That's not bad at all
Um, quite good? It's the fastest a zoom is made for either Canon or Nikon systems. Olympus offers an f/2 zoom but due to the differences in format, it is effectively slower.Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
That's not bad at all
But different people have different definitions of fast. f/2.8 is certainly quite good for a zoom, especially something in the 200mm range. For zoom lenses in the normal range, like from 20mm to 80mm, f/2.8 just seems too slow for me, coming from f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes.
I think he means it's more cost effective for him on his current primes. It's hard to bet a 90 buck 1.8. My 28-75 which covers 50mm, but three times the price. And yes...it needs to be compared with fast walk around zooms. But he stated that he doesn't mind footwork. He preferes sneakers over zooms.Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Um, quite good? It's the fastest a zoom is made for either Canon or Nikon systems. Olympus offers an f/2 zoom but due to the differences in format, it is effectively slower.Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
That's not bad at all
But different people have different definitions of fast. f/2.8 is certainly quite good for a zoom, especially something in the 200mm range. For zoom lenses in the normal range, like from 20mm to 80mm, f/2.8 just seems too slow for me, coming from f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes.
A lens is considered fast when it's fast compared to lenses of a similar type. This definition doesn't change.
I understand. I'm just saying that the Canon 400 f/2.8, for instance, is regarded by the whole world as a fast lens-- and that's an f/2.8 prime.Originally posted by: foghorn67
I think he means it's more cost effective for him on his current primes. It's hard to bet a 90 buck 1.8. My 28-75 which covers 50mm, but three times the price. And yes...it needs to be compared with fast walk around zooms. But he stated that he doesn't mind footwork. He preferes sneakers over zooms.Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Um, quite good? It's the fastest a zoom is made for either Canon or Nikon systems. Olympus offers an f/2 zoom but due to the differences in format, it is effectively slower.Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
That's not bad at all
But different people have different definitions of fast. f/2.8 is certainly quite good for a zoom, especially something in the 200mm range. For zoom lenses in the normal range, like from 20mm to 80mm, f/2.8 just seems too slow for me, coming from f/1.8 and f/1.4 primes.
A lens is considered fast when it's fast compared to lenses of a similar type. This definition doesn't change.
Not only does that lens not have USM, but it uses an old-style stepper motor. So even if the speed of AF isn't too slow for the situation, you may miss focus wide open if you get stuck between two of the steps. That's why I don't really consider the 50mm f/1.8 a fast lens unless you manually focus wide open. Sometimes, you get what you pay for.
I have a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 (film) with 2 lenses. One lens is the standard Canon 28-55 (or something like that). The other lens is a Tamron 70-300 tele-macro.Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG what have I done
Other camera people feel free to help da' bunny
Yep! Those are both EF lenses, which work with the Rebel XT. Just keep in mind that those lenses will be magnified by a factor of 1.6X because of the smaller sensor on the Rebel XT. That's good for your telephoto lens, but not so good for the wide angle on your 28-55.Originally posted by: timswim78
I have a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 (film) with 2 lenses. One lens is the standard Canon 28-55 (or something like that). The other lens is a Tamron 70-300 tele-macro.Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG what have I done
Other camera people feel free to help da' bunny
If I buy a Digital Rebel XT, will I be able to use these lenses with it?
THANKS!
Yup yup, moving targets are rough for the 50mm f/1.8 because of its slow focusing motor. The Rebel XT's autofocus isn't exactly the top of its class either. For moving objects I think a zoom may be best, lest you run around everywhere trying to frame things.
Most manufacturers sell what's called a "soft focus" lens. Great for blemish removal in the camera instead of after processing.
1. I just use the regular evaluative metering. To tell you the truth, I'm not quite sure what the pros vs. cons of the different metering modes are. Could someone chime in on this?
I dunnoOriginally posted by: DurocShark
What is the amount of chromatic aberration in the main lens of a Yashica-Mat EM?
Yeah, that sounded like more of a post-processing problem than a lens problem. Unfortunately, we're going to need some sample photos before we can give any specific advice.Originally posted by: DurocShark
Most manufacturers sell what's called a "soft focus" lens. Great for blemish removal in the camera instead of after processing.
As for motion blur, shens.
Correct!Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Yep! Those are both EF lenses, which work with the Rebel XT. Just keep in mind that those lenses will be magnified by a factor of 1.6X because of the smaller sensor on the Rebel XT. That's good for your telephoto lens, but not so good for the wide angle on your 28-55.Originally posted by: timswim78
I have a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 (film) with 2 lenses. One lens is the standard Canon 28-55 (or something like that). The other lens is a Tamron 70-300 tele-macro.Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG what have I done
Other camera people feel free to help da' bunny
If I buy a Digital Rebel XT, will I be able to use these lenses with it?
THANKS!
) you'll notice a HUGE difference between the viewfinder size and brightness in your Rebel 2000 if you move to the XT... the XT's is just a pain to look through
From our very own episodic: http://pixelessence.net/content/view/14/35/Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Yeah, that sounded like more of a post-processing problem than a lens problem. Unfortunately, we're going to need some sample photos before we can give any specific advice.Originally posted by: DurocShark
Most manufacturers sell what's called a "soft focus" lens. Great for blemish removal in the camera instead of after processing.
As for motion blur, shens.
Metering modes depend on your subject. For landscapes and the like where exposure of the entire scene is your goal, then go with evaluative. If you do portrait or macro work where exposure of your subject matters more than exposure of your background, then go with center weighted and lock your exposure on your subject prior to composing and focusing. And if you're a zone nut, then obviously go with spot metering.
It only gets annoying if you change lenses all the time (which for me is mainly event coverage). If I can afford to take the time to choose my lenses (often the case), then I go with my primes.
Nikon 17-55. Quality and quantity can coexist
That's in your sig. Let me recommend a much better lens (though a shorter zoom range) than the 50-500. The Sigma (also sold by Ritz rebadged as a Quantaray) 70-300 DL runs around $100. And it's an outstanding lens. Even sharper than the APO version that costs $250-300. Very slightly more chromatic aberration, but unnoticable except for extremely high contrast images. Like taking a photo of stadium lights. It worked perfectly for the surfing photography I used to do, including sunrise stuff. Back when I used a Minolta 7xi and 500si. (I'm all manual focus now, though.)
Facebook
Twitter