New camera

[CliffnDallas]

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v65/BigCinBigD/photo.jpg

Canon T2i. 18mp, 1080p video. Should be fun.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Dump that lens and get either an L in the same basic focal length, or a higher end lens that runs considerably more.

Think of it this way: all that money for that camera, all the technology inside of it, all of the incredible processing that can be done in-camera, and your bottle necked by shooting through a $150 piece of low-quality glass.

Don't get me wrong, you can get decent 5x7's out of it, but if you put a single piece of pro-level glass in front of it you'll see the immediate difference. And you don't have to buy, you can rent a few lenses to find the one you really like.

Funny you'd put this up today. The announcement for the Nikon D800 came through yesterday.

 

[CliffnDallas]

I'll need to find a good "walking around" lens. That a external flash, a battery grip and maybe a good bag. I fear it will never end.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I'll need to find a good "walking around" lens. That a external flash, a battery grip and maybe a good bag. I fear it will never end.

It won't. Sign up over at Pixtus.com. Great forum for photography. They have tons of samples of lenses and people's inputs on them as well, both OEM and third-party. Surprisingly, there are about 2-3 lenses for both Nikon and Canon that are superb, for under $200.

The nifty fifty works for both, and I've got a 85mm f1.8 that I got for chicken feed, compared to a pro lens.

If you want a good speedlight, and know lighting fairly well, picking up a Yungao or something like that is a good option. I have a pair for location shoots, but I use a light meter since they only operate in manual. No iTTL.

Edit: And get diffusion cups for the flashes and a bracket that will mount to the threaded tripod plate hole under the camera/battery grip. Nothing cheesier than hard shadows straight away from the camera.

You might be able to find a L-358 meter on Ebay fairly cheap if you look long enough. There's an instruction video on their website that explains how to use it really well. Also, take a look at Adorama's video series on YouTube if you need some basic/intermediate instructions for anything camera/photography related.

 

[kmp77]

Dump that lens and get either an L in the same basic focal length, or a higher end lens that runs considerably more.

Think of it this way: all that money for that camera, all the technology inside of it, all of the incredible processing that can be done in-camera, and your bottle necked by shooting through a $150 piece of low-quality glass.

Don't get me wrong, you can get decent 5x7's out of it, but if you put a single piece of pro-level glass in front of it you'll see the immediate difference. And you don't have to buy, you can rent a few lenses to find the one you really like.

Funny you'd put this up today. The announcement for the Nikon D800 came through yesterday.

L series are slightly overrated. There are some sigma and tamron lenses that are quite comparable at half the price. Unless you have money to burn then L series all night and day then

 

[iceberg]

L series are slightly overrated. There are some sigma and tamron lenses that are quite comparable at half the price. Unless you have money to burn then L series all night and day then

i got last year a pentax k5.
pentax lenses that are 18-50 and 50-135 (give or take, i don't feel like looking up the specs) at a fixed 2.8 fstop.

the grip was incredible but can also get in the way.

sigma and tamron will both more than likely give you more noise than manufacturer lenses. there's a good reason they're cheaper lenses.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

i got last year a pentax k5.
pentax lenses that are 18-50 and 50-135 (give or take, i don't feel like looking up the specs) at a fixed 2.8 fstop.

the grip was incredible but can also get in the way.

sigma and tamron will both more than likely give you more noise than manufacturer lenses. there's a good reason they're cheaper lenses.

And the fact that most new sensors can out-resolve third party glass tends to get somewhat overlooked. Heck, the d800 is 36mp? Not only that, but you have to deal with CA out the wazzou when you're pushing the limits on the lens in low-light or high contrast situations when you've got more than ample working room within the camera itself. Shooting third-party glass on this latest incarnation of DSLRs, minus a very select number of choices, is like buying a Porsche and only driving it in a parking lot full of potholes and speed bumps, you'll never get the best photograph possible.

Third-party is good enough in some cases when you're shooting DX format, but they really fall apart when you move to FX. You can go through the list of lenses and check off a chunk of Tamron's, Tokina's, and Sigma's line-up as being FX incompatible. Same though, for Nikon's and Canon's "consumer" line.

I've never, ever seen someone say "Man, I wish I would've gotten a Tokina instead of an 300mm f2.8 L. I can really live with a lower quality image." Once a person makes the investment in high quality glass, it's damn tough to go back. I know, I've done it. Sold off most of my high-end glass when I quit shooting a few years ago. Now I can sit there and know how much better composed/sharper/clearer my images would be with a 70-200mm f2.8 or 17-55mm instead of trying to do the same thing with a lens not built for the job.

 

[iceberg]

And the fact that most new sensors can out-resolve third party glass tends to get somewhat overlooked. Heck, the d800 is 36mp? Not only that, but you have to deal with CA out the wazzou when you're pushing the limits on the lens in low-light or high contrast situations when you've got more than ample working room within the camera itself. Shooting third-party glass on this latest incarnation of DSLRs, minus a very select number of choices, is like buying a Porsche and only driving it in a parking lot full of potholes and speed bumps, you'll never get the best photograph possible.

Third-party is good enough in some cases when you're shooting DX format, but they really fall apart when you move to FX. You can go through the list of lenses and check off a chunk of Tamron's, Tokina's, and Sigma's line-up as being FX incompatible. Same though, for Nikon's and Canon's "consumer" line.

