Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SERIOUSLY impressed with new camera (lots of pics, watch out 56k)
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hello edesignuk, one Q, how is the battery life with your new Canon? Also did you invest in extra batteries for those really nice long sunny days ahead? Congrats. and enjoy 
Edesign, I'm coming after ya! Mmm...I found a combination of deals that met all the things I was looking for, and I'm taking the plunge too...hopefully my Rebel should be here as an early bday present this next week, and a 50mm f/1.4 to go with it in early May.
I know that indoors, low-light candids are going to be among my most common shots, so I figured the 1.4 was worth the money, esp. since I found a gently used one at an excellent price.
I spent some time going through photos that were similar to the kinds of things I want to take, and I found that besides the 50 prime, several photographers who worked professionally on outdoor candids, esp. of children all used either a 70-200 f/4 or a 70-200 f/2.8. Mike or anyone else, any simple explanation of why these two particular tele lenses are so popular for that kind of application? I'm not buying any such thing this year...that'll be next years' tax return, as I just spent this years!
Mmm...I found a combination of deals that met all the things I was looking for, and I'm taking the plunge too...hopefully my Rebel should be here as an early bday present this next week, and a 50mm f/1.4 to go with it in early May. I know that indoors, low-light candids are going to be among my most common shots, so I figured the 1.4 was worth the money, esp. since I found a gently used one at an excellent price.
I spent some time going through photos that were similar to the kinds of things I want to take, and I found that besides the 50 prime, several photographers who worked professionally on outdoor candids, esp. of children all used either a 70-200 f/4 or a 70-200 f/2.8. Mike or anyone else, any simple explanation of why these two particular tele lenses are so popular for that kind of application? I'm not buying any such thing this year...that'll be next years' tax return, as I just spent this years!
I haven't charged the battery since I got it last FridayArtful Dodger said:Hello edesignuk, one Q, how is the battery life with your new Canon? Also did you invest in extra batteries for those really nice long sunny days ahead? Congrats. and enjoy
And I've been using it a fair bit.
mkrishnan said:Edesign, I'm coming after ya!
I know that indoors, low-light candids are going to be among my most common shots, so I figured the 1.4 was worth the money, esp. since I found a gently used one at an excellent price.
I spent some time going through photos that were similar to the kinds of things I want to take, and I found that besides the 50 prime, several photographers who worked professionally on outdoor candids, esp. of children all used either a 70-200 f/4 or a 70-200 f/2.8. Mike or anyone else, any simple explanation of why these two particular tele lenses are so popular for that kind of application? I'm not buying any such thing this year...that'll be next years' tax return, as I just spent this years!
basically the 70-200 are used because 1, they are so sharp (L series lenses are awesome!) 2, because they have a pretty good reach and 3, because they (especially the f4) are a good price
the f4 is a tiny tiny bit sharper than the 2.8 but it is a stop slower, i got the f4 because it is light enough for a walkabout lens and is really sharp and i got it for a great price
in regards to the battery life, ive also found it pretty awesome on my 20D, i think its due to them having low power consumption CMOS sensors in comparison to the CCD
AL-FAMOUS said:
Thanks!
I'm really looking forward to getting mine. Maybe I'll use the kit and/or the prime and try to do some non-people photography for once, too. The f4 also seems to have the advantage of being just within the grip of sanity for non-professionals (from a price perspective).
Is it pretty correct, too, that most users can adapt to taking hand-held pictures at ~200mm or less without really needing IS? I thought I read a number like that thrown out as a guide, somewhere, but I wasn't sure if it was referring to 200mm of lens FL or 200mm of EFL. I guess that's part of what you mean when you say it's light enough to be a walkabout. I know Gary said once that he uses a 100-400 heavily for scenery portraits, but I'm not so into scenery or macros. Maybe having a camera like this will change my mind!
as long as you get your breathing right and its not super dark (requiring a slow shutter speed) then you should be fine hand held at 200mm, well you will be fine - no probs!
