1
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 or canon 85 1.8
« on: December 21, 2012, 09:06:23 PM »
I think 50 is too long on a crop for general use.
I got the Sigma 30 f1.4 and love it on my t2i!
I got the Sigma 30 f1.4 and love it on my t2i!
May 21, 2013, 06:08:06 PM
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom
« on: August 23, 2012, 11:06:26 AM »
I converted to 35mm equivalent (actually exposureplot software does).
38mm on an EF-S is 24 equivalent, and 88mm on an EF-S is 55 equivalent.
What I was pointing out is that 50% of my shots were between 15-24mm on the 15-18 EF-S and therefore the 24-105 would not of fit the bill.
And then another 27% were 15-17mm on the 15-85 EF-S..
38mm on an EF-S is 24 equivalent, and 88mm on an EF-S is 55 equivalent.
What I was pointing out is that 50% of my shots were between 15-24mm on the 15-18 EF-S and therefore the 24-105 would not of fit the bill.
And then another 27% were 15-17mm on the 15-85 EF-S..
3
Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom
« on: August 23, 2012, 09:27:04 AM »
I just came back from a trip to Epcot with my family. I brought a Canon t2i, 15-85, and a 55-250 (this is the best travel telephoto! Its very light, good range, and pretty sharp)
However I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! My 55-250 was put on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it.
It really depends on how you like to shoot. I took about 500 shots in 1 day
I did an analysis of my ranges with Exposureplot (very good software to determine how you really shoot)
- 50% of my shots were below 38mm. That means that on a crop the 24-105 would not be useful since its really (38.4-168). I would definitely need a 10-22 but then I would of had to keep switching lenses!
- 26% of my shots were below 27mm and 15% above 88mm. That means I would of lost those 41% if I brought only 17-55. Or would of had to bring 3 lenses to compensate. (10-22, 17-55, 70+)
The only challenge was indoor shooting and night time! Looking back I think maybe 15% of my shots were low light. So if that is more of a priority for you then maybe you have to look at other options.
The indoor ride pictures were at f3.5 and still hitting 3200 ISO and were not that great.. so f2.8 would likely not help. Only a prime might be better but then indoors you have limited choice of movement and distance.
The restaurant and other general indoor pictures would of likely been better with a f2.8 but I am not sure by how much and would it really of made that much of a difference for me considering its a small percentage.
Like I said.. it really depends on your priorities and how many lenses do you want to carry !!
If I knew that I was going on a trip primarily to a museum or lots of indoors then I would take a 17-50 f2.8.
However for general site seeing with minimal weight and lens changes you cannot beat 15-85!
However I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! My 55-250 was put on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it.
It really depends on how you like to shoot. I took about 500 shots in 1 day
I did an analysis of my ranges with Exposureplot (very good software to determine how you really shoot)
- 50% of my shots were below 38mm. That means that on a crop the 24-105 would not be useful since its really (38.4-168). I would definitely need a 10-22 but then I would of had to keep switching lenses!
- 26% of my shots were below 27mm and 15% above 88mm. That means I would of lost those 41% if I brought only 17-55. Or would of had to bring 3 lenses to compensate. (10-22, 17-55, 70+)
The only challenge was indoor shooting and night time! Looking back I think maybe 15% of my shots were low light. So if that is more of a priority for you then maybe you have to look at other options.
The indoor ride pictures were at f3.5 and still hitting 3200 ISO and were not that great.. so f2.8 would likely not help. Only a prime might be better but then indoors you have limited choice of movement and distance.
The restaurant and other general indoor pictures would of likely been better with a f2.8 but I am not sure by how much and would it really of made that much of a difference for me considering its a small percentage.
Like I said.. it really depends on your priorities and how many lenses do you want to carry !!
If I knew that I was going on a trip primarily to a museum or lots of indoors then I would take a 17-50 f2.8.
However for general site seeing with minimal weight and lens changes you cannot beat 15-85!
