Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: jamesbond007
Staples, no need to reiterate anything fuzzybabybunny already said because he/she already summed it up along with tfinch2. I'll just say I'm glad we can agree to agree.
OdiN, I had a hunch you were going to say the 85 1.2! You can get them used for a dang good price (usually sub-$1500). It's quite the lens, but the AF is too slow for sports, which is what I like to shoot the most. Yeah, different people use different glass, I respect that! Nice choice, nonetheless! An online friend of mine uses it a lot and the bokeh is just AMAZING.
Well the MkII version is a lot faster with AF.
And no, I don't actually HAVE that lens. I wish I did. But for now here is what I have:
Canon 17-40 F4/L
Canon 24-105 F/4L IS
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS
Canon 50mm F/1.4
I'll probably pick up the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 for some lower light capability and just to play around with it. I want to see just how much I like it as it's getting rave reviews by other photogs I know.
Also probably will get an 85mm F/1.8. I just can't spend $2000 on a lens right now (after just getting that 70-200)
Yum, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
jamesbond007
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2000
- 5,280
- 0
- 71
saymyname, the lens is decent, to put it short. I think it's sharpest between 70-250. Shooting 300mm makes the pictures quite soft. I spoiled myself when I got my copy of the 50 1.8, AN AFFORDABLE LENS EVERYONE MUST HAVE IN THEIR BAGS!, and saw what a sharp picture is, at a cheap price. Then my next mistake was the 135 F/2 L. Yeah, that pretty much put the nail in the coffin. When the Sigma and my kit lens were the only ones I had, the Sigma rocked! Now I use it only if I have to.
The Sigma is still a very capable lens. I took this shot tonight, as a matter of fact. It looks pretty decent (ISO800, 1/1600, 214mm, F/5), but I over-sharpened the web copy a bit. The thing I like about having a zoom for sports is for softball and soccer where the focal lengths can change frequently and unexpectedly. When I shoot with the 135L, I lose a lot of first-base shots, which is where I stand. I get most of one body and a head if it fits in the frame.
Anyways, for a starter zoom, it's great. It is a bit noisy and slower to AF, but when you shoot with it, particularly sports, you'll learn how to compensate and prepare yourself for the right moments.
The Sigma is still a very capable lens. I took this shot tonight, as a matter of fact. It looks pretty decent (ISO800, 1/1600, 214mm, F/5), but I over-sharpened the web copy a bit. The thing I like about having a zoom for sports is for softball and soccer where the focal lengths can change frequently and unexpectedly. When I shoot with the 135L, I lose a lot of first-base shots, which is where I stand. I get most of one body and a head if it fits in the frame.
Anyways, for a starter zoom, it's great. It is a bit noisy and slower to AF, but when you shoot with it, particularly sports, you'll learn how to compensate and prepare yourself for the right moments.
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: jamesbond007
Staples, no need to reiterate anything fuzzybabybunny already said because he/she already summed it up along with tfinch2. I'll just say I'm glad we can agree to agree.
OdiN, I had a hunch you were going to say the 85 1.2! You can get them used for a dang good price (usually sub-$1500). It's quite the lens, but the AF is too slow for sports, which is what I like to shoot the most. Yeah, different people use different glass, I respect that! Nice choice, nonetheless! An online friend of mine uses it a lot and the bokeh is just AMAZING.
Well the MkII version is a lot faster with AF.
And no, I don't actually HAVE that lens. I wish I did. But for now here is what I have:
Canon 17-40 F4/L
Canon 24-105 F/4L IS
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS
Canon 50mm F/1.4
I'll probably pick up the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 for some lower light capability and just to play around with it. I want to see just how much I like it as it's getting rave reviews by other photogs I know.
Also probably will get an 85mm F/1.8. I just can't spend $2000 on a lens right now (after just getting that 70-200
Yum, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
Yeah, I'm in love
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Yeah, although I've heard that the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super is a bit better than the Canon 75-300mm, for basically exactly the same price ( sub $200 ).
But you first have to ask yourself how serious you are about photography. If you plan on making it into a serious hobby, perhaps even a semi-pro or pro one, save and invest in expensive glass now. If you really don't care and just want a snapshot lens, I guess go for the sub-$200 lens.
The best method IMO in either case is to buy used from an established website like KEH or FredMiranda's Buy/Sell board. That way you get it for a sizable discount and can sell it for not too much of a loss if you choose to get rid of it in the future.