the f4 is quite a bit lighter than the 2.8s yea - i would only get the 2.8 if i was doing lots of indoor sports personally, although if i was doing portraits a lot i might think about the 17-40L which is a nice lens apparently (dont have one) but that is probably next on my list after a grip and a 1.4x extender
the f4 is quite a bit lighter than the 2.8s yea - i would only get the 2.8 if i was doing lots of indoor sports personally, although if i was doing portraits a lot i might think about the 17-40L which is a nice lens apparently (dont have one) but that is probably next on my list after a grip and a 1.4x extender
BTW, to the other newbs like me in the thread, somebody at FM recommended a great trick for us to learn what a different lens is good for, in addition to getting peoples' advice, that I wanted to share and also geekify suitably.
There's a website called pbase.com, which is like flickr or photobucket, except, being designed for amateur (?) photographers, it keeps exif data on pictures and displays the exif together with the picture. Well, maybe hand-entered, as I don't have an account there, because people have lens brands listed frequently.
Anyway, if someone gives you a lens recommendation, one easy way to find a lot of pictures that use that lens is to google:
sigma 50mm 2.8 ef sitebase.com (See this in particular!)
70-200mm ef 2.4 sitebase.com
50mm ef f/1.4 sitebase.com
Just wanted to share. The "ef" will mostly limit it to Canon hits. Its interesting to see what other photographers use gear for. I'm not ready to buy anything else, and I might even sell my kit lens to make my purchase less scary, but it seems to be a good way to know what kinds of shots can come out well given what you have too.
EDIT: You can also go here (Canon) or here (Nikon), scroll through, and find a lens you're interested in or have, and get random pictures sampled from all submitted pictures that use that setup, although I think if you pick a lens, the camera is no longer fixed (so you could get that 50mm Sigma on a 300D, a 350D, a 10D, etc).
There's a website called pbase.com, which is like flickr or photobucket, except, being designed for amateur (?) photographers, it keeps exif data on pictures and displays the exif together with the picture. Well, maybe hand-entered, as I don't have an account there, because people have lens brands listed frequently.
Anyway, if someone gives you a lens recommendation, one easy way to find a lot of pictures that use that lens is to google:
sigma 50mm 2.8 ef site
base.com (See this in particular!)70-200mm ef 2.4 site
base.com50mm ef f/1.4 site
base.comJust wanted to share.
The "ef" will mostly limit it to Canon hits. Its interesting to see what other photographers use gear for. I'm not ready to buy anything else, and I might even sell my kit lens to make my purchase less scary, but it seems to be a good way to know what kinds of shots can come out well given what you have too. EDIT: You can also go here (Canon) or here (Nikon), scroll through, and find a lens you're interested in or have, and get random pictures sampled from all submitted pictures that use that setup, although I think if you pick a lens, the camera is no longer fixed (so you could get that 50mm Sigma on a 300D, a 350D, a 10D, etc).
AL-FAMOUS said:
From what I understand, its a lot more than that. One of the advantages of an SLR is that the use of the viewfinder replaces the need for using the LCD screen all the time, which is one of the biggest juice-suckers on the entire thing. I've gotten 1100 shots off before needing a recharge, and I don't think the 350D would be much less.
mkrishnan said:
The 70-200s are very excellent examples of great optics. They're very sharp (some argue the 70-200 2.8 is the sharpest zoom lens Canon offers) and extremely fast focusing, which is a must for sports or little kids. The range on a 1.6x camera (such as the 20d or the 350d) is ideal for the same applications.
I rented a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) one weekend and tried my hand at sports photography, and I instantly fell in love with the lens - probably a combination of its amazing color, split-hair sharpness, and .. well, I could go on. This is a great set of lenses. Some people claim the f/4 have front-focusing problems, but I haven't seen this - it just feels like the 2.8 went on some serious Jenny Craig dieting.
http://mexbox.mit.edu/pieces/show.php?type=photos&place=novsports&num=21
mkrishnan said:Anyway, if someone gives you a lens recommendation, one easy way to find a lot of pictures that use that lens is to google:
sigma 50mm 2.8 ef site
70-200mm ef 2.4 site
50mm ef f/1.4 site
PBase will just give you images taken with the particular lenses, and may not tell you much about the lens itself. Another place to check is Fred Miranda's site: http://www.fredmiranda.com. People leave reviews about lenses that I find very helpful. One of the problems with these reviews, however, is that most people are much much more picky than many of us amateur photographers. It seems everyone wants L quality in non-L prices...good optics are expensive to produce.