4
Lenses / Re: Low Light options
« on: August 23, 2012, 09:01:50 AM »
Thanks for all the replies!
I just came back from a trip to Epcot and realize that a flash is not really feasible for travel.
I would not be able to put the camera in and out of my bag without having to take the flash on and off all the time. This would make it very slow and difficult and I know I would not even bother with the flash after a while!
Also I was looking around at other people with SLR's and not one of them had a flash (except the Disney photographers, which are stationary)
I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! I brought my 55-250 and only put it on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it. Good thing its very light, but next time I would rather bring a more useful lens unless I know I am going to be shooting telephoto.
So I realize I really need some low light capability. At night and on the rides it was a challenge with the 15-85. Most of the time you could not use a flash and I was at 3200 ISO (I even went to 6400 a couple of times)
Looking back most of my indoor shots were a lot of different focal ranges (many at the wide end) and I doubt the Sigma 30mm would of been usable since you do not always have a choice to move around indoors.
My question is, if I had the 17-50 Tamron f2.8 nonVC for indoor use how much would it of improved my ISO or pictures?
Here are some examples:
1. Some of the really dark pictures from the rides I was at f3.5 at 3200 ISO and they were still not great. What the f2.8 of been able to capture the shot?
2. If I had indoor pictures at 3200 ISO from f4 to f5 then with the f2.8 what ISO would I get and would I be able to avoid using a flash?
I just came back from a trip to Epcot and realize that a flash is not really feasible for travel.
I would not be able to put the camera in and out of my bag without having to take the flash on and off all the time. This would make it very slow and difficult and I know I would not even bother with the flash after a while!
Also I was looking around at other people with SLR's and not one of them had a flash (except the Disney photographers, which are stationary)
I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! I brought my 55-250 and only put it on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it. Good thing its very light, but next time I would rather bring a more useful lens unless I know I am going to be shooting telephoto.
So I realize I really need some low light capability. At night and on the rides it was a challenge with the 15-85. Most of the time you could not use a flash and I was at 3200 ISO (I even went to 6400 a couple of times)
Looking back most of my indoor shots were a lot of different focal ranges (many at the wide end) and I doubt the Sigma 30mm would of been usable since you do not always have a choice to move around indoors.
My question is, if I had the 17-50 Tamron f2.8 nonVC for indoor use how much would it of improved my ISO or pictures?
Here are some examples:
1. Some of the really dark pictures from the rides I was at f3.5 at 3200 ISO and they were still not great. What the f2.8 of been able to capture the shot?
2. If I had indoor pictures at 3200 ISO from f4 to f5 then with the f2.8 what ISO would I get and would I be able to avoid using a flash?
5
Lenses / Low Light options
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:08:10 PM »
I have a canon t2i and a canon 15-85, 50 f1.8, 55-250 lenses (no tripod)
What the best option to compliment my lenses and give me better low light capability.
I will be at a cousins indoor wedding and want to be able to take some nice pictures, also when traveling in museums, restaurants, etc.. however I find that the 50mm is to long for those occasions.
I was thinking one of the following 3 options:
1. buy a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 nonVC and use built in flash if needed.
2. use existing 15-85 and buy a Sigma 30mm f1.4
3. use existing 15-85 and buy 430ex flash
each option costs ~$300-$400
Which option will give me the best results and are the best bang for the buck???
What the best option to compliment my lenses and give me better low light capability.
I will be at a cousins indoor wedding and want to be able to take some nice pictures, also when traveling in museums, restaurants, etc.. however I find that the 50mm is to long for those occasions.
I was thinking one of the following 3 options:
1. buy a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 nonVC and use built in flash if needed.
2. use existing 15-85 and buy a Sigma 30mm f1.4
3. use existing 15-85 and buy 430ex flash
each option costs ~$300-$400
Which option will give me the best results and are the best bang for the buck???
Pages: [1]