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: OdiN
Originally posted by: jamesbond007
Staples, no need to reiterate anything fuzzybabybunny already said because he/she already summed it up along with tfinch2. I'll just say I'm glad we can agree to agree.
OdiN, I had a hunch you were going to say the 85 1.2! You can get them used for a dang good price (usually sub-$1500). It's quite the lens, but the AF is too slow for sports, which is what I like to shoot the most. Yeah, different people use different glass, I respect that! Nice choice, nonetheless! An online friend of mine uses it a lot and the bokeh is just AMAZING.
Well the MkII version is a lot faster with AF.
And no, I don't actually HAVE that lens. I wish I did. But for now here is what I have:
Canon 17-40 F4/L
Canon 24-105 F/4L IS
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L IS
Canon 50mm F/1.4
I'll probably pick up the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 for some lower light capability and just to play around with it. I want to see just how much I like it as it's getting rave reviews by other photogs I know.
Also probably will get an 85mm F/1.8. I just can't spend $2000 on a lens right now (after just getting that 70-200
Yum, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.
Yeah, I'm in love
I recently got two new lenses, but I haven't had a chance to use them much. I've only taken two images with this one:
Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 fisheye with M42 adapter
@ f/2.8 - http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/62536976.wASCbANa.luci.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/62543482.JPZXYat7.sunsetc.jpg
And ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/60912082.P5283515.JPG
http://i.pbase.com/o4/08/648408/1/60912111.P5283518.JPG
After reading the responses to my "DSLRs won't get much better" argument, I have concluded that me and just about everyone sees "improvement" for camera as a different thing.
Here is the one thing that matters to me and just about everyone. Will the cameras advance to where you will get a nicer looking 8mp pictures in 10 years. And the answer is, not by much. The cameras are already limited to the lens for that. There is only so far we can go with optics and we hit that point many years ago. Sure a faster frame buffer, ISO proirity and other features might save you time and maybe you will miss less photographic oportunities but at the end of the day, an 8mp picture taken with a $1000 lens will probably look nearly the same using a DSLR and lens from 10 years in the future.
There is room for convenience to grow, features, speed and just about everything however the sticking point is this, your pictures will not look much better by waiting 10 years to get a DSLR.
Here is the one thing that matters to me and just about everyone. Will the cameras advance to where you will get a nicer looking 8mp pictures in 10 years. And the answer is, not by much. The cameras are already limited to the lens for that. There is only so far we can go with optics and we hit that point many years ago. Sure a faster frame buffer, ISO proirity and other features might save you time and maybe you will miss less photographic oportunities but at the end of the day, an 8mp picture taken with a $1000 lens will probably look nearly the same using a DSLR and lens from 10 years in the future.
There is room for convenience to grow, features, speed and just about everything however the sticking point is this, your pictures will not look much better by waiting 10 years to get a DSLR.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Dynamic range. Can't stress this enough. For a lot of outdoor shooting dynamic range is one of the largest determining factors that decide whether an image looks as real as we see it in real life. A higher dynamic range, close to what our eyes' range is, WILL increase image quality.
The ability to use very high ISOs and thus smaller apertures and greater depth of field without the need for some sort of stabilization agent will more closely mimic what our eyes see, which WILL also increase image quality.
The point is that image quality isn't just about sharpness; it's also about how close the image can get to how we humans percieve things through vision. As of now this is difficult to do without some hardcore post processing. Once we get to that point, THEN I believe we can safely say we've got most of all we need. Once cameras reach that point our eyes become the determining factor.
I shoot a lot of sports with my Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 on my Canon Digital Rebel. I think it's in your price range here:
BHphoto
Some of my sports photos with it:
Football 1
Football 2
Football 3
Football 4
Football 5
Baseball 1
Baseball 2
Baseball 3
Baseball 4
Baseball 5
Basketball 1
Basketball 2
Basketball 3
Basketball 4
That's not a bad photo with the kit lens.
The USM version of the 75-300 would be nice, but it'll cost you at least $100 more won't it? The difference in the two lenses isn't enough for me to pay that much more, but then I always look at it like I'm saving that money to use on something else for the camera.
The USM version of the 75-300 would be nice, but it'll cost you at least $100 more won't it? The difference in the two lenses isn't enough for me to pay that much more, but then I always look at it like I'm saving that money to use on something else for the camera.
