Photography is about Compromises

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
But I don't get to meet people through home theater

Actually, can meet other HT enthusiasts if you avail yourself to auditions.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: virtuamike
But I don't get to meet people through home theater

Actually, can meet other HT enthusiasts if you avail yourself to auditions.

Yeah, I met a few people... probably could have turned it into something if I wanted to (nothing sexual of course)

 

[GTaudiophile]

Photography is one of my bigger hobbies. Something I think I do well...but could do a lot better, so there are not too many compromises.

Yes, so I don't own 10 Canon "L" lenses, but that would be overkill. The idea is to start with a good all-purpose lens (Canon EFS 17-85 IS), identify your shooting styles, and then upgrade as needed. For example, I don't shoot much telephoto, so I won't use a telephoto lens all that often. But I shoot more wide angle, so I should spend more on a wider lens.

In the end, my camera bag will consist of 5 five good lenses, each packing pretty good value for the money:

1) Canon EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 ($740)
2) Canon EF 24-105 F4L ($1,249.00)
3) Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR ($389.95)
4) Sigma 30 F1.4 EX DC ($388.99)
5) Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS ($650.00)

Total: $3417.94

 

[shortylickens]

Size Vs. Quality.

My sony F717 uses a 55mm lens and shoots great photos. But the thing is a beast and I rarely feel like taking it anywhere.

My Nokia 6230 has a camera on it. But it only works at 640x480 and has no zoom. It doesnt even take good 640x480 pics.


http://sils.unc.edu/itrc/its/images/Equipment/SonyDSC-F717.jpg
http://www.mobile-review.com/review/image/nokia/6230/cover2.jpg

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: virtuamike
But I don't get to meet people through home theater

Actually, can meet other HT enthusiasts if you avail yourself to auditions.

Yeah, I met a few people... probably could have turned it into something if I wanted to (nothing sexual of course)

But are they photogenic?

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Photography is one of my bigger hobbies. Something I think I do well...but could do a lot better, so there are not too many compromises.

Yes, so I don't own 10 Canon "L" lenses, but that would be overkill. The idea is to start with a good all-purpose lens (Canon EFS 17-85 IS), identify your shooting styles, and then upgrade as needed. For example, I don't shoot much telephoto, so I won't use a telephoto lens all that often. But I shoot more wide angle, so I should spend more on a wider lens.

In the end, my camera bag will consist of 5 five good lenses, each packing pretty good value for the money:

1) Canon EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 ($740)
2) Canon EF 24-105 F4L ($1,249.00)
3) Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR ($389.95)
4) Sigma 30 F1.4 EX DC ($388.99)
5) Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS ($650.00)

Total: $3417.94

That's pretty much how I started. Went with a basic lens (Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5) and gradually added focal lengths as I became more aware of my style and needs. My ultimate goal is to get all my primes under f/2 and my zooms under f/2.8. The collection so far:

- 17-55 f/2.8 AF
- 70-210 f/4 AF
- 50 f/1.4 AF
- 55 f/3.5 AIS macro
- 85 f/1.4 AF
- 180 f/2.8 AF

Close to $3k in glass, ugh. Next on the list are 35/1.4 AIS (or 28/1.4 AF if I can somehow afford it) and maybe a F3HP to play with while I save for a D2x (really going off the deep end with photography).

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Close to $3k in glass, ugh. Next on the list are 35/1.4 AIS (or 28/1.4 AF if I can somehow afford it) and maybe a F3HP to play with while I save for a D2x (really going off the deep end with photography).

So, the compromises you've made or are making to get that nice glass?

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: virtuamike
But I don't get to meet people through home theater

Actually, can meet other HT enthusiasts if you avail yourself to auditions.

Yeah, I met a few people... probably could have turned it into something if I wanted to (nothing sexual of course)

But are they photogenic?

Uhhh... well... they were guys.

You can always invite some ladies over to watch a movie though.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Photography is one of my bigger hobbies. Something I think I do well...but could do a lot better, so there are not too many compromises.

Yes, so I don't own 10 Canon "L" lenses, but that would be overkill. The idea is to start with a good all-purpose lens (Canon EFS 17-85 IS), identify your shooting styles, and then upgrade as needed. For example, I don't shoot much telephoto, so I won't use a telephoto lens all that often. But I shoot more wide angle, so I should spend more on a wider lens.

In the end, my camera bag will consist of 5 five good lenses, each packing pretty good value for the money:

1) Canon EFS 10-22 F3.5-4.5 ($740)
2) Canon EF 24-105 F4L ($1,249.00)
3) Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR ($389.95)
4) Sigma 30 F1.4 EX DC ($388.99)
5) Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS ($650.00)

Total: $3417.94

That's pretty much how I started. Went with a basic lens (Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5) and gradually added focal lengths as I became more aware of my style and needs. My ultimate goal is to get all my primes under f/2 and my zooms under f/2.8. The collection so far:

- 17-55 f/2.8 AF
- 70-210 f/4 AF
- 50 f/1.4 AF
- 55 f/3.5 AIS macro
- 85 f/1.4 AF
- 180 f/2.8 AF

Close to $3k in glass, ugh. Next on the list are 35/1.4 AIS (or 28/1.4 AF if I can somehow afford it) and maybe a F3HP to play with while I save for a D2x (really going off the deep end with photography).

Would be more expensive to do that with Canon lenses:

Canon EF 16-35 F2.8L ($1,399.95)
Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L ($1,139.95)
Canon EF 50 F1.4 ($319.95)
Canon EF 50 F2.5 Macro ($229.95)
Canon EF 85 F1.8 ($339.95)
Canon EF 135 F2.0L ($869.95)

Total: $4299.70

(And you'd still be missing a big gap between 35 and 70.)

