I'll offer two suggestions:
get the body only and get a 50mm/1.8. your portfolio is rather small so i have no idea what you mainly shoot but you like to shoot portraits i can tell, the 50/1.8 will be much better suited to those that he kit lens could ever be, why? because the kit lens is only good if you have great light. at 50mm you are stuck at f5.6 which is limiting for a number of reasons, mainly you are stuck using it outdoors, at very high ISO (if at all indoors), or worse with the popup flash. if you you like to dabble in landscapes, stitching is always an option as suggested earlier and with today's software its done practically seamlessly.
FourPointX purchased a 50mm and he said it was a huge mistake. [Not wide Enough]
if you prefer to have a zoom, i'd get a body of your choice and look for a tamron 17-50/2.8 non-vc they can be had for $300 USD used. I have never used one, but i have heard nothing but great things about them, you get a very sharp lens, a constant 2.8 aperture even at 50mm and you get 17mm on the wide side. plus you could sell it for almost what you paid for it if you decide to upgrade later.also I'd forgo the tripod and get a flash instead. if you don't know if you need a tripod or a monopod, you don't need a tripod yet. Buy things when you know you need them, otherwise you will sink tons of money that you wont ever use.
Good comments but I do need a tripod. The reason I mentioned monopod was because I was not sure whether the 55-250 would put stress on the head.
Message edited by author 2013-02-27 08:31:21. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 08:28:37 AM · #40 |
| that lens is very light. in fact i think my 85mm weighs more. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 08:41:08 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
To expound a bit upon my suggestion-
I get the feeling you're not entirely sure what you really prefer to shoot, so I hesitate to suggest a more specialized lens like a UWA to start out. Having said that, I also generally recommend people avoid the kit lenses if at all possible, but to do so requires one have a bit of an idea exactly what they want to do. For the price, the kit lenses are great for exploring and getting an idea of what you want to really pursue once you start specializing, and some people are admittedly plenty happy having only ever used kit lenses. But they offer poor resale value in the event that you do upgrade down the line, and don't offer the same performance, which isn't surprising since they cost quite a good deal less. So in many situations I'd suggest a different path, but in this one I'd lean towards the kit lenses and just getting familiarized with the whole premise and camera to begin with and increasing your setup once you know where you're going with it. |
Thank you for your comments.There are 3 things that I favour when shooting:
1. Close ups on peoples faces [I've put some in my Portfolio unedited and shot with low end Canon PowerShot A610]
2. Landscapes during the day
3. Landscapes and sky during the night
Great suggestion that I have highlighted in Bold. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 09:10:32 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Lens Protection Filter
unless you spend the money for the very best. if you have good glass, why would you want anything that would diminish it's capabilities? Skip |
read more here |
Thanks Skip, it was a great read. |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 09:42:52 AM · #43 |
if you want good portraits get a fast prime or a constant 2.8 lens. there is nothing wrong with using the kit lens for landscapes, stopped down it inst bad, its just not up to the task for sharp portraits with isolating DOF.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2013 10:49:11 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
if you want good portraits get a fast prime or a constant 2.8 lens. there is nothing wrong with using the kit lens for landscapes, stopped down it inst bad, its just not up to the task for sharp portraits with isolating DOF. |
Thanks for that. If that was the way to go for portraits, say a constant 2.8 lens, which would you recommend?
Could you give me some examples of the lens type. Not so much the end image result, but the type of lenses.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2013 10:57:06 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Could you give me some examples of the lens type. Not so much the end image result, but the type of lenses. |
70-200mm f/2.8 L would be one... |
|
|
|
02/27/2013 11:37:44 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Could you give me some examples of the lens type. Not so much the end image result, but the type of lenses. |
70-200mm f/2.8 L would be one... |
Love this lens. Started with the f/4, have moved on. Should have gone with the 2.8 to start with. Would have saved me some $$ in the long run. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 07:40:16 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Could you give me some examples of the lens type. Not so much the end image result, but the type of lenses. |
70-200mm f/2.8 L would be one... |
i crave that lens, as soon as business picks up when school is over if i book a bunch of jobs im treating myself...
John, before we start (or continue) recommending $2000 lenses, what is your budget? |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 08:16:56 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if you want good portraits get a fast prime or a constant 2.8 lens. there is nothing wrong with using the kit lens for landscapes, stopped down it inst bad, its just not up to the task for sharp portraits with isolating DOF. |
Thanks for that. If that was the way to go for portraits, say a constant 2.8 lens, which would you recommend?
