thomasmckown

I read a review at luminous landscape (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml) that

suggests the 24-70 is superior to the 28-70. I havent done my own tests, but I myself have been convinced based

on this review and several others opinions that the 24-70 is actually a better lens.

<div></div>

<div></div>

Ciff had a great answer. I know several people who less lesser cameras than I do, and yet produce more

impressive pictures. Focus on what you want the end result to be, and buy whatever you need to accomplish that

goal. Study other peoples work and what they used in order to get what they wanted, then decide what will

accomplish the same results for you. With the right vision and enough talent, you can make impressive images with

anything you get your hands on.

 

<P> That said, many pros have anywhere from 4-10 thousand dollars worth of equipment, if not more. Its always a

hard balance of buying only what you need, while still trying to buy the best you can afford. I have found that I

never regret going for the better quality items, but I have also found I can usually get by with very little.

Have you tried reading www.strobist.com?

I own the 17-40 solely for the wide range of the lens on my 5D. I love ultra wide angle shots for landscapes and even a new perspective on people. I plan on buying the 24-70 when I can afford it, but I will never sell my 17-40 for anything other than a 16-35. I dont think it is redundant myself. Different lenses for different purposes.

The reason for such high resolution is for those wanting to print large. The 5DII is perfect for the landscape photographer wanting the ability to make large prints from a single picture on a camera within his budget. The main goal for most photographers is not for an image that will be viewed on a screen, but rather one that will be viewed on your living room wall.

All really good advice. All the ebay kits I have seen include the cheapest and lowest quality lenses. Plus, if there are any problems, you are stuck with what you bought. I have done business with both B&H and Adorama and both have excellent customer service. If there are ANY problems, they exchange or refund your money no questions asked. I see no reason to buy from ebay unless you are buying a used product.

The lens hood will not cause any vignetting of any sort since it does not block any light in its direct view. Vignetting is usually caused by the optics in the lens or by using a filter. One reason filters can cause vignetting is when using a wide angle lens, because you are looking through the filter at an angle around the edges of the frame and essentially looking through more glass than in the middle of the frame. The lens hood simply blocks light from angles that are not withing the lens' view. Lens hoods help reduce lens flare as well as keeping water droplets from landing on the lens when there is any rain. A lens hood is always recommended especially for outdoor use and will not degrade image quality in any way.

I typically use ISO 1600 for my star shots. :] I love the second shot!

Btw Jeff, great story. It sounds like you were as amazed as I was by the light show. :)

Quote Leo: "My tip for those wishing to capture them with a camera... run more than one camera, and use fast lenses/high ISOs (whatever you can get away with noise wise). Keep exposures short, but make lots of them!"

 

<P>Thats Good advice! I have only been on one meteor shoot so far, but got lucky. I got a meteor on my third exposure of the night. (<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6323221">Perseid Shower 2007</a> ) The rest were very small and just didnt look nearly as nice. We saw many bright meteors, but most were just out of the frame. I shot at ISO 1600 for 30 sec with a Sigma 20mm f1.8 at f2.2 to get my shots. Second to the Canon 24mm f1.4, I think its an ideal lens for this type of shot as it is fast and covers a great field of view.

 

<P>I would encourage anybody who has never watched a meteor shower to go. Its a spectacular show!

Michael: While that is great advise for many filters, you really cant simulate the effects of a polarizer. Any time there is water and you want to see through the reflections, a polarizer is the way to go. Image quality is the reason I spent the money for a B+W. You really get what you pay for, and they make very nice filters. However, polarizers really appeal to landscape photographers more than photojournalists, so its all a matter of what you are shooting. I assume since Pradeep is inquiring about them, he has a need for one.

 

<P>

Mark: You make a very good point and I agree totally. I only suggest step-up rings for the short term until you can afford the next filter. I personally use my polarizer on my wide angle lens more than the others, so thats why I suggest it for the 17-55 first.

 

<P>

Either way, buy your first polarizer for the lens you are likely to use it on most. Since step-up rings are only like 10 bucks, you can pick up a few while you are at it. This will temporarily give you the ability to use it on your other lenses as well. Then when you have the extra money, you can buy additional filters. I also suggest the best one you can afford. If you are unsure whether you will really use it, I suppose you could just buy a cheap one to play with, but to me it seems a waste of money to buy a cheap filter and later an expensive one to replace it. I hope we haven't confused you too much, haha. There is always a wealth of opinions here at PN, which isn't a bad thing. Best wishes and good luck choosing a filter! You will likely enjoy whatever you get.

That is a good point Peter. I know somebody who uses a 10-22 with a regular polarizer and he doesnt seem to experience much more vignetting than I do with my thin version. His images at 10mm are perfectly acceptable, although I am not sure how much correction he does in PS if any. I will obviously keep using my thin version now that I have it, but now kind of wish I had just bought a regular one.

...Also, I might suggest against a warming or cooling filter as you can easily simulate this in PhotoShop.