 

[tami]

i got a super wide tokina 12-24 lens and it is sweeeeeeeeeeeet.

 

[radioouman]

My compromise is taking pics of my wife....
... low light
... plenty of distractions...
... remind me to get an image stabilizer on my next digital cam!

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
(And you'd still be missing a big gap between 35 and 70.)

[WARNING] Long boring post of obvious points.

A common [I think] rut that nearly everyone gets into at one time or another is thinking more about covering a complete 'range' with their zoom and prime lenses without an accute sense of whether each step in the range is critical or even relevant to the type of shooting one does.

There are those who want as few possible lenses to cover the range of anything they might want to shoot and there are those who want the fastest possible lense for a specific range or steps within a range. That's a very base argument though as the discussion quickly segues into whether a lens is fast enough, whether a "Pro" lens is worth the expense, if someone is comfortable with changing lenses often or if the weight of the more capable zooms is an issue. A myriad of discussion follows those points but it all comes down to what each individual person prefers to shoot and how much their pocket book enables them. I might prefer to shoot at 500mm but my pocket book certainly isn't going to help me out with that venture.

Boil it all down and my point is, that though a specific range might be considered by one to be a 'gap' of focal length not being covered; is it in practice an actual gap being that moving closer to or farther from a subject might cover that range (which you have to do with prime lenses anyway)?.

More than one skilled photographer in the FM forums regards a 70-200 f/2.8 lens as being a good portrait lens. Of course, those individuals have studios that have enough room for that lens to be effective or they're outside where space isn't a concern (and they're considering what a lens like that can do in terms of smoothing a background in the absence of additional studio effects). Most studio photograhers prefer a fast prime lens to anything in a zoom but ask what flavor of lens is best for portrait photography in a photography forum and you'll get everything from 20mm to 300mm and arguments such as whether you're shooting a true focal length if you're not shooting full frame and if by 'portrait' you mean "headshot", "half, third or full body" or if you're just referring to portraiture positioning of the camera be it in a studio or outdoors. Most of the opinion regarding a good portrait focal length however agrees with a sweet spot in the 80mm range be it via prime or zoom.

So, is a "Gap" actually a gap or just a range that doesn't appear to have a specific lens assigned to it? For some, that it is an important enough issue that they would choose another camera manufaturer. Others might just choose an different manufacturer of lenses to fill the range. And yet some will simply move closer to or farther away from their subject to make up the difference.


[CLIFF's] A gap to some is a moot point to others.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Close to $3k in glass, ugh. Next on the list are 35/1.4 AIS (or 28/1.4 AF if I can somehow afford it) and maybe a F3HP to play with while I save for a D2x (really going off the deep end with photography).

Would be more expensive to do that with Canon lenses:

If you go with the Canon f/4 version of the 70-200 as he did that cuts $550.00 off the top. But, he did say he eventually wants to get his zooms under f/2.8. His existing collection (using pricing for the 70-210 f/4-5.6 vs the f/4 because the Nikkor f/4 isn't made any more) comes in at $3,854 by current B&H prices; that's if I've gotten the model numbers right. So factoring in the "apples to apples" of what's listed we're within one hundred dollars. Change one f/stop in either camp and the variance can quickly disparage by a thousand.

There's always the option to step outside of the Canon "L" and Nikon "Nikkor" lineup. In some cases, there are third party lenses that outshine the brand names at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: tami
i got a super wide tokina 12-24 lens and it is sweeeeeeeeeeeet.

That is indeed a sweet lens!
I like your photoblog. Nice images. Nice style.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Close to $3k in glass, ugh. Next on the list are 35/1.4 AIS (or 28/1.4 AF if I can somehow afford it) and maybe a F3HP to play with while I save for a D2x (really going off the deep end with photography).

So, the compromises you've made or are making to get that nice glass?

I eat lots of ramen, spam, and microwave burritos. Work long hours, have maybe 1 weekend a month free if I'm lucky, and I'm still broke like a joke.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Close to $3k in glass, ugh. Next on the list are 35/1.4 AIS (or 28/1.4 AF if I can somehow afford it) and maybe a F3HP to play with while I save for a D2x (really going off the deep end with photography).

Would be more expensive to do that with Canon lenses:

If you go with the Canon f/4 version of the 70-200 as he did that cuts $550.00 off the top. But, he did say he eventually wants to get his zooms under f/2.8. His existing collection (using pricing for the 70-210 f/4-5.6 vs the f/4 because the Nikkor f/4 isn't made any more) comes in at $3,854 by current B&H prices; that's if I've gotten the model numbers right. So factoring in the "apples to apples" of what's listed we're within one hundred dollars. Change one f/stop in either camp and the variance can quickly disparage by a thousand.

There's always the option to step outside of the Canon "L" and Nikon "Nikkor" lineup. In some cases, there are third party lenses that outshine the brand names at a fraction of the cost.

I briefly considered switching to Canon and looked to see how much it'd cost to build my glass collection, but it just wasn't practical. Biggest reason is that Canon doesn't have anything comparable to the 17-55, and that hurts because it's a range that I shoot in a lot. I'd go crazy if I had to switch between a 16-35 and 50 all the time.

Plus you have the 85/1.8 listed. I was looking at the 1.2 since it's more in the same class as the Nikon 1.4. I'll stick with what I have, pretty happy with my setup so far.