alin_daju

<p>Peter J, i'll pretend you never used a lens that wide open and I'll guide you to a website where these el-chepo lens actually beats the 50mm 1.2 L USM at the same stop.<br>

This one I bought for AU$80, the other one for AU$2000</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3</a></p>

<p>the 50mm 1.8 $80 brand new lens is made out of plastic, feels very cheap, seems crap, BUT it takes the sharpest, greatest photos out of all my lens.<br>

here's a sample of a 100% crop, no manipolation whatsoever.<br>

Taken at f4 ISO 320</p><div></div>

<p>Be an aprentice, but don't bother about freebies.<br>

This is how some brainless "driving instructors" charge beer money while everybody else charges regular prices. this not only stuffs up everybody's bussiness/credibility, but puts criminals on the road.<br>

Coming back to the subject, not only would you be playing with people's memories, but their photos will be good for the rubbish can.</p>

<p>memories from the Heathrow airport:<br>

belt off sir,<br>

shoes off sir,<br>

is that a camera? take a few shots pointing down sir,<br>

can't take pictures of that plane sir,</p>

<p>I hope is not as crazy in the UK.</p>

<p>I can so tell the americans are starving, are jobless and start acting weird with the financial crisis. At least so it looks from here the aussie land.<br>

$500 wedding = a joke, i'd rather do it $ free.</p>

<p>I'd choose a canon :)<br>

Happy debate</p>

<p>Aperture,<br>

TV,<br>

Manual</p>

<p>Frank, you must be using a pinhole camera then :)</p>

<p>Fragments of a recipe for street photography:<br>

-anticipation<br>

-creativity<br>

-chance</p>

<p>Ronald, thats some great material to read and practise.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=525441">Steve J Murray</a>, your portrait does NOT look better exposed than Trish's as you believe. You blown the girls details. There are no contrasts, just a white face.</p>

<p>"It's interesting how people perceive value based on price."</p>

<p>You pay for what you get mate.<br>

I do driving instructing for a living in australia, and those that charge peanuts money for training such as $45/hr will give you just that: sit at the gutter, talk only and not working on the client.<br>

I charge $60/hr like most of the respectable schools and transform a novice into a competent and confident driver.<br>

Same in photography. I doubt that those charging $400 will be running around and make art out of their work.<br>

Pay $400 get cheap and nasty photos.</p>

<p>100-400 IS is great if you want zoom.<br>

I'd suggest kind of forget about the Teleconverters. They screw up your focus and exposure, I've been using one for a year by now. There's too much fiddling around with them.<br>

If short on cash, get the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, the crop factor will make them like an 480mm on the long end. Add a 1.4 Kenko TC and your lens will give you a 672mm zoom.</p>

<p>Joseph, could you pls come in my training vehicle and tell that to my aussie boys?<br>

To most of these kids there's only 1 pedal; the accelerator.</p>

<p>VR especially for when at 300, and because of the aperture is small.</p>

<p>Dennis and all of you guys, thanks so much for all your input, I just need to get my bottom to work now. </p>

<p>Dennis and all of you guys, thanks so much for all your input, I just need to get my bottom to work now. </p>

<p>Wow, amazing response from all of you guys.<br>

Dan, I absolutelly love the flower shots, great job. Diana thanks for the link.<br>

JMD, don't you worry mate, I'll be adding lens to my bag as I go :) <br>

The photo below was taken with an ordinary 17-85 IS USM and cropped. Doesn't look too bad but I wish I could fill the frame more.</p><div></div>

<p>G'day everybody,<br>

I've been searching for an answer to "what is a good start macro lens" all over the net, I'm bombarded with all sorts of information.<br>

I plan to take shots of flowers, coins and mostly not moving things.<br>

What would you recommend for starters (i'm on a budget at the moment)?<br>

Would a 2.8 give a shallower DOF compared to a 5.6 for example?<br>

Thank you all in advance.</p>

 

<p>you owe me 2 minutes of my life back</p>

<p>While I totally agree that the photographer and the time dedicated to taking photographs is what kills creativity, those that keep pushing the myth "no matter what camera you have" are partially mistaken. I challenge all those experienced photographers including Ansell Adams (God rest him is peace) to pick up my P.A.S 2004 Panasonic Lumix and do what I do with my Canon 40D having the 1.8 50mm lens.</p>

<p>weird priest and rules, perhaps thats why many people fail to go to such places anymore, however I'd rejoice for having less hassle on the day. Charge the same as if you would photograph in curch.</p>

<p>The debate continues :) BOTH systems are GREAT. Although I'm a Canon user, Nikon is just as good.</p>

<p>Sounds like you guys are having a tough one out there.</p>

<p><em>"The purpose of a photographer shooting pictures at a wedding is not to build your portfolio, it's to capture the day for the couple."</em><br>

Says who?<br>

And if your future customers want to see your work, you show them what? Think before posting such harsh statements.</p>