- Apr 17, 2005
- 13,465
- 3
- 81
you guys stole my thread
anyway, I was wondering what you guys think about the sony h2? It seems like it has everything I need. I have a sony camera right now and the interface and controls are good and i have a 1 gig memory stick
anyway, I was wondering what you guys think about the sony h2? It seems like it has everything I need. I have a sony camera right now and the interface and controls are good and i have a 1 gig memory stick
jamesbond007
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2000
- 5,280
- 0
- 71
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
you guys stole my thread
anyway, I was wondering what you guys think about the sony h2? It seems like it has everything I need. I have a sony camera right now and the interface and controls are good and i have a 1 gig memory stick
What are you looking to do with the camera? Anything particular like sports? As a basic P&S camera, it would be OK probably.
Personally, I've owned the Sony F828 (DSLR-like, $1000 range) and the noise, CA issues, and bad colors alone have swayed me to never buy another Sony again.
I just ordered a d50 with the kit lens. Can someone point me to a guide that discusses all of the different lens terms?
USM, F1.2, etc. etc.
USM, F1.2, etc. etc.
Neat dictionary.
But under USM, it says unsharpen mask. 95% of the time you hear USM, it is referring to Canon's ultrasonic motor. Canon USM is a fast auto focus motor in some of their lenses.
And fuzzybabybunny, you speak of dynamic range increasing but I understand that with most cameras, RAW images are capible of detecting at least 24bit color (8 bits per channel). Are human eyes really capible of seeing a greater number of colors than that? And keep in mind that your computer monitor probably can't even really display 24bit colors so what you see on your monitor may not reflect the shot to its fullest.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
I would have to say that USM stands for unsharp mask 80%+ of the time. USM is really only a Canon thing. Sigma has their HSM. Nikon has their SWM. All are pretty much the same thing. But nearly everyone across all camera brands use PS, and thus know of Unsharp Mask. But to be fair it depends on context. "I prefer USM over traditional motors." "Apply USM to the image."
Dynamic range has nothing to do with color. You're thinking of Color Gamut instead of dynamic range. Bit depth and dynamic range are also not the same thing.
Take a beach sunset view. Our eyes see the lighter, upper sunset portion as being perfectly exposed, nice and warm, the details of the clouds perfectly outlined. At the same time, we see the darker foreground nicely exposed, with details in the pebbles and the sand preserved excellently. Our ability to see details across this extreme range of brightness levels means our eyes have a very high dynamic range. We can see over a range of about 7-20 f-stops (our dynamic range actually increases as our eyes become adjusted to a scene).
Camera sensors and film do not have the dynamic range that our eyes do. Sensors nowadays are only able to "see" over a range of ~5 f-stops, significantly less than our eyes. (My f-stop numbers may be wrong, but the point is that digital sensors and film have a limited dynamic range compared to our eyes.)
This means that if a sensor were to "look at" the sun in our beach scene, the sun and sky and clouds would be nice and detailed, but the foreground beach would be hopelessly underexposed, with very little detail in the pebbles and sand. Conversely, if the sensor were to "look at" the beach, the pebbles and sand would be nicely detailed but the sky and sun would be hopelessly blown out, retaining very little detail in the clouds.
If you were to expose for the scene as a whole, you'd get a picture that has BOTH blown highlights and underexposed foreground.
If a sensor had the same wide dynamic range that our eyes do, it'd record the scene's light levels exactly like how we perceive it, provided the picture is exposed properly. But sensors don't have this dynamic range, hence the need for soft or hard split nuetral density filters and HDR processing / exposure blending in software using multiple exposures of the same image.
I'm sorry if I seem like I'm singling you out, but your opinions are really a definite result of lack of knowledge in the subject of the technicals of photography.
Because of all of the information here I'll pose another question.
I'm new to photography and just bought a DSLR (aforementioned D50). I've done some searches for some guides/tutorials and seem to be coming up short. Is there a good book/manual that would focus on photogrpahy for beginners that would also cater to a DSLR slant? I need to learn how to take good looking pictures and also how to do that with my camera. I read the manual but still need guidance.
Thanks
I'm new to photography and just bought a DSLR (aforementioned D50). I've done some searches for some guides/tutorials and seem to be coming up short. Is there a good book/manual that would focus on photogrpahy for beginners that would also cater to a DSLR slant? I need to learn how to take good looking pictures and also how to do that with my camera. I read the manual but still need guidance.
Thanks
Both of you ought to take a look at these books: Understanding Exposure and Learning to See Creatively
I've got the Exposure book, and I love it. Have heard good things about the other one, but haven't had the opportunity to look into it too much.
Nate
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter