goldwyn_t

28-300 hardly qualifies you as a "dickless yuppie". =)

 

From reading the forums, the only advantage a 50 2.5 macro would offer is elimination of slight barrel distortions visible on the 50 1.4. Unless your subject of choice are brickwalls, this distortion will likely be invisible. There is every reason to have a f/1.4 lens! Such speed AND sharpness will not be equaled by any commercial zoom. I just got this lens and it's pretty awesome, not exactly bomb proof but an improvement even over the 50 1.8 mkI.

 

If you went with the macro, you instantly loose 1.5 stops of light... not worth the sacrifice in my opinion. Get the 50mm 1.4 and a polarizer.

Bean bags with tripod mounts... that's a GREAT idea!

There are apparently a lot of electronic devices that are not recommended for use on an aircraft. Some say it's because of radio frequency jams, some say it's because the plane's potential difference while flying through earth's magnetic field, some say it's because the fuel might ignite!

 

My friend, who's a student pilot, flies cessnas on a daily basis and he has always been using his electronic gadgets on the plane. Palm pilots to cell phones you name it. It has never caused him any problems. It's hard to believe that a microcomputer hooked up to some magnets inside a lens covered by metal casing (is the 28-135IS metal?) will cause harm to the airplane or vice versa.

Wow... so many responses.

 

There was another post earlier to this that described the same situation (minus the railroad specficity).

 

Elan 7 is awesome, but please don't get that kit lens LOL

I'm looking at my photos shot with the Rebel Ti kit lens right now and they are significantly less sharp than the modest 28-105 USM. The kit lens even looses contrast in dark areas!

 

Go with the adorama Elan 7 kit with the 50mm1.8 MkII. Better yet, get your Elan 7, and purchase the original 50mm1.8 MkI from me! Hehe, this lens has metal lens mount and distance scale as opposed to plastic mount and no distance scale on the MkII.

I'm shooting film right now, mostly Fuji Velvia and Sensia.

 

Haven't really thought of digital yet... already have a N*kon coolpix point'n shoot. the main reason for not going digital is focal length ratios right now. No way i can afford a 1Ds with full-frame CCD, and i wouldn't want to loose 1.6x focal length for possible wide angles in the future.

 

Response to the last post, i do have a 50mm1.8 but am selling it right now (check ad in classifieds) and going for a 50mm1.4

 

This christmas i am Santa, his elves, and the reindeer in one! hohoho

I gotta agree with the rest of the people here and say that your first choice is superior.

 

The 50mm 1.8 is WAAAAAY sharper than either of your lenses in the second setup, further the 28-105 USM II is Canon's best consumer grade zoom. If you have extra resources however, i would say go for the 28-135IS. It's more useful than the 28-105 and offers pretty much all of Canon's technological goodies (Ring USM, Rear Full-time focusing, Image Stab.)

 

I have an ELan 7e (upgraded from Rebel Ti despite some recommendations against it =) and both the lenses you mentioned in your first choice. You will LOVE this combo.

 

pssst. If you save up a little more you can also add a Canon 70-200 4.0L or 2.8L to this kit and you will truely have ALL that Canon EF has to offer (except the DO optics... but that's not really in the price range of most starters...)

My desire and gut feeling is to go with the 70-200L, because it's a lens that is optically brilliant and covering focal lenghts unavailable to me at the moment. The main concern is with the speed... too bad Canon makes people pay twice the price for one stop of light (70-200 2.8L), otherwise the choice would be obvious.

 

I remember reading somewhere that the 28-135IS uses the same glass elements (with addition of an aspherical element) as the 28-105, it was because of this note that i began looking beyond this lens and seriously at the 70-200 4.0L.

 

Exhaustive tests have been done on both the consumer zooms, and they are noticeably poorer than any L glass available. Having used a 50mm 1.8 MkI, i'm compelled to invest in lenses that are at least comparable to the 50mm's sharpness.

 

p.s. it is apples and oranges... lol, i think the post title was worded improperly... it should be "Which lens has more value to a serious amateur who already has 28-105 USM II - 28-135IS or 70-200 4.0L?"

Looking at the 28-135IS and the 70-200 4.0L, which one is a better

value?

 

I already have a 28-105 USM II, and was looking seriously at the 70-

200 L but i've also wanted to take advantage of Canon's IS technology.

 

In your opinion, which is the better value?

 

Optically they cannot be compared because one is a consumer level and

the other pro... Do you guys think the 28-135IS would be redundant

for me? By the same token, would the L lens' speed be an issue at

200mm? I mostly take photos handheld, so the IS is really awesome.

The 70-200IS is out of the question because of price...

 

Thanks for your inputs

Hello,

 

This is a newbie question, but one that has been bugging me for a

while.

 

Looking at the digital images on this site, i can't help but see a

lot of noise around the edges. This noise seems like a juxtaposition

of pixels around edges where images go from an area of high detail

(rough texture) to an area of low detail (smooth texture). They are

apparent in all photos, whether they be scanned or captured on

digicams. Is this because the images have been resized by Photo.net?

