dSLR thread

[Tannin]

^ Listen to Lunar.

I've never used a 17-55 IS but I know enough about it to be very cnfident that it is simply the best general-purpose lens available for 1.6 crop. (My GP "lens" is arguably even better, but that's because I use two with two bodies: 20D & EF-S 10-22, 50D & EF 24-105/4. I came to really appreciate the extra long end the 24-105 gave me on the 1.6; equivalent to 38-168 on FF. Well, three really - lately, I seldom use the long end of the 24-105, as I tend to gravitate to 1D III & 100-400 any time I have a half a chance.)

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks guys. That looks like an interesting lens, though I'm trying to keep the door open for my next body (likely the 5DIII). The lens' length is fine for me, I just want something faster with a smaller DOF.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks guys. That looks like an interesting lens, though I'm trying to keep the door open for my next body (likely the 5DIII). The lens' length is fine for me, I just want something faster with a smaller DOF.

 

[Tannin]

OK. I'll bite. Why do you want a faster wide lens? My theory is that when you get down to this sort of focal length (under 25mm, let's say) you have so much DOF even at F/2.8 that you might as well admit that you are never going to blur anything out and just shoot at f/8 for everything. Hell, the aperture rings on my two ultra-wides are rusted stuck on f/8.

Well, OK, I lied. They don't have aperture rings, nor are they rusty. But if they did and they were, they would be.

 

[ddrueding]

Two reasons. First, night event photography without flash. Second, I was actually hoping for a narrower DOF. If thee anything out there that would do it at 20mm?

 

[LunarMist]

What is a night event and why would you want a semi-wide for the that with reduced DOF? Of course there are some fast lenss like 24/1.4G, which are usable on DX, but they are better suited to FX/FF. Typically the fast aperture is used for low light, not reducing DOF.

It all seems rather odd. I think you should start from what you are trying to accomplish in a general way. Perhaps something has gone awry in your interpretation of the path towards the result.

 

[Handruin]

17mm Tilt shift? it's not as fast as you want, but it'll give you narrow DOF at a wider angle.

 

[Tannin]

^ And be horriibly difficult to use (not so bad on full frame though) Want to buy my 24mm TS-E?

 

[LunarMist]

17mm Tilt shift[/URL]? it's not as fast as you want, but it'll give you narrow DOF at a wider angle.

Uh, no. The 17/4 TSE has plenty of depth of field at normal distances. I have one around somewhere.

 

[LunarMist]

^ And be horriibly difficult to use (not so bad on full frame though) Want to buy my 24mm TS-E?

Is it the old one or the 24 TSE II?

 

[Tannin]

The old one, Lunar.

The difficulty has very little to do with the lens, though. It's the crappy focusing aids modern viewfinders have, coupled with the light loss you get with a crop camera.

I just can't see well enough to focus it correctly, except perhaps with the 1D III. I should imagine that it would be just fine on full frame, especially with a proper focus screen.

But in the end, it turned out that the things I wanted to do with it were actually better done with an orthodox lens - there really isn't anything I need the 24TS-E for - so it just sits in its box doing nothing. I reckon I've used it about 4 times.

 

[LunarMist]

The new 24 TSE II is so much better. It is optically the best 24mm, being very sharp and not having the strong CA of the old lens. It also has independent tilt and shift movements and a very large 68mm circle of coverge.

Typically I use such lenses from f/8-11 so the focusing accuracy is not critical. I only use 1Ds series bodies though and they do have good viewfinders. On the EF-S bodes the TS-E lenses are not so useful and the larger knobs on the new lenses cannot be used.

 

[Sol]

If you really want shallow DOF with a wide lens then maybe what you need to look at is the minimum focus distance... I have a Tokina 11-16 2.8 which can produce some great bokeh because it can focus inside of 30cm.

Of course that may well not actually help you take the photos you want...

 

[ddrueding]

I was doing photography of an event at night. Close quarters, very poor lighting, no flash. Not candid per se, but not posed either. The people in the background were out of my control and quite possibly not in a flattering pose. Fast is important due to the poor lighting, but I would love to have a shallow enough DOF to blur out people 15-20 feet behind my subject who is 3-5 feet away. Beautiful Bokeh is less important than just taking the focus away from them.

 

[LunarMist]

You need to buy a good flash and flash bracket and then learn to use light modifiers.

 

[Stereodude]

Nah, he's just going to wait for a camera that shoots perfect noise free images at ISO 25600. :rofl:

 

[ddrueding]

You need to buy a good flash and flash bracket and then learn to use light modifiers.

Not an option. Event organizers specified no flash.

Nah, he's just going to wait for a camera that shoots perfect noise free images at ISO 25600. :rofl:

Nope. I'll buy what I can to do what I can. I doubt that will stop at 25600

 

[LunarMist]

Not an option. Event organizers specified no flash.



Nope. I'll buy what I can to do what I can. I doubt that will stop at 25600

It sounds suspicious. Is there an authorized photographer and you are just tagging along? Your best bet in general is to use fast primes and an FX camera with good high ISO characterstics. Look at Nikon.

 

[ddrueding]

I was the only authorized photographer, as I knew many of the attendees socially. Depending on who is there, how much it costs, and what it is about, it can become sensitive. That would be another benefit of a shallow DOF; some people are not to be photographed.

