Camera suggestions Photo
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- benfal990
iam using a Tamron 70-300mm
a Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6
and the stock Canon 18-55mmI find my pictures to be noisy and blurry when zoomed at 100% ... i feel i could get crispier and less noise with better equipement
- benfal990
my Sigma 10-20mm is nice tho.
- benfal990
one of my picture i took with my 60D and Sigma 10-20mm
- nb0
The Sigma 10-20mm is a good super wide zoom for the price. The Canon 14mm 2.8 would be MUCH better, but it's also much more expensive. If you like shooting at the 10-14mm range, the Sigma is a good value.
You should replace that 18-55 kit lens, though. One of the worst lenses Canon makes. If you upgrade to a 2.8 zoom, you can shoot at lower ISOs (when DOF permits) plus the glass is so much better that you'll even be able to see the difference in the VF. The photos will be better, for sure.
I don't know anything about that Tamron. Long zooms aren't my thing.
- nb0
I use Nikon.... I found that buying a 50mm f1.8 and a 35mm f2 were fine enough to get the photos I wanted, instead of a typical zoom. Very rarely would I be saying, "Oh, I wish I had a 24 (or 85)"
Of course the photos were much sharper and the extra f-stops are a benefit.
Later I added a 24mm f2.8 and an 85mm f1.8 and I think overall I'm much happier than if I had bought the 24-70mm 2.8. Saved a bit of money, too.
- vaxorcist0
I'd get a 50mm 1.8, learn to love primes and zoom with your feet
https://www.flickr.com/groups/99…You can shoot at a lower ISO with the 1.8 than you can at F3.5-5.6 and you will have much more creative control over depth of field, but less control (none) over zooming....
Prime lenses are very rewarding as long as you don't photograph things like corporate events, where you are restricted in your movements, where you can stand,etc..
- the Canon 50mm 1.8 is called the "plastic fantastic lover", it's plastic, but optics are goodvaxorcist
- i'll vouch for that cheap 50 1.8johnny_wobble
- nb0
^ You can't zoom with your feet. Moving closer or further from your subject produces a different effect than zooming. Camera distance and focal length should be thought of independently.
But, vaxoricst is correct in saying that prime lenses are very rewarding. You'll learn so much more about depth, dimension and composing.
- benfal990
only 120$ :D
- i got a used one for $75johnny_wobble
- did the used lens wobble?vaxorcist
- i think i paid $60 for minesomg
- only wobbles after drinkingjohnny_wobble
- shit lens thocolin_s
- benfal990
when you say prime lense, you're talking about the one with a red ring, right?
- prime means no zoom, in other words fixed focal lengthjohnny_wobble
- red ring means an L lensjohnny_wobble
- benfal990
and whats the PROS of getting prime lenses again?
- they're usually fast. like 1.4 or 1.8
so good for low light and beautiful bokehjohnny_wobble - sharper. less parts/glass moving aroundaliastime
- good points!benfal99
- they're usually fast. like 1.4 or 1.8
- nb0
Primes (fixed) are:
- sharper
- more f-stops available (aka faster or brighter)
- smaller, lighterThe only downside is that you need to take a moment to switch lenses when you want a different focal length. However, if you are learning, this tends to be a huge benefit. If you need to take a moment to switch the lens, you'll naturally spend a moment thinking about why you're switching. It helps.
- benfal990
and there's always post-prod to crop the pictures
- formed0
Not sure I completely agree about primes. I love my 50 1.4 and drool over a 85 1.4 (I rent that one), but I would never rely on those as primary lenses, just too limiting.
I use a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 as my primary lens, some of my friends use 70-200 2.8. The only people I know that rely on primes are fashion photogs that know their studio setup well in advance.
(not trying to downplay how great some are, just that it is a really experienced/specific person that shoots only primes)
Not sure about the sharpness, I've never had any problems with my Nikkor 24-70 or my Tamron 28-74 2.8 before that. Not any noticeable difference imho.
My advice: buy a versatile lens and when you know/understand more, then buy the primes you know you want. Just too limiting otherwise. Its about capturing the photo more than the lens, don't limit yourself from the get go.