Or is it something else?

 

I have been using my nikon 885 for a couple of years now and have not

noticed such noise in my images.

 

Thanks for your insight!

Just wondering...

 

Why didn't you go with the 10D in the first place?

Thanks for the pic.

 

I can really believe that these orbs are dust particles, especially because many of them take on a pentagon shape (characteristic of 5 bladed lens bokehs). Small pieces of dust can really get lit up by the flash, there's a wonderful photo by Canadian photographer Daryl Benson where he used this fill-flash technique to illuminate a group of mosquitos and they ended up looking like fairies - very effective and he never claims to be psychic LOL.

 

Now the more important thing, how to get rid of these "orbs"? Photoshop is definitely a solution, but in cases where there are hundreds of them the task can get tedious.

I suppose that using long DOFs would not eliminate these orbs? Because they are dust particles very close to the lens itself? Since most of these "orb shots" have focus locked more than 6feet infront of the lens, the dust must be well within this range to produce such round bokehs.

Hi guys,

 

I was going over some digital photos with my friend tonight and she

showed me a series of photos populated by mysterious circles of

light. These lights resemble a bright circle and they appear in

different parts of the digital image regardless of exposure settings

and aperture.

 

Curious about these circles, she looked around the website and found

this <a href="http://www.orbstudy.com">Orb Study</a>

(www.orbstudy.com). Apparently others have captured similar images

(with bright circles) with their digi cam. More interestingly, 35mm

film cannot capture these "orbs". The site describes them as a form

of lower atmospheric plasma discharge.

 

This post is not intended to discuss the "true" origin of these

circles, but have YOU captured any images where these "orbs" can be

seen? If so, would you mind posting them?

Came across an article today while googling and found some body has

had success shooting macros of insects with a peak 10x loupe held up

against their digi-cam lens.

 

Just curious, have you guys had any experience with this? Sounds

like an awesome change for savings on lenses (for the film SLR)!!

i just thought of a great ebay item to sell....

Hello,

 

In a previous i asked about what kind of results a "kwikimart" lab

will usually return and their automated process' effect on exposure

of colour prints.

 

Your answers helped me a lot. At least now i have an idea of what to

look for in a lab, even if it's walmart with their FujiFrontier

machines...

 

Another question - even if the photo lab decided to do corrections

on my prints, will that affect the way my negative was recorded? In

other words, even if the colour prints look similar (exposure,

saturation, tones) will their negatives be distinguishably different?

 

i have checked my negatives =) but can't really tell the

difference... i don't have a proper light table and loupe, so don't

know if it's my light that's varying or the negatives...

 

*realisation* need a light table and loupe...

New lenses with dust in them? Like they are made in this factory where they don't controll things? Or like they have beeen opened and played around by the camera store for a bit before being sold? That gets me worried....

Search the buy/sell section of this site, there's a gentleman who's selling an EF 50mm 2.5 macro for 215us. The macro is not 1:1, but it's at least as close as what you have shown on your pic there.

Thanks for your inputs.

FujiFrontier?

Hmm... so i gotta ask the clerk then.

Hello,

 

From reading many threads and guides both at photo.net and elsewhere

on the web, it is obvious that "drugstore" photolabs are not what a

serious photographer (albeit amateur =) should employ to develop

films.

 

Can you guys give some advice on what to look for in a photolab? For

example, short of asking "are you guys good?" to the clerk, what

kind of results should i be expecting? Furthermore, how can one even

tell if a particular developer is superior to another (especially

for colour prints)?

 

So far my bracketed colour prints all look EXACTLY the same!! ARG!!

Is this just because i'm using negatives? Or can a lab actually turn

off their exposure compensation during development?

 

Thanks!

haha... halves... sheesh... spelling...

i was wandering through the pages at www.naturephotographers.net and found a little bit (one paragraph) of information.

 

here's the url

http://www.naturephotographers.net/dw0502-1.html

 

basically, they point you to meter both the light and dark "halfs" of the frame and take the difference in stops. subtract this difference by 1 and use the corresponding graduated filter while having the camera correctly expose the darker half.

That's it - i'm buying the 1.4

Thanks for all the suggestions guys

 

This seller is asking 150US for the MkI... which i think is too much for an old lens. I could get 2 new MkIIs for the same price! Hmmm... Perhaps i should just hold off and splurge on the 1.4... arg! These comparisons and reviews are making my head spin! whee!

 

=)

Lens cap eh?

Good call! that's something i would have never thought of

Hi guys,

 

Need your input once more. I recently saw an ad on ebay about a 50mm

MK I for sale in my city. I'm very interested in acquiring that lens

as many of you have recommended thus. The question is this - if i

can look and check out this lens in person, what should i look for?

For example, dust in elements, scratches, irregular bends/crannies?

This is the first time i will purchase a used lens, so i really

don't know how to be smart about it!

 

Your advice will be greatly appreciated!