 

[ddrueding]

Your best bet in general is to use fast primes and an FX camera with good high ISO characterstics. Look at Nikon.

Yeah, I was trying my 35/2, but that was too long when the place got crowded and I had to get closer to my subjects. That is when I switched to the 17-40/4.

Considering all this camera gear is paid for out of pocket, I don't see myself leaving Canon (and all my existing gear) any time soon.

 

[LunarMist]

Bleh. That is a messed up situation. How often are you forced into that activity? I would not waste money on that in particular, but the 17-55 IS is still a fine general purpose lens for the EF-S body.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks Lunar. I put on the monkey suit and do that probably once a month.

I'll probably get that lens, once I offload the 17-40/4.

 

[paugie]

Canon DSLR thread.
I realize I have to look up the abbreviations to find out what you mean. ;-)

Very glad to see Tony again.

 

[ddrueding]

Yeah Paugie, I often have to Google to find out which lens people are referring to. If you use Firefox, you can just double-click to highlight the word, then right-click and choose "Search Google for "xxx"". Works great

 

[sdbardwick]

If you use Firefox, you can just double-click to highlight the word, then right-click and choose "Search Google for "xxx"". Works great

Same for IE9 and Chrome. [/pedant mode]

 

[paugie]

That's a wonderful trick, David. Will practice doing it. I use Chrome nowadays.
I still have to get used to the download interface on it (having to look to the bottom of the page). Many times I download something and forget to look at the bottom of the Chrome window. Sometimes I download it again and become surprised to have a copy or two already.

 

[LunarMist]

Yeah Paugie, I often have to Google to find out which lens people are referring to. If you use Firefox, you can just double-click to highlight the word, then right-click and choose "Search Google for "xxx"". Works great

I don't understand what you mean, maybe EF-S?

 

[ddrueding]

I don't understand what you mean, maybe EF-S?

A lot of the time we won't spell out the complete name of a lens. When you do it (most recently "24 TSE II" and "24/1.4G"), I often have to hit the Google to know exactly what lens you are talking about, what bodies it is compatible with, and how much it costs.

 

[LunarMist]

I bet you never used a SBLOO much less a PLOOT.

 

[ddrueding]

Yeah...no.

 

[ddrueding]

Nice astrophotography project.

 

[ddrueding]

I've decided I want a Gigapan Epic Pro for my birthday, if I can convince my wife to splash out on it...

Lunar, you have one, right? How do you like it? Have you tried it with any really long lenses?

 

[LunarMist]

I've decided I want a Gigapan Epic Pro for my birthday, if I can convince my wife to splash out on it...

Lunar, you have one, right? How do you like it? Have you tried it with any really long lenses?

No I don't like it. $900 down the toilet and not one shot taken.

 

[ddrueding]

I'd love to take it off your hands for only a small discount. Your privacy preferences may require a dead drop and cash, no?

 

[ddrueding]

I like looking at gear lists for pros.

Paul Nicklen recently did a TED presentation, and here is his list.

 

[Will Rickards]

My birthday is coming up so I'm looking at lenses for my Nikon D40.
There are two I'm considering:
35mm f/1.8 AFS @ $280
And the newer to be released in June
50mm f/1.8 AFS @ $220

The 35mm is a DX format only so if I was to actually get the mega expensive nikon body I want, it would be not so useful. But a 50mm prime on a DX sensor is probably like 80mm. And that is probably problematic in terms of distance for the low light indoor shots. I'm looking for something for those shots and a sharper portrait type lens. So I'm leaning towards the 35mm.

My other lenses are the
18-55mm kit lens and the 70-300mm zoom lens.
Both only open to 4.5.

So let me know what you think or if I should be considering another lens.

 

[Sol]

In that price range, for that purpose, those would be the 2 I'd look at... Or they would have been had I known about the AFS 50mm. My sister has my old D40x and really needs one of those 2 lenses, or something similar.

 

[Stereodude]

35mm f/1.8 AFS @ $280

This lens was $200 everywhere before the earthquake in Japan. Nikon has not raised the MSRP. I think you can still get it for $200 at Best Buy. Pretty slimy of all the resellers to raise their prices. :tdown:

 

[LunarMist]

My birthday is coming up so I'm looking at lenses for my Nikon D40.
There are two I'm considering:
35mm f/1.8 AFS @ $280
And the newer to be released in June
50mm f/1.8 AFS @ $220

The 35mm is a DX format only so if I was to actually get the mega expensive nikon body I want, it would be not so useful. But a 50mm prime on a DX sensor is probably like 80mm. And that is probably problematic in terms of distance for the low light indoor shots. I'm looking for something for those shots and a sharper portrait type lens. So I'm leaning towards the 35mm.

My other lenses are the
18-55mm kit lens and the 70-300mm zoom lens.
Both only open to 4.5.

So let me know what you think or if I should be considering another lens.

Or you could buy a newer body with less noise at higher ISOs. There are tons of older inexpensive lenses that work on the better bodies. Lack of the AF motor is just awful.

 

[Will Rickards]

What nikon body are you talking about? I'd consider it but I only have about $400 maybe. I really want the D3 or D3S for their high iso performance but they are thousands of dollars even used.