I own a 77mm B+W polarizer to fit my 10-22mm lens and have step up rings so that I can use it on my other lenses. I bought the thin version to reduce vignetting, but after owning it, I would honestly rather have the regular version. The reason is because the thin filters do not have front threads and therefore require a rubber slip-on lens cap. Those do not stay on very well at all, in fact I lost mine on a hike. Anyway, if these are your primary lenses, I would personally go with a 77mm filter to fit your 17-55 first and 72mm to 77mm and 58mm to 77mm step up rings. Then you can buy filters to fit the other lenses later if you want to use them with the lens hoods on.

A lot of people will say to ignore noise issues. I can say from experience, noise IS a big issue for shooting in

low light when you have to use a high ISO. Canon does produce higher quality images at higher ISO. If you only

plan on shooting during the day or when there is sufficient light, go with whatever you want. If you ever plan on

shooting at night where you need faster shutter speeds, or if you want to take pictures of stars and such, you

need the lowest noise possible. Canon just opens the possibilities to be able to do this. Plus, they have a great

selection of lenses. Third party lens companies like Sigma and Tamron make lenses in Nikon and Canon mounts as

well, which is another thing to consider. Sony has a lot of great benefits, but if you are after image quality,

Canon does a little better. Whatever you choose, there will be trade-offs. You really cant make a bad choice,

just know your options so that you can choose the camera that best serves your needs.

Noise comparison tests suggest that the Canon is cleaner and retains more detail especially at higher ISO.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra350/page17.asp

I am almost in the exact same boat only with a 400D instead of a 350D. I agree that you should sell the cheap lenses and buy the 24-70L. It is an amazing lens. If you can afford to save, you could buy the 17-40 in addition. I currently own a 10-22 so I will only need to trade for the 17-40. If you shoot mostly landscapes though, you may buy the 17-40 first. The 10-22 was the first lens I bought for my 400D and it is my primary lens for landscapes. I really like that focal length (or equivalent fov). Either way you go, it sounds like you have a good plan and you should be very happy with what you get.

Sorry, forgot to post the link, haha.

<P>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page18.asp

Ellis, you are exactly right, everything else will mostly be noise. :) In my experience, the XTi does much better at shooting at higher ISOs while minimizing noise. The D60 just simply does not do as well above 400. At 800, there is an obvious difference in image quality, with the Canon being the winner. The D60 is a great camera, but I personally prefer the XTi over the D60. As far as ergonomics go, I would personally sacrifice some comfort to gain better quality imaging. And the XTi really isn't all that bad.

Hello David,

a few years ago, I started out with the Sony DSC-H1. I was basically in the exact same boat you are now. While the Sony served me well, it really does have its limitations, especially when it comes to night photos. I switched to a Canon Rebel XTi (400D) and have not looked back since. I went with Canon because of its reputation for low-noise imaging, especially at high ISO and with long exposures. I actually, I gave my H1 to a friend and he eventually switched to a Canon SLR as well. For me, the biggest factor was image quality. With any point and shoot, you are stuck with a very small sensor. These sensors are packed with tiny pixels. Smaller pixels receive fewer photons of light and are just simply less effective. This results in higher noise. I think you could switch to an entry level SLR, and buy a few budget lenses and be amazed at the increase in quality. While its not quite 200mm, you might check out the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (equivalent of 38-112mm) which is only around $430usd. This lens is now capable of macro too. It seems to be a very versatile lens for the money. Fitted to a Rebel XT, you would have a very capable and versatile setup.

"FWIW there is a tamron 10-24 coming out soon. Good quite easily be the best super wide available to us a-mount users."

 

<P>Cool, I cant wait to see some comparison shots! Do you know the estimated price yet?

Sorry, I totally forgot about the lenses, haha. I have read many reviews reporting bad copies of the Sigma 10-20. In every case, Sigma was happy to exchange it for another copy, but the fact that there are so many worries me. I actually considered this lens at one time, and ended up buying the Canon 10-22. As far as the focal length goes, I use this lens all the time and is prized among my collection. You might try going to fredmiranda.com and reading the user reviews of several lenses in this class to decide which one you feel comfortable with. Either way, granted you get a good copy, any of these lenses will make you very happy.

You are actually getting 12mm on the 12-24, its just cropped. Since the sensor is smaller than film, it is essentially cropping your image. The reason the 10-20 is for digital only is because it only projects an image big enough for a small sensor. (Not to mention it wont work properly with a camera with a bigger mirror such as full frame or film.) If you want an idea what the field of view will be compared to what it is on film, you take the focal length and multiply it by the crop factor. (Usually 1.5 or 1.6 for Canon.) The fact that it is a digital camera doesnt actually change the focal length, it just crops it and changes the field of view. Since people are used to judging the field of view based on focal length, they use the crop factor to get an idea of just how wide or long a lens will seem on a cropped sensor.