The Photography Thread
- Thread starter Hubster
- Start date
Srontgorrth
Member
After putting my aperture at 25, shutter speed at 1/4000 and ISO at 100, and then messing a bit on lightroom I got this:
Just got another lens today, this time a nifty fifty.
God damn man, f22? Were you using the 18-55? That lens' sweet spot is literally at f5.6/f8 (depending on focal length), and I think beyond f11 with that lens you start getting diffraction.
God damn man, f22? Were you using the 18-55? That lens' sweet spot is literally at f5.6/f8 (depending on focal length), and I think beyond f11 with that lens you start getting diffraction.
Srontgorrth
Member
Which 50mm did you get?
And yeah, I wanted to see what would happen if I put my settings to capture the least amount of light while pointing at the sun/clouds and thats what I got.
I have one around f10 or f8 but it didn't look nearly as awesome. And it was the 55-250mm@ 74mm.
I used the live view setting though, and just kept lowering everything, and then started to actually see the sun, as opposed to blinding light. It was pretty cool!
One more, with similar settings:
And yeah, I wanted to see what would happen if I put my settings to capture the least amount of light while pointing at the sun/clouds and thats what I got.
I have one around f10 or f8 but it didn't look nearly as awesome. And it was the 55-250mm@ 74mm.
I used the live view setting though, and just kept lowering everything, and then started to actually see the sun, as opposed to blinding light. It was pretty cool!
One more, with similar settings:
^I really like that one.
I just got the Canon 1.8 MKII model. I figure for now it will be my general walk around lens until I finally come to a conclusion about what L to get.
That lens actually has some really decent specs for it's price range! How much did you pick it up for?
(reference point for specs)
I just got the Canon 1.8 MKII model. I figure for now it will be my general walk around lens until I finally come to a conclusion about what L to get.
That lens actually has some really decent specs for it's price range! How much did you pick it up for?
(reference point for specs)
Srontgorrth
Member
Ah cool. I fucking love that lens. So great a capturing light, and insanely sharp around 4-5.6 or so.
If I could have any L lens I would want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS but thats way too expensive. I was thinking about, when I have the money either getting a 70-200mm f/4L (since it's like the cheapest L lens there is, and lenses don't really lose value, so once I'm ready to upgrade I could just sell it) or get a 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma or Tamron (all of which are around $600 or so?).
I got it off of craigslist for just $125. The guy had the box, warranty card, and even the receipt (purchased in August of last year) and that was about it.
What lenses do you have btw?
If I could have any L lens I would want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS but thats way too expensive. I was thinking about, when I have the money either getting a 70-200mm f/4L (since it's like the cheapest L lens there is, and lenses don't really lose value, so once I'm ready to upgrade I could just sell it) or get a 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma or Tamron (all of which are around $600 or so?).
I got it off of craigslist for just $125. The guy had the box, warranty card, and even the receipt (purchased in August of last year) and that was about it.
What lenses do you have btw?
Don't bother with 70-200mm lenses that aren't Canon. Seriously, I've heard nothing but shit about the Sigma/Tamron variants.
The f4 is a good deal, and you're correct about the resale value, so it's always an option.
I have the
100mm 2.8L
50mm 1.8
18-55mm IS variant
---
currently looking to acquire a few different ones, not sure if I will go for the ef-s 17-55 2.8, or the 24-105mm f4 L
The f4 is a good deal, and you're correct about the resale value, so it's always an option.
I have the
100mm 2.8L
50mm 1.8
18-55mm IS variant
---
currently looking to acquire a few different ones, not sure if I will go for the ef-s 17-55 2.8, or the 24-105mm f4 L
Srontgorrth
Member
Ah really? Well before/if I buy the 70-200mm f/4L I can always try out the Tamron variant at the camera shop, just to see how it is. Depending on how things go, in a couple paychecks I'll hopefully have enough.
The 24-105mm f4L seems like it'd be the perfect walk around lens, but I would go for the 17-55 2.8 due to low light stuff.
What good Sigma/Tamron variants do you know of, if any? I was actually bidding on a Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 last night but ended up losing.
The 24-105mm f4L seems like it'd be the perfect walk around lens, but I would go for the 17-55 2.8 due to low light stuff.