MacManDan said:
Yes, Fred Miranda's site is actually what pushed me to go for a 1.4 instead of a 1.8, and where there seemed to be many positive things said about the 70-200s...I guess the whole weight thing is a really big deal too. I hadn't really thought about how the faster lens will be bigger around and weigh more. In regards to what you say about pickiness, I guess it's a good sign for those few lenses, like the prime 50s, where all the pros say they're amazing lenses, even though they're at very amateur prices and in non-pro lines.
Anyway, I can't wait to get my bad boy!
I think I will try to do some photo shooting of places I like in Jacksonville, one of the next couple of times I go to visit my parents. I haven't seen that many good photos of the places I like there, on the web, and I could use the practice.
I'm also fairly new to Photography. This forum has been very helpful...
Great shots for the first time out! I'm amazed with the detail, I'm using film Rebel T2 and that's my biggest problem right now. Image Qualiity.
I've had some pretty good shots, but have been having a lot of noisey pictures, especially in lower light, or when I use higher aperatures. I've had some descent prints so far, but most, I'm not real happy with the quality.
I've been using mainly 400 film, but last few rolls have been 200. Haven't got those developed yet, hope it's better.
I'm just a high school student, and am going to be taking photography in College next year, that's why I'm going film.
Question about lenses... I currently have the kit lens: 28-90 Canon II. I'd like to get a wide angle for doing scenery's, portraits, etc. Any recommendations? I should also add a telephoto, advice there? What's the difference between a more expensive lens and a cheaper lens with the same general focal length (such as 28-90).
This is all a learning experience. With each new roll I try something different and learn good and bad.
One more thing, I'm curious about the 50mm 1.4. If there's no zoom, I'm having a hard time picturing how you are going to use it.
Thanks for any more help in showing me the way.
Great shots for the first time out! I'm amazed with the detail, I'm using film Rebel T2 and that's my biggest problem right now. Image Qualiity.
I've had some pretty good shots, but have been having a lot of noisey pictures, especially in lower light, or when I use higher aperatures. I've had some descent prints so far, but most, I'm not real happy with the quality.
I've been using mainly 400 film, but last few rolls have been 200. Haven't got those developed yet, hope it's better.
I'm just a high school student, and am going to be taking photography in College next year, that's why I'm going film.
Question about lenses... I currently have the kit lens: 28-90 Canon II. I'd like to get a wide angle for doing scenery's, portraits, etc. Any recommendations? I should also add a telephoto, advice there? What's the difference between a more expensive lens and a cheaper lens with the same general focal length (such as 28-90).
This is all a learning experience. With each new roll I try something different and learn good and bad.
One more thing, I'm curious about the 50mm 1.4. If there's no zoom, I'm having a hard time picturing how you are going to use it.
Thanks for any more help in showing me the way.
crazydreaming said:
I haven't used the 1.4 prime yet, but I've taken tons of photos with a 50mm f/1.8 on a film camera. Hmmm...how to explain. It isn't good for certain things. If you're standing outside, taking candids of people, and you don't want to be up in their grill, it isn't going to work. If you're taking photos of landscapes, when mobility is at a premium -- for instance, iGary's threads of pictures in mountainous places -- then you need a zoom too, simply because you cannot count on positioning yourself where you will need to be to capture just what you want, and you may have to crop out so much of the picture to compensate for the zoom, that you are not left with enough resolution (think about, if you crop 50% in both directions on a 6 MP picture, you're only left with 1.5 MP!