As for 'better in low light', they are 'faster', but that also means your depth of field changes, which can be good or bad, but it changes the photo (not just letting more light in). Again, aim for flexibility as you learn, once you know what you want, then go specific.
- good points too! now iam all mixed up and i dont know who iam anymore! :Pbenfal99
- vaxorcist0
true.... but if it's bang for the buck, a $120 prime competes with a $1200 F2.8 zoom for images quality, though of course the prime is very, very limited.
Yes, primes are good if you control the situation, whereas if the situation controls you (like a wedding or photojournalism, or event) then you should of course keep a zoom or two in the bag.
ALSO note that sharpness depends less on lens than you think... most lenses are pretty sharp if carefully focussed at F8 or F7.1 and 100 ISO and a tripod, but that's not too convenient for many people in some situations....
learning how to use bounce flash or diffused flash is a great thing, as careful use of flash can light things so they don't look like flash, and your flash tends to contribute to "apparent sharpness", as the flash duration is 1/500th or higher usually, and things like hair or eyebrows can look really sharp with strobe, even if it's bounced or diffused....
But, in general, for "run-and-gun" photography, the $$$ 24-70/24-105 L zooms can give you nice results with less careful technique than what you may have to do to get great image sharpness out of a cheaper zoom that's F4-5.6 like that long tamron zoom.
- vaxorcist0
The technical side is a "common denominator" that may be a shared set of skills and understandings of the physics of light, whereas the visual/art side of photography is really up to you, and subjective...
After you've tested systematically and learned a fair bit of technique, you stop having to think about it and you almost instinctively know what to do with your camera settings/lens choice/etc in order to get a certain look in a certain situation....
I teach advanced digital photography at a local arts center, and I encourage my students to practice photography like a cello player might practice the cello, i.e. some excercises are more like "playing scales" than "creating art" and that's fine.... when you've practiced a lot, you can "play" more effortlessly....
- formed0
it is really not that technical. It may seem technical and tedious, but once you grasp that exposure triangle thingy, you'll be set.
As always, a great photographer can take a masterpiece with an iPhone or a $50k camera. The camera makes such a small difference at the end of the day.
That said, the more you know the more you appreciate the nuances and quality that better gear gets you.
Also, it's a geeky hobby with lots of fun/cool/trivial but still fun/cool things coming out each day. Spend more time studying great photographers, composition, post/retouching, less time worrying about the gear.
- benfal990
with a budget of 2,500$ what equipment would you buy? a body and lenses
- vaxorcist0
depends on what you want....
Fashion?
Old Canon 5D mark 1, 85mm F1.8, 50mm, F1.8, 28mm F2.8, possibly 70-200 F4 L lens, and a bunch of used Speedotron blackline or Calumet strobes + a beauty dish, light stands, clamps, reflectors, scrims, soft boxes, x-rite color card,etc...
Crazy idea, spend less on camera and more on lighting:
... maybe an Elinchrom Octobank, elinchrom strobe, Canon 5D mark 1, 2 lenses, stands, reflectors.. yes, you're spending half the $$ on that octobank, but oh, the light....etc.... could be all sorts of things...
- colin_s0
for 2500 you could probably get the 16-35 L as well as a cheap-ish 50mm prime (both canon). although cheap primes are useless (that 1.8 50mm is a plastic joke, mine never could handle autofocus), you could probably get a used but solid L series for the rest of your cash - the 1.4 or 1.2 50mm are both pretty solid, or you could step up to the 85 ... however that's mostly a portraiture lens.
from what i see in your portfolio, you do a lot of general shooting that may not merit the 16-35's super-wide angle and may want to try and get that used for cheaper and throw down harder on a good 50 prime. but this really comes down to what you're looking to do with the camera; i rarely find occasion for anything longer than 70mm, but that's mostly because i do a lot of street / journalism stuff.
don't waste money on a digital body; they decrease in value and since the 5d mark2, have hardly increased in performance or image quality (for the cost). lenses are an investment, because a decent one will still get you close to asking price down the line as well.