What good Sigma/Tamron variants do you know of, if any? I was actually bidding on a Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 last night but ended up losing.
The thing you have to remember is that many Tamron or Sigma lenses are reverse engineered from either Nikon or Canon, and sold as equivalents. This is especially true of the 70-200mm focal range, as that coveted ground is currently flat out owned by Canon. That being said, the two best lenses I've heard about from Tamron and Sigma are...
Tamron's 17-50 NON-VC is sharp and highly recommended, especially for the price. Definitely test it out first, peoples tastes and feel for lenses vary wildly.
The Sigma 8-16 & 10-20mm take great pictures, despite the distortion the naturally exists at such wideness. Every picture I've seen from the former lens typically looks breathtaking, the latter is always paired as its equivalent in quality, but my experience of scouring pictures for the 10-20 is a bit limited.
Sigma also makes a lot of super focal length lenses, but they're so highly priced that I'm not even going to bother getting into them.
That being said, Tamron and Sigma are really a mixed bag. Many of their lenses have many positive aspects (price being a major one usually). They also however have many drawbacks, and typically these con's show up as harder AF tracking, increased CA/Vignetting, and a weaker body structure. Sharpness may or may not suffer, it really depends on the lens.
I only recommend the Canon 70-200mm because it flat out has the best optics available in that focal range. You might want to go to a store and test those lenses out and get a personal feel for them before following my (or anyone's) recommendations. If I were you though, I would just save up for the Canon variant, because it would be cheaper in the long run (you wouldn't have to sell and re-buy gear after all).
Also, invest in a good tripod!
Tamron's 17-50 NON-VC is sharp and highly recommended, especially for the price. Definitely test it out first, peoples tastes and feel for lenses vary wildly.
The Sigma 8-16 & 10-20mm take great pictures, despite the distortion the naturally exists at such wideness. Every picture I've seen from the former lens typically looks breathtaking, the latter is always paired as its equivalent in quality, but my experience of scouring pictures for the 10-20 is a bit limited.
Sigma also makes a lot of super focal length lenses, but they're so highly priced that I'm not even going to bother getting into them.
That being said, Tamron and Sigma are really a mixed bag. Many of their lenses have many positive aspects (price being a major one usually). They also however have many drawbacks, and typically these con's show up as harder AF tracking, increased CA/Vignetting, and a weaker body structure. Sharpness may or may not suffer, it really depends on the lens.
I only recommend the Canon 70-200mm because it flat out has the best optics available in that focal range. You might want to go to a store and test those lenses out and get a personal feel for them before following my (or anyone's) recommendations. If I were you though, I would just save up for the Canon variant, because it would be cheaper in the long run (you wouldn't have to sell and re-buy gear after all).
Also, invest in a good tripod!
This is a great reference shot actually, I hope you shot it in RAW because I'd love to see this re-processed with:
- lower saturation
- higher midrange tones (to bring out the face a bit more)
- then finish it off with harder blacks (but be careful to not go too hard or you lose the form of the hair)
and see how it turns out.
- lower saturation
- higher midrange tones (to bring out the face a bit more)
- then finish it off with harder blacks (but be careful to not go too hard or you lose the form of the hair)
and see how it turns out.
Srontgorrth
Member
Well, I ended up getting approved for the Amazon.com credit card, and right now there's no interest on items paid within 6 months so I got this beauty (well, the non IS one):
Can't wait for it! It was listed under the used items, but was just a display one at some store, and has full warranty and everything.
Cool portrait shot btw!
Oh and question: is there any reason I should keep the 55-250mm? The extra 50mm wouldn't be bad, but asides from that I can't think any reasons to keep it.
panzerfaust666
German Asshole
me lovez Photography, but I am not very good at it. Heres some pics from my recent Japan adventure.
this one isnt good, it just really confuses me.
insane mikey and minnie mouse punk band
this one isnt good, it just really confuses me.
insane mikey and minnie mouse punk band
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,744
- 1,442
- 113
i am not a photo nut but i found these very cool!
http://irinawerning.com/back-to-the-fut/back-to-the-future/
http://irinawerning.com/back-to-the-fut/back-to-the-future/
wandering_taco
Minstrel of Woe
Srontgorrth
Member