I've never, ever seen someone say "Man, I wish I would've gotten a Tokina instead of an 300mm f2.8 L. I can really live with a lower quality image." Once a person makes the investment in high quality glass, it's damn tough to go back. I know, I've done it. Sold off most of my high-end glass when I quit shooting a few years ago. Now I can sit there and know how much better composed/sharper/clearer my images would be with a 70-200mm f2.8 or 17-55mm instead of trying to do the same thing with a lens not built for the job.

i got a lot to learn from you man. a lot to learn.

 

[kmp77]

sigma and tamron will both more than likely give you more noise than manufacturer lenses. there's a good reason they're cheaper lenses.

You have to get the right ones. Tamron 17-50 2.8 takes very clean photos...on par with L series glass. The Sigma 17-50 2.8 is great as well. But these are the $600 sigma/tamron lenses. The $100 lenses are on par with the canon kit lenses. I'm just sayin you don't have to spend $1200 for L series when theses alternatives are great at half the price. Of course these are those rare nuggets where you get a lot of bang for your buck. But the sigma one used to be $400ish and now $600ish

 

[SaltwaterServr]

You have to get the right ones. Tamron 17-50 2.8 takes very clean photos...on par with L series glass. The Sigma 17-50 2.8 is great as well. But these are the $600 sigma/tamron lenses. The $100 lenses are on par with the canon kit lenses. I'm just sayin you don't have to spend $1200 for L series when theses alternatives are great at half the price. Of course these are those rare nuggets where you get a lot of bang for your buck. But the sigma one used to be $400ish and now $600ish

Yeah, thanks in no small part to the tsunami last year in Japan. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 jumped from $199 to $289 in two months. It's back down though.

FWIW, both of the lenses you listed are APS-C/DX-only and incompatible with full-format sensors, therefore are a limited option to the L-series of the same focal length.

 

[kmp77]

Yeah, thanks in no small part to the tsunami last year in Japan. The Nikon 35mm f1.8 jumped from $199 to $289 in two months. It's back down though.

FWIW, both of the lenses you listed are APS-C/DX-only and incompatible with full-format sensors, therefore are a limited option to the L-series of the same focal length.

He's got a T2i...so doesn't really matter I guess. Unless he plans to upgrade in the future.

 

[CliffnDallas]

I'll probably pick up something like the Canon EF-S 17mm - 85mm f/4.0-5.6. Planning a road trip to Arizona next spring. Lots of landscapes.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I'll probably pick up something like the Canon EF-S 17mm - 85mm f/4.0-5.6. Planning a road trip to Arizona next spring. Lots of landscapes.

Find yourself a 50mm f1.8 while you're at it. You'll love what that little lens does for the price you pay, and for the low light you can use it in.

 

[CliffnDallas]

Find yourself a 50mm f1.8 while you're at it. You'll love what that little lens does for the price you pay, and for the low light you can use it in.

I just ordered 2 extra batteries, a battery grip and a remote shutter release from Amazon. LOL, this is going to get stupid quick!

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I just ordered 2 extra batteries, a battery grip and a remote shutter release from Amazon. LOL, this is going to get stupid quick!

Wait until you pull an image up on the screen you've shot, and it looks better than you expected. Not a snapshot, but the first real photograph you've ever taken.

This was mine. Lots of things wrong with it, but it pops off the screen at full size, full res.

Shot it with a 50mm (I think) with a SB-600 speedlight fired remote in a 5' octobox propped up on the floor.

 

[CliffnDallas]

Wait until you pull an image up on the screen you've shot, and it looks better than you expected. Not a snapshot, but the first real photograph you've ever taken.

This was mine. Lots of things wrong with it, but it pops off the screen at full size, full res.

Shot it with a 50mm (I think) with a SB-600 speedlight fired remote in a 5' octobox propped up on the floor.

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v65/BigCinBigD/1r4h8d3ov9s0u-1-1.jpg

Took this a few minutes ago of a friend at work. Portrate mode, ISO 1600.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v65/BigCinBigD/1r4h8d3ov9s0u-1-1.jpg

Took this a few minutes ago of a friend at work. Portrate mode, ISO 1600.

Try this, in the exact same position. Stand as far away as you can, zoom in on her face.

No smile.

Just have her breathe through her mouth, and bring her chin ever so slightly down to her left shoulder. Not too far, or she'll get wrinkles across that side of her neck.

If you get it right, the entire background will go out of focus and you'll end up with a pretty good portrait.

If you have more time, figure out what the camera shutter speed is running and at what f-stop, then set it at that in Manual mode. Drop the ISO to 800. Shoot it, then try it again at ISO 400.

That should get you some deeper shadows and more dramatic of a portrait. Even, bright exposure isn't what you're always going for.

 

[CliffnDallas]

Try this, in the exact same position. Stand as far away as you can, zoom in on her face.

No smile.

Just have her breathe through her mouth, and bring her chin ever so slightly down to her left shoulder. Not too far, or she'll get wrinkles across that side of her neck.

If you get it right, the entire background will go out of focus and you'll end up with a pretty good portrait.

If you have more time, figure out what the camera shutter speed is running and at what f-stop, then set it at that in Manual mode. Drop the ISO to 800. Shoot it, then try it again at ISO 400.

That should get you some deeper shadows and more dramatic of a portrait. Even, bright exposure isn't what you're always going for.

Thanks...

 

[CliffnDallas]

what's the price?

For the camera? I paid $578.99 that was "on sale" at Best Buy. Regular price is $699.99. That's camera and a lens.

 

[Vtwin]

I'll need to find a good "walking around" lens. That a external flash, a battery grip and maybe a good bag. I fear it will never end.

You have no idea.