).However, if you can position yourself, then its a different matter, and you can reap all kinds of benefits from such a lens that you cannot get as easily from zooms. For instance, the depth of field benefit. Not only will the small f values get you excellent background defocusing for portraits, but indoors, they will let you collect a lot of light. Assuming you can get the focal plane right, then this means that you will be able to use shorter shutter times for a given situation, and so blurring will be less of an issue. Or you can use lower ISO (if you can get yourself down to ISO 100ish, you will very rarely have noise problems), so that noise will be less of an issue.
But I'm stupid...when I last was playing with my film cam and 50mm f/1.8, I always wished I had a zoom. Now that I have a zoom (albeit a point and shoot), I realize how much better my pictures were without it.
i see you went for the rebel eduk, nice shots! mine arrived on friday, and of course we've had torrential rain all weekend so i haven't been able to do much shooting... all the tips in this thread have been helpful for me too - i know i have a long learning curve ahead of me
Thanks for the info. on the battery life as this camera will be on my would like to have list Again nice pics...
Again nice pics...
crazydreaming said:
400 can be pretty grainy (noisy)--- also film stock is important
i've found 400 fuji is far less grainy then kodak 400 -- fuji film holds it's own well into the 800 (haven't tried higher)
try to shoot at 100 or 150 if you can, mind you that means shooting in great lighting conditions or a super wide (at least f2.8) lens
you can even get 50 slide film and this will significantly reduce your noise and then have it scanned to a CD -- my lab offers 7.5 megapixel scanning and it looks great <-- or pick up a slide scanner
as far as lenses are concerned ... i recommend you don't get anything that doesn't have at least an f2.8 --- you are going to be paying a lot more for these lenses but it is well worth if you are shooting in low light without flash. you can get away with sigma EX series lenses if you don't have the money for NIKON PRO or CANON L ... don't go for the consumer level sigma's, nikon's or canon's , they are not bad for 4 x 6 and 5 x 7 but they start to fall apart when you blow up 8 x 10 and beyond --- or in situations where you are cropping a lot.
prime lenses are considered to be better then zoom lenses --- this is not AS true anymore since lens manufacturing as drastically improved over the years.
a good kit if you are on budget but still looking for quality is i recommend
14mm sigma EX f2.8
35mm sigma EX f2.8
50mm Any brand f1.4 or 1.8
105mm sigma EX 2.8
70 - 200 mm sigma EX 2.8
2x telecoverter -- this will make you loose 2 f stops making your f2.8 become f5.6 -- but you really wouldn't need to use it unless you were outiside, and there is usually enough light to use f5.6 and ISO 400 film even on cloudy days
if you have the money substitute with the nikon pro or canon L equivalent, although i can speak for the 105mm sigma versus nikon and they are almost indistinguishable --- only computer tests have shown differences
as far as using a prime over a zoom? like the 50 mm f1.4? -- just walk up closer or move further away ...
one more thing ... you don't want to use a wide angle lens for portraits ... a medium telephoto is recommended because a wide angle used up close causes unflattering distortions -- it can make it a cool effect, and is great if you are doing journalist work since you can also get the background most of the time in those shots ... but you don't want to do that with portraiture work.
revenuee said:
Do you mean those fisheye portraits, like the one below (borrowed with apologies from somewhere Google Images found!), which look like the reflection from a curved mirror?
revenuee said:
You mean use 100 or 150 ISO film right? Or are you saying to bump the ISO down, even with say 200 film? I don't think that's what you meant, I've done that, not good results, but just checking. I haven't seen 100 or 150 around a whole lot.
I was thinking Slide Film. I understand this is what most magazines require for work. Slide film is more expensive, but it must be worth it. Where do you get you slides scanned to CD? I've been trying to find a solution for making my photos digital (Other than shooting digital, someday..), only thing I came up with was buying my own scanner... That will come later. (No $).
Anyways, thanks for all your help, I'll add those lenses to my shopping list. Only question about the lenses is there's no zoom lens from the 28-90 range, or did you make that list already including my kit lens?
Is my kit lens a decent lens? Or pretty crappy... Not sure on the exact specs.
