Dan Martin

It all depends on the size you're printing and the ISO you used, but an 8x10 or smaller will show very little noise. Noise is subjective too, sometimes it adds to the atmosphere of a shot. It's only a problem when it distracts the viewer from the shot.

Dan Martin

Flickr now has a new gizmo that lets you search for pics taken by a specific camera: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

fdl

Dan, were you able to get good bokeh type pictures of people, with the kit lens on the XT? Especially indoors. Got any examples?

That Canon 50mm1.8 is really calling my name.

badboy

I recall the price was in the high 500's mid year.

I am looking to take advantage of the canon rebates when buying these two lenses. Would it be wise to wait till early Jan to see if prices changes for the better, or just make a move now?

badboy

Here is a pic taken by the kit lens indoors:

Dan Martin

Portraits really aren't my thing, I leave that to SS.

That being said, at 50mm the kit lens is f/5.6 which means it has a pretty deep depth of field. Unless your subject is pretty far away from the background, there's a good chance the background will be in focus.

The 50 f/1.8 is a bargain so everyone should have one in their bag at some point. It's a good portrait length for head & shoulder shots on a cropped body. Sigma also makes a really nice 30mm f/1.4 if you're looking for something wider.

fdl

Hmm..a bit wider would be nice but that lens is considerably more $$.

Handruin

Here is a picture of mine taken with the Canon 50mm F1.4 @ f/3.5 - 1/60 shutter to show some Bokeh. I find myself using the 50mm more than any other lens I own.

fdl

Just picked this up today



I love this lens so far. The shallow depth of field is alot more fun (especially indoors) than the kit lens.

srika

nice pic Handruin. love the bokeh.

Handruin

Here is the same set of flowers focusing on the ones in the back making the foreground out of focus. I was just playing around with the depth of field at the time...

jupitersolo

I've had my 300d for awhile never really got into it. Just been taking pictures with it. I finally figured out this 1.6x thing, thanks to your posts. Never really thought about until reading them.

With that said all I have is the cheap lens that came with it and a 28-200 USM I purchased for it. I use this one the most because of the range of it. But I need something with a smaller mm because of the 1.6x factor and better lens than I have now.

I've confused myself trying to read from Canon's website and some pamphlets I had. It would also be clearer just having someone say it. Cliffnotes are good.


Here they are all Canon...

35mm F/2 , would this be better than a 50mm, would it give the focused object with the blur background?

50mmF1.4, focused object with the blur background?

50mmF1.8 II, focused object with the blur background? Is it better just to get the 1.4?

50mm F/2.5 macro, I want a macro lens, is this the way to go and still get that focused object, blurred background or is this just a macro lens? Also someone is selling on C/L for $200, thought I'd offer $150.

17-40mm F/4l

17-85mm F/4-5.6 IS

10-22mm F/3.5-4.5

20-35mmF/3.5-4.5 ??


Thanks
Jeff

Dan Martin

I'd probably disregard the primes for your second lens. You'd probably appreciate the versatility of a wide zoom instead.

I'd throw out the 20-35 from the list since it's a really old lens at this point and the focal range is kind of weird on a cropped body. So that leaves:
17-40
17-85
10-22

I have had the 17-40 and I currently own the 10-22. Both are excellent lenses and you really can't go wrong with either of them. The 17-40 and 17-85 are better "walk-around" lenses, but they will overlap quite a bit with your other lens, so the 10-22 might make more sense (if you're willing to carry two lenses with you).

10mm is very wide on a cropped body and can get you a field of view just not possible with the other two lenses. With the camera in portrait orientation, I have to be careful not to get my feet in the shot.

So really it comes down to a question you've got to figure out for yourself: Do you want a really wide lens that will likely require two lenses if you go for a walk, or would you prefer a pretty wide lens with a longer zoom so you can leave the second lens at home?

For what it's worth, I sold my 17-40 to buy my 10-22 and now I'm going to be adding a 17-55 to compliment the 10-22. They're quite different lenses, and both have their place.

dom

Has the Canon 70-200 f4/L vs 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM debate already been discussed on this site?

badboy

Some info here:

https://acurazine.com/forums/cameras-photography-44/budget-telephoto-lense-canon-dslrs-351174/

dom

Thanks!

What did you end up getting?

badboy

I am going with the 70-200mm. I will be getting the lense with the 17-40L before the double rebates expire (1/13).

fdl

Never mind that, it should be vs 70-200 f2.8 or f2.8 IS. The thing that scares me about the f4 is that I'll need a tripod for using it at anything near 200mm.

Dan Martin

That all depends on your lighting conditions. So long as you can keep your shutter speed up around 1/300 at 200mm, you'll be fine. In other words, if you're shooting outside between sunrise and sunset, you'll be fine. If you're shooting indoors (maybe sports) then the f/2.8 would be good to have. The IS will be nice for twilight shots.

In all honesty I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've missed a shot because the f/4 wasn't fast enough and I've shot nearly 11,000 frames with my 70-200.

Most of my motorsports and zoo shots are between f/8 and f/11.

jupitersolo

Dan, thanks for the time. Wow that lens you want, a little bit of $$. I still have a little thinking to do, but at least I'm back on the path.

Mizouse

whats bokeh?

Handruin

See my picture I posted a few posts back. Notice the out of focus area in the back. That's a bit of bokeh. Bokeh is the pleasant out of focus area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

fdl

Yes, but how many of those were taken with a tripod?

Dan Martin

Very few. It might seem counterintuitive, but I handhold my 70-200 almost exclusively and use my tripod for my wide lenses (usually for landscapes). To me, the 70-200 is an "action" lens, so I want to be mobile and versatile with it to get the shot. It's next to impossible to pan with a tripod, so I almost always handhold for motorsports. Sure, if the subject is stationary then I might break out the tripod or a monopod.

jupitersolo

Dan since the EF-S lenses are made for the smaller form factor DSLR's, does the 1.6 crop factor still apply with them?

Handruin

The crop factor does not change with EF-S lenses. The element in the lens is closer to the sensor to make for smaller and less expensive lenses.

jupitersolo

Thanks, I wonder how much more the 10-22mm I just order would cost if it was just a EF then.

wndrlst

astro

awesome lens, my favorite by far!

You won't regret not getting the IS one bit IMO.

Handruin

I agree, it's among my favorites. I still lean towards my 50mm F/1.4, but very very close to it is the lens you just got.

dom

Sweet, congrats.

Dan Martin

Nice score!

wndrlst

Thanks guys! I'm stoked. Now if it would just stop raining so I can stop cuddling it and go use it...

Handruin

What are you waiting for? The 70-200mm is water resistant.

waTSX

I think you'll love shooting with this one.

danny25

awesome gift! Does it come with that bag too?

astro

all L series lens come with bags. if you get a really long one, you get a case for it

srika

Santa ftw! That beast must weigh a good amount!

mg7726

this used to be my favorite too, until i got the one with IS, then my 300/2.8

wndrlst

Yeah, it's a bit on the heavy side. I got some B&H gift certificates, too, so I plan on finally getting an elastic neck strap to make it a little nicer to carry around.

I'm also thinking circular polarizer (yay!) & maybe a monitor color calibration system. Anyone know anything about the Colorvision Spyder2express, or have an alternative recommendation?