Canon 30D and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. That particular image was shot at 50mm, 1/30", 1600 ISO. My only other lens (apart from the kit lens I never use) is a 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty) which I hardly ever use. The sharpness on the fifty is only slightly better than the Tamron, which is a very impressive lens considering the price.
Tamron makes some surprisingly nice optical elements for the price they charge.
My photography teacher had commented on some photos, at the technical level (in high school), when he wanted to know what lenses I used. He was impressed at what they could produce.
Now, at the super attention to technical detail level, they have a ways to go for amazing, getting placed in museum galleries level of quality.
But for the amateur, they do a damn good job.
I'd love a 17-50m f/2.8.
Problem is, you're not using FF. A 17-50 f/2.8 is quite expensive, even from the cheap companies, for a FF/35mm camera.
BTW, I still have, and only have, a 35mm camera.
And I have to say this:
that boat scene would have looked VERY impressive with a quality film pushed to 3200. It would have looked painted. Absolutely beautiful when the light is right.
Of course, soft images is like a huge no-no these days in the digital world.
That, and the current tech reproduces high ISOs like absolute shit.
It's one thing to have a real ISO and seeing the grain (can be good or terrible, depending on film stock and on desired effect. 1600 is about shit no matter what. More grain at higher speeds can look impressive)... but emulating grain with digital noise? Ugh. Leave the true art for the medium that can make it with chemicals.
I'm a huge fan of the dark room (been forever
), and manipulating any and every physical stage of image production.
But you have to know what you want when you are going in. For the high speed world, capturing the candid moment, digital rules. Post processing dark-room emulation is great as you can tool around with ideas you weren't prepared for in any way.
But landscape and general stills? I'm all about the film.
In fact, that's probably exactly the route I'll go. I do want an FF digital body, quite badly actually. Film is a pain in the ass.
But I'd love to hold onto my 35mm (Nikon n65, not crazy advanced but does the trick in capable hands), and build a small darkroom once I get my own house. Use the digital for spur of the moment stuff, and whenever I go somewhere and have planned photo ideas, start looking into right film ideas.
Though really, I need myself a medium format or 4x5.
Now that, THAT is expensive.
Well that and awesome lens without distortion or flare issues below 15mm and are able to keep fine lines.
Edit:
Just realized, that 17-50mm lens you have, is basically almost the same as my 28-80mm Tamron lens for my Nikon 35mm. Can't remember any more specifics, I didn't bring it down with me again this year, though I had it for a film photography course I took here as well.
Didn't get nearly as many good photos in that course as I did my high school course. This was a color photography course, no darkroom, whereas my highschool course and B&W and darkroom. The project categories were just terrible for the course here at the university, at least in my opinion, and the instructor was fairly hell bent on strongly encouraging yuppie art-styles and social photography.
The projects are what break me. Give me freedom, and I'll have a couple of shots I really like on every roll.
Facebook
Twitter