Thanks! I'm going back to my shooting. I'm in Ft. Myers Florida. I've been getting some awesome shots.
crazydreaming said:
revenuee may have a different opinion, but my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II has been a great lens for the money in the range you are looking for. It's a little slow on the long end (f/4.5) but it's a real steal at ~$200. Stopped down to f/8 it's surprisingly sharp and has great color. Sure it's no L ... but for students on a budget like us, bang for the buck is pretty important.
I haven't been a fan of Canon's kit lenses personally - every one I've seen has been a real downer in terms of image and build quality.
crazydreaming said:
To address this it would be helpful to see samples. And to know more about your workflow with film.
The 400 ISO maybe be part of the issue with the above.
Don't count out digital. Depending on the school, digital may be the primary focus (no pun intended). Our community college has eliminated the wet color darkroom from what I understand. Color is now digital.
I would caution here on buying lenses. A better wide angle lenses that works on film, will for the most part give you a 28mm starting point in digital. For the types of shooting you are doing the that range is great.
In any case you should buy the best lenses available. Here again a budget from you would help in comments as to what to look at.
You will have an awakening with college photography then. Most classes in photography should be taught in such a way that you are using just one focal length. Instead of zooming by a twist of the lenses, you move your feet.
crazydreaming said:You mean use 100 or 150 ISO film right? Or are you saying to bump the ISO down, even with say 200 film? I don't think that's what you meant, I've done that, not good results, but just checking. I haven't seen 100 or 150 around a whole lot.
I was thinking Slide Film. I understand this is what most magazines require for work. Slide film is more expensive, but it must be worth it. Where do you get you slides scanned to CD? I've been trying to find a solution for making my photos digital (Other than shooting digital, someday..), only thing I came up with was buying my own scanner... That will come later. (No $).
Anyways, thanks for all your help, I'll add those lenses to my shopping list. Only question about the lenses is there's no zoom lens from the 28-90 range, or did you make that list already including my kit lens?
Is my kit lens a decent lens? Or pretty crappy... Not sure on the exact specs.
Thanks! I'm going back to my shooting. I'm in Ft. Myers Florida. I've been getting some awesome shots.
kit lenses are never the best ... thats why they are part of the kit ... it's not a bad lens but it is a little dark f4 - 5.6 if i'm not mistaken -- i would trade the kit lens toward better glass
i know you are tempted to get a zoom because it is convenient ... and lighter ... but prime lenses are usually better ... if you really want a zoom
pick up a 24 - 70mm or 28 - 70 mm f2.8 from any of those three manufacturers ... but zooms are not necessary --
yes i meant shooting with 100 or 150 ISO film ... you are right you can't pull it down, some pro labs will push process 100 iso at 400 if you want though ... but it has to be a pro lab
i scan my slide film at work in the lab (i work at a photo lab/retailer). and yes slide is better then film because film only captures two levels of contrast while slides capture 5 (your eye does 12) - it is more expensive ... and can be more difficult to work with
if you don't want to use slide ... use kodak portra or fuji velvia (i prefer fuji) they cost more then regular film, and have much shorter shelf lives so you can't let it sit around in your camera.
macmandan-- believe me i can understand budget
i'm 20 years old, trying to get through school -- but you are better off taking the time to build up a good lens set --
the other thing is stepping up to f8 is fine if you are shooting landscape on a tripod -- but remember -- you need a shutter speed of 1/60 to handhold without having to worry about shakey hands causing vibraration ... if you don't have enough light to shoot f8 -- you might need to use a tripod at 1/15 of second and such -- unless you buy VR or IS lenses which stabalize for that .... but you are still not going to be able to freeze the action
revenuee said:
Kit lenses can be very good, as long as you have no need for speed of less DOF. Don't sell some of them short (the Nikon 18-70AFS and Canon 17-85IS EF-S lenses are very good according to many pro and non-pro users).
The problem with 2.8 zooms is their cost, size, and weight. It is a matter of trade offs. Unfortunately one size does not fit all sues at this point.
I agree that primes are great option. It also forces the photographer to look at their subject in different ways.