| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/23/2005 05:04:06 PM · #1 |
I havent gone out and baught a new lense yet, but im looking - however, i went out today to an old civil war batttle field and took some landscape type of shots.
I came home and look at the pictures, and none of them are very clear, vivid, sharp, ect.
Is it just a low quality lense? Or, my shooting technique ( im new, so im still learning). Both? |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:07:06 PM · #2 |
Was that with the kit lens (18-55mm), what settings did you use on the camera, did you do any photoshop with them. Can you post some examples?
LOL....loads of Q's, no answers
|
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:11:00 PM · #3 |
yeah it was with the kit lense.
I was just walking around taking free hand pics, it was very bright out - so i thought i could do most of the pictures free hand, and left most of the focusing to the camera - unless there was a shot where the camera didnt give me what i want.
Yeah, ill get up some examples as soon as possible
edit: and another question, and lenses to recommend?
Message edited by author 2005-07-23 17:11:58. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:13:34 PM · #4 |
while the kit lens is not a very good one....it's not so bad as to make images that weak.
I suspect slow shutter speed. For handheld...anything under 1/80th is risky. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:14:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by vprndsg:
...
edit: and another question, and lenses to recommend? |
depends on the budget available
Message edited by author 2005-07-23 17:15:01.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:17:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by suemack:
Originally posted by vprndsg:
...
edit: and another question, and lenses to recommend? |
depends on the budget available |
under $200 |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:18:48 PM · #7 |
The kit lens gets a lot of grief, but it's no slouch in the right hands:
   
 
and lots more here. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:21:14 PM · #8 |
Agreed....MY GF uses a 300d with the 18-55 and in all honnesty, considering the sticker price, I'd say that it's a damn good lens.
UNDER 200$? put it in the bank untill you have about 600$... it's not worth it for you to buy another "entry level" lens.
Message edited by author 2005-07-23 17:22:25. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:34:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
UNDER 200$? put it in the bank untill you have about 600$... it's not worth it for you to buy another "entry level" lens. |
Hmmm okay, so then what lense should I save up for?
|
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:36:32 PM · #10 |
examples of what I mean:
This tree line photo is 100% orginal size, taken out of the much larger image. I havent done anything PS to it.
Reduced sized image, with 100% part showing
 |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:36:47 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by vprndsg:
Originally posted by Gil P:
UNDER 200$? put it in the bank untill you have about 600$... it's not worth it for you to buy another "entry level" lens. |
Hmmm okay, so then what lense should I save up for? |
what's your imdeal focal range?
if you want to stay in ultrawides... then the best buy for a +-600$ budget is the TAMRON 17-35 2.8-4.0 XrDi
if you want tele zoom.... well put that 600$ in the bank and multiply it a few other times! |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:43:14 PM · #12 |
| The Tamron 28-75 XR Di has gotten very good reviews, is a popular lens amongst DPCers, and is my most recent acquisition. I had trouble finding it in stock, and paid just under $400 for it. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 05:53:49 PM · #13 |
With that photo it would be really helpful if you could give us your settings.....what was the aperature especially. Sometimes in auto mode with landscapes you get too shallow dof.
edited to say when I first got my drebel I was really disappointed with the first few shots (well actually it took a while!) until I realised that it wasn't a point and shoot, I had to work to get the settings right. What looked ok in the view finder looked diabolical when I saw it on the monitor. I had to learn what the different settings did. Answer is to get out and take 100's of photos of different things and learn the camera.
Message edited by author 2005-07-23 17:57:25.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2005 06:18:38 PM · #14 |
This review of the Tamron 28-75 made me buy one the same day I bought the camera. The only downside is that it's not very wide, but a Canon 10-22 took care of that problem.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2005 06:24:38 PM · #15 |
| If you want a very good lens that is inexpensive for taking just about any type of picture except zoom. Get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II for $69.00 at B&H or any store that you feel comfortable with. A very sharp lens and fast for it's price. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 06:26:21 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by suemack:
With that photo it would be really helpful if you could give us your settings.....what was the aperature especially. Sometimes in auto mode with landscapes you get too shallow dof.
edited to say when I first got my drebel I was really disappointed with the first few shots (well actually it took a while!) until I realised that it wasn't a point and shoot, I had to work to get the settings right. What looked ok in the view finder looked diabolical when I saw it on the monitor. I had to learn what the different settings did. Answer is to get out and take 100's of photos of different things and learn the camera. |
Since I did do it in auto, i dont know what exactly the setting were - but ill go back and look.
Yeah, i think i just need more practice - since I have been treating it more as a point and shoot - esq camera, which its not |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 06:26:23 PM · #17 |
damnit, whats with these double posts
Message edited by author 2005-07-23 18:26:58. |
|
|
|
07/23/2005 06:29:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by vprndsg:
Originally posted by suemack:
With that photo it would be really helpful if you could give us your settings.....what was the aperature especially. Sometimes in auto mode with landscapes you get too shallow dof.
edited to say when I first got my drebel I was really disappointed with the first few shots (well actually it took a while!) until I realised that it wasn't a point and shoot, I had to work to get the settings right. What looked ok in the view finder looked diabolical when I saw it on the monitor. I had to learn what the different settings did. Answer is to get out and take 100's of photos of different things and learn the camera. |
Since I did do it in auto, i dont know what exactly the setting were - but ill go back and look.
Yeah, i think i just need more practice - since I have been treating it more as a point and shoot - esq camera, which its not |
I shoot 90% of the time in AV mode. Have found it to give the best results as I learn.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2005 12:00:40 AM · #19 |
The kit lens is an ok lens. If you are new to photography, read about techniques. If you want to test sharpness, you may want to set the camera in Av mode and use various f values with a tripod and then compare the sharpness. I think as you learn and your skills grow, then you'll notice more sharp images and keepers. Also try to keep the f value above 5.6 if you can to sharpen the image. The tele end of the kit's zoom is also soft as well. So avoid that end if you are looking for maximal sharpness.
BTW if the crop image is at a high f value and there is no camera shake, then the image appears soft.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2005 01:40:50 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Incarlight:
This review of the Tamron 28-75 made me buy one the same day I bought the camera. The only downside is that it's not very wide, but a Canon 10-22 took care of that problem. |
You're singing my new song; as soon as I saw the 10-22 I knew I had to have it, and so got that and the tamron 24-75. I had been planning on the canon 17-40L, but the 10-22 is SO fine at ukltra-wide distortiuon-free, great for what i do.
R.
|
|
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: 09/12/2025 09:54:23 AM EDT.