Could you give me some examples of the lens type. Not so much the end image result, but the type of lenses. |
A more useful approach would be to explain that a "constant" 2.8 lens is a lens whose maximum aperture remains 2.8 throughout its zoom range. This is in contrast to a lens like the kit 18-55, which is variable, going from 3.5 when at 18mm to 5.6 when at 55mm. Constant aperture is useful for a whole host of reasons, but is also more expensive.
If you want a good performing portrait lens, find a prime that's somewhere near the range of 30 and 85mm (for aps-c sensors) and f2.8 or faster. This is a very broad explanation but generally holds true. The earlier mentioned nifty fifty 50 1.8 meets this criteria and is very affordable, though there are tons of other lenses that fit this criteria and would also work well for you. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 08:27:31 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by johnbrennan:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if you want good portraits get a fast prime or a constant 2.8 lens. there is nothing wrong with using the kit lens for landscapes, stopped down it inst bad, its just not up to the task for sharp portraits with isolating DOF. |
Thanks for that. If that was the way to go for portraits, say a constant 2.8 lens, which would you recommend?
Could you give me some examples of the lens type. Not so much the end image result, but the type of lenses. |
A more useful approach would be to explain that a "constant" 2.8 lens is a lens whose maximum aperture remains 2.8 throughout its zoom range. This is in contrast to a lens like the kit 18-55, which is variable, going from 3.5 when at 18mm to 5.6 when at 55mm. Constant aperture is useful for a whole host of reasons, but is also more expensive.
If you want a good performing portrait lens, find a prime that's somewhere near the range of 30 and 85mm (for aps-c sensors) and f2.8 or faster. This is a very broad explanation but generally holds true. The earlier mentioned nifty fifty 50 1.8 meets this criteria and is very affordable, though there are tons of other lenses that fit this criteria and would also work well for you. |
...and also tons that, in addition to being less expensive, are lighter and smaller than the 70-200mm. |
|
|
|
02/28/2013 09:50:37 AM · #50 |
Does anyone have a Cullman 528Q Tripod? I saw it today in the camera shop. It's German, very sturdy, a good height of 1.85 metres, has a slewable Centre Column, not that I like using centre columns, because I don't AND seemed to be slightly better than the Manfrotto. The top one third was completetely rubberised. The Manfrotto top one third was only partially rubberised. [The material may not be rubber, but it's grippy stuff like rubber] Anyway, it just seemed to be finished better than the Manfrotto. Cost is around the $289 mark for Tripod Alone. At this point I have decided on a Vanguard Head.
An adapter is required because the thread on one is 3/8 and the thread on the other is 1/4. I hope that this is not going to be a problem.
I am considering buying one on Friday.
My Budget for Camera, Lenses, Tripod, Head and accessories is $2,000 in answer to Mikes question.
A more useful approach would be to explain that a "constant" 2.8 lens is a lens whose maximum aperture remains 2.8 throughout its zoom range. This is in contrast to a lens like the kit 18-55, which is variable, going from 3.5 when at 18mm to 5.6 when at 55mm. Constant aperture is useful for a whole host of reasons, but is also more expensive.
If you want a good performing portrait lens, find a prime that's somewhere near the range of 30 and 85mm (for aps-c sensors) and f2.8 or faster. This is a very broad explanation but generally holds true. The earlier mentioned nifty fifty 50 1.8 meets this criteria and is very affordable, though there are tons of other lenses that fit this criteria and would also work well for you.
This I found very useful. I am looking to purchase Canon 650D with twin lens kit, Cullman Tripod and SBH-100 Ball Head VANGUARD. It has 2 bubbles, one you cannot see in image. If I still have funds left in kity after buying a 32GB SD card and possibly a hood and UV Filter, may be a Polarising filter, I shall consider a nifty 50.
For me FRIDAY is the day of Purchase, so if there's any last minute suggestions, Speak Now Forever Hold Your Peace.
I do appreciate ALL comments. I have read them all and taken all of them on board, so thank you kindly.
I will let you know exactly what I have purchased, so once again thank you all for your help.
Message edited by author 2013-02-28 10:45:02. |
|
