March 06, 2015, 08:50:16 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.


Messages - AJ

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28
46
Lenses / Re: Sleeper Lenses?
« on: July 19, 2013, 03:17:28 PM »
Canon 85/1.8
Tamron 90/2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC
Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 70-200/4 non-IS
Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.
Canon 15/2.8 fisheye

47
Lenses / Re: Indoor Lens recommendations?
« on: July 14, 2013, 05:02:29 AM »
In your place, I think I would go with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Personally, I think it is the best general purpose zoom lens for a crop body.  It also works very well combined with a fast telephoto prime, such as the 85/1.8, which makes a very nice portrait lens on a crop body.

You still need a fast enough shutter speed to get a nice and sharp photograph. My advice would be EF 85/1.8 USM, which is a fast focusing, sharp at 1.8, very affordable and overall decent lens for what you want it to do.

In your case, I think a flash would be more helpful.  You can then use your current lenses and drag the shutter.  The flash will help freeze the subject while the longer exposure time will allow the background to be exposed properly.

I agree with these 3 suggestions.  If this were me, I would start with a 17-55 2.8 and then add a 85 1.8 if I needed more reach.  Adding a good speedlite or two is always a good idea as well and can be used to expand your creative possibilities beyond what you can do with just fast lenses and natural light.
Thirded.  I can tell you from experience that this combination works.  This is my go-to wedding setup: 17-55, 85/1.8 and two 550EXs.  If you need more reach then get a 70-200/2.8 IS to complement the 17-55.

If shake and trembling is an issue, consider using a monopod.

48
Lenses / Re: 50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?
« on: July 14, 2013, 04:56:35 AM »
Here's the thing about the 40/2.8, in my humble opinion.

This lens could easily have been speced at f/2.  However it isn't.  Canon made the diaphragm to open up only to f/2.8 so that it's sharp "wide open".  This satisfies the testchart-shooters, and ensures the lens gets good reviews.

Personally I like a lens that opens a little wider, even if that results in a little softness.  I like my 50/1.8 and I accept the fact that it's not razor sharp at f/1.8.  However it is cracking sharp at f/2.8 so that's what I stop down to when I need more sharpness.  It's all about knowing the characteristics of the lens and working with it.

Here's the other bit about fast lenses: it's all about what's not in focus, i.e. bokeh.  Sharpness in the center still matters, somewhat, but sharpness in the corners wide-open is completely moot for most purposes (except perhaps astrophotography).


49
Street & City / Re: Bratislava
« on: July 03, 2013, 03:16:38 PM »


Bratislava streets by <CiD>, on Flickr


This one is far better than any of the others.  I suggest cropping away the bright area above the atch.

50
I only put Canon lenses on my Canon bodies ... not
I only put Microsoft software on my Windows PC ... not
I only put genuine Ford parts in my Ford Focus ... not

wake up people.  A Canon body is a platform on which you can mount a whole slew of lenses: Tamron, Zeiss, Sigma, Tokina, Canon, Rokinon, you name it.

Canon lenses are generally awesome, but if you limit yourself to Canon lenses only then you are limiting yourself.

51
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS $699
« on: June 29, 2013, 05:56:26 AM »
That's a much better deal than the 24-70/4 IS

52
Lenses / Re: The ULTIMATE Canon lens
« on: June 26, 2013, 03:56:31 PM »
Do you think I should buy this one?  Or should I wait for the mark-2?

53
Lenses / Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« on: June 26, 2013, 03:53:34 PM »
For most lenses it is not necessary.  But my 17-55/2.8 IS would be useless without it.

54
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:49:31 PM »
Hahaha. $1k, that's funny.

Seriously now.  It'll be at least $2.5k.  At least.

The 16-50 F4L IS sounds REALLY intriguing, lets hope it's around 1k and I'll buy it. :)

56
Lighting / Re: Emergency help-wedding tomorrow
« on: May 18, 2013, 03:37:16 AM »
Check whether flash metering (not camera exposure metering) is set to Evaluative or Average.  IMO, Average produces more even results. 

Evaluative has a highlight-protection mode built in which can lead to underexposure, especially when there are small reflective objects (e.g. jewelry).  In my experience, FEC doesn't help much with this.

57
Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?
« on: May 16, 2013, 11:34:10 AM »
March 2021.

58
If the theoretical future incompatibility keeps you awake at night, then get the Canon.

If spending an extra 400 bucks keeps you awake at night, then get the Sigma

59
Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: May 01, 2013, 11:49:50 AM »
I keep thinking I'll move into a full frame but, truth be told, it gets more doubtful as I age.  For that reason I haven't spent a lot on EF-S glass but all the praise the 17-55 is getting sure impresses me. 

I may break my prejudice about buying EF-S lenses and pull the trigger on the 17-55 2.8 IS when my photo-fund gets rebuilt.

I've never been an adherent of the 'I'm getting a FF camera someday so I won't but EF-S' school of thought. But the lens(es) you need for the camera you have today.  Particularly if the EF-S lenses are the top ones (17-55, 15-85, 10-22), where resale value is strong.  When I eventually sold my 10-22 and 17-55, I think I lost a combined total of ~$120 from what I paid new for them - pretty cheap 2-3 year rentals.

IMO, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.  However, it is a little short for a travel lens whereas the 15-85 is better suited. If taking the 17-55, I'd be inclined to bring a longer lens, too.  I found the 100L Macro IS to be a great second lens for travel, since it does both tele and macro very well, and gives you f/2.8 across the board (with the 15-85, I'd consider a 430EX II or at minimum a 270EX II).

17-55 is a great zoom if you intend to do a lot of indoor shooting, with or without flash.  15-85 would be my pick for an outdoor walk-around lens.

17-55 is also very heavy.  I have one with my 7D.  I also have a drebel and Tamron 17-50/2.8.  This combo is much lighter, and does not lag far behind in image quality.

60
Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring
« on: April 16, 2013, 05:07:51 PM »
7D is a heavy camera.  How about bringing a T4i

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 28