badboy

oh, and tell us what the other lens is.

badboy

are these crops? or just resized?

Dan Martin

That would be cheating.

There are actually 3 different lenses being used here. I'll reveal their identities later.

Just resized. I can post crops when I get home.

fdl

#2 is the kit lens. #1 looks the best IMO.

dom

I'm going with #2 as well. But its really just a guess.

badboy

I don't know why people think #2 is the kit lens. Why?

I am actually thinking it's either #1 or #3.

badboy

In terms of the best picture, I think #2 is the winner.

fdl

Its a trick, they are all kit lenses

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

Because I don't think he could get close enough to a llama to take that picture with the kit lens and I think I remember picture #3 from another thread...

badboy

Sneaky Dan.

badboy

okay, I'm going with #2 against the majority.

Dan Martin

some funny answers so far, but we have a winner.... #2 was the kit lens.


I realized after I posted the set, it might be easy to spot which one is which just purely on how close I was to the subject.

I think think I've got enough shots for round 2 before I go home. I'll post it in a couple minutes...

dom

He took that pic at an AZ meet.

badboy

okay, what were the other two lenses?

And, in #2, the the lizzard real?

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

That's how I guessed. Haha

Dan Martin

The lenses used for the last round were:
1) 70-200 @ 70mm -- I was really close to the llama after all.
2) 18-55 @ 55mm -- It's a life-sized komodo dragon made from brass.
3) 24-70 @ 70mm -- It was a monster of a mushroom!


Now for Round 2:

1)

Focus was on the leading edge of the spindle.

2)

Not that I have an ego or anything.


3)

At Algonquin Park.



Hopefully this round will be a little tougher.

badboy

I don't think it is #2.

I am going with #1 this time.

danny25

#1 vote here too

fdl

not east to compare in b/w. i'm going with #1

Dan Martin

Good point. One of the qualities of a good lens is a solid saturation of colors. It's not a fair test if two are B&W and the other is color.

Here's a B&W version to keep it fair:

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

#1

Dan Martin

Ok, you guys are better at this than I expected.

It was #1.

#2 was the 50 f/1.8 A.K.A. the "Plastic Fantastic"
#3 was the 17-40 f4L


Ok here's the third and final round:








There's a trick to this one, and no, they aren't all kit lenses, and there is at least one image that was with the 18-55.

badboy

This is pretty tough. I am thinking there are two kit lens shots here, as Dan has pointed out.

mrsteve

iTrader: (1)

#1 & #3

badboy

Something funky is going on in #2 near the boat.

wackjum

I would say #1 but it also looks like its suffering from some bad jpeg compression.

In the first set, it was pretty obvious it was #2. The bokeh was just horrible.

Dan Martin

The DOF in that shot was actually pretty deep, so the out of focus areas were just slightly blurred. There's a pretty good test of the 18-55's bokeh in one of the groups: http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokeh_/...7594180816973/

Dan Martin

It looks like this round is a little tougher, so I'll post the results later tonight.

dom

#3.

Dan Martin

Ok, here are the results:

#1 was taken with a 1MP P&S 7 years ago.

#2 was with the kit lens taken off my dock at the cottage in 2005.

#3 was with the 17-40 f4L at Sauble Beach a year ago.



Thanks for playing "spot the kit lens"!


I have many more sharp photos taken with the kit, but I thought you'd all guess them since they'd be from some of the same series as the others posted in the thread. Anyhow, sure you can get better lenses, but to start, you really can't go wrong with the 18-55.

fdl

#3 was my fav from the start. Its a killer shot. Its hard to understand or describe whats better about the non-kit lens shot, but the just look nicer. Do the non-kit shots come later (i.e. when you are perhaps more experienced)?



So I thought about this some more tonight, and went and played around with a few cameras at the store.

Here is what I am thinking - regardless of what lenses I am going to want down the road, I am probably always going to need one in the 18-55mm or maybe 18-70 zone. That said, I think the most important thing to me right now is low light shooting, because I HATE using a flash. I really hate it. SO given that I am always going to need that 18-55mm range, and I KNOW already that low light shoot (i.e. fast glass) is a feature i want, then why not splurge on a better 18-55 at f2.8, or even a 18-70 (would be better me thinks)

Then the next thing I am pretty sure I would want is a zoom. SO then I save up and buy a good 70-200 or so, and then I have 2 good lenses to use.

I really dont see myself spending alot on a very wide angle lense , like a 11-35 or whatever is out there.

Dan, see anything wrong in this logic? Am I missing something here?

Dan Martin

Nothing wrong with that at all.

Vistek just started to carry the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and they have a really good price on it too. They normally sell for $449US at B&H.

F/2.8 lenses are better for low light, but if it's dark inside, you're probably still going to have to use a flash. The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is like going from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Indoor available-light photography usually requires the use of higher-ISO's and a fast prime lens. Sigma makes a nice 30mm f/1.4 which is very usable indoors for available-light photos and it won't break the bank either.

Get the XT or XTi and the Tamron 17-50 to get you going. Add a longer lens down the road, and then go for a fast indoor prime at some point.

badboy

Dan, I can't seem to find a price lower than 449 for this lens.

fdl

Cool. The reviews on the Tamron 17-50 are all very good. I'm also considering the Sigma 24-70.

This place seems to have some of the best prices in TO. http://www.downtowncamera.com/

Dan Martin

I'd recommend against the Sigma 24-70 as your only lens. I think you'll find it's not quite wide enough. I'm selling mine for a 17-55 for exactly that reason.

fdl

I was all set on the XT, but tonight I made the mistake of trying the XTi. Dam that 2.5 inch LCD is nice. I also tried a $1500 Nikon which felt great in my hands (the Rebel feels tiny). The Nikon was nice and chunky with a huge LCD and huge viewfinder. It was my fav of the 3 for sure, but its considerably more money. But now I am wondering how much I will miss that 2.5 inch LCD. Its really sweet, and I like the new updated menu with everything on the LCD. Need to sleep on it

Dan, you may have mentioned it already, but which 17-55 are you going with?

waTSX

If I'm not mistaken, Canon makes the only 17-55, and it's the EF-S 17-55. I believe the Tamron offering is in the 17-50 range.

I had the pleasure of shaking down the 17-55 today at a motorcycle show, and it's very nice, albeit pricey. The IS worked great indoors and the sharpness and color are very good.

I'll have some of the pics up on my Flickr page in the next couple of days if you want to check them out for evaluation.

A lot of the pics I shot today indoors at the show were in the 17-35mm range, so I think Dan's advice about not settling for a 24mm wide end on a cropped body is sound. It doesn't sound like much of a difference between 17mm and 24mm, but it is.

Dan Martin

If your budget is creeping upwards, check out the 30D. There's a $240 rebate if you buy it along with any other item on this rebate list: http://www.carmans.com/webimages/SLR_Rebate_Web.pdf

fdl

Thats a good deal, but that 30D is still way out of my price range once I add in a lens. With the Nikon D80 its about $1400 with a decent 18-135 kit lens.

fdl

Anyways, I pulled the trigger today.

I ended up going with the XTi kit (shitty lens and all ). It was a decent price and I can return or exchange it up to Jan 8th so I have some time to play with it and change my mind, if necessary.

Even though its more $$, that Nikon D80 is still calling my name, and so is the 30D. So we'll see what happens between now and Jan. 8th.