matthijs

As some of the grumpier people are heard a lot I'll let you hear another voice:

In about one year my 400D will be worn out and my savings hopefully swollen.

The 50D will probably have dropped a little in price and it has (in order of appreciation):

Very high ISO with respectable noise levels, a nice big viewfinder, auto ISO, superfast AF and a better screen, all in a 30D sized-and-weighted rugged body that's accoring to some sources even dust-and-waterdrop-sealed.

(Not to mention folder selection, a few more pixels, enhanced liveview for MF, 6+ FPS, mini-RAW, better handling of high contrast situations and vignettecontrol which are all welcome but not that high on my wishlist.)

Woohoo, Matthijs.

O.K. I'll bite:

Lenses are "just" physics.

Digital camera's are computers...

But I feel your regret, you'd love to be surprised by a new cool lens and all you get are new camera's.

Me, I'm happy with the 50D and hope to but one when I wear out my 400D and saved the money.

As for lenses: I'd love a 400/5.6 L IS but they just won't make one for me.

Matthijs.

In a translation of the chinese site the following line appears: "Splendid dustproof, against water-drop performance, lets the photographic amateur deal with the severe photography environment calmly."

So weathersealing seems to be present!

Source: http://infodigitalcamera.blogspot.com/2008/08/canon-50d-specifications-leaked.html

Matthijs.

Digital seems to be pretty good at high ISO values.

How's film in that department?

This would make the question of how much light is present at this hypothetical "once in a lifetime" shot relevant. As is the question whether the subject is moving.

I disregard the question whether the photographer is moving because of the mention that the size or practical use of the equipment was deemed irrelevant.

Regards, Matthijs.

P.S. Is the number of bits per pixel relevant or is 14bits color depth deemed satisfactory?

Maybe this one's too simple but nobody said it: shoot RAW it gives you more options in PP.

Another of the top of my mind: go out at night and practice shooting in the dark. Maybe a lit fountain has comparable light-and-darkness or a few shopwindows / city lights / passing cars. Get to know how your camera (and FAST lens) performs in the dark so you won't be surprised when you actually do go out to shoot the fires.

And a third: ask your friend how close you are likely to get to the action, try to imagine the angles you'll want to shoot and from there estimate your focal length needs.

Kind regards, Matthijs.

Uhm...

One to consider: while you haven't shot any pictures for 26 years you've seen about 260.000 of them. Some of them good, some of them not. But they taught you a great deal about photography, images and aesthetics.

Now it's time to try to use some of those lessons. Try to remember what kind of pictures you like, admire, dream-away-by and then try to shoot a few yourself.

Kind regards, Matthijs.

I'd say option 1 with the addition of a F1.4 lens. (If you want low-light f2.8 is still lacking a bit.)

For me the 50/1.4 seems ideal but YMMV.

I wouldn't sweat the gap in mm's, that's what foot-zoom is for.

(The past weekend was a busy weekend but we didn't want to leave the camera at home. We took it with us with only the 50/1.8, had great fun and took great pictures without missing our other lenses...Lots of footzoom was used.)

Kind regards, Matthijs.

Uhm... setting the camera at - 2.0 EV because of shooting the moon with my "toy" mirror lens and then giving the camera to my wife with the normal lens to shoot the first day at school of our youngest daughter...

I could salvage the JPG's a little, but they look pretty bad.

Ow.

Isn't there a chat forum where real men can speak their minds?

Anyway, the same goes for low marks.

In answer to the first part of the question:

1. Try to stop it down slightly. (At 18mm use 5.6 or higher number, at 55mm use 8 or higher number)

2. If you need more light you can set ISO at 400, 800 or even 1600 in P mode. (This will make your picture progressively more grainy but not too bad when printed or looking at smaller sizes.)

3. Play around with custom settings for picture style. I love these two: Faithfull with +2 Saturation and 5 Sharpness OR Monochrome with +3 Contrast and +6 Sharpness.

4. Just play with it, read a book, browse Photo.net and if stumped: just ask questions. Either in the forums or when critiqueing other peoples pictures.

5. Aim for the best but be happy with small improvements...

Kind regards, Matthijs.

P.S. The others answered the second parts better than I could.

Uhm...

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html

Makes a pretty good case for the 70-200/4 with or without IS.

So:

1: If you must have IS and don't have the money: 70-300/IS.

2. If you must have 300mm: 70-300/IS.

3. If you don't have the money and don't need IS: 70-200/4.

4. If you do have the money and want/need/don't mind IS: 70-200/4 IS.

I own and use the 70-200/4 IS and it has me spoilt: I cannot seem to find the perfect wide-standard zoom to go with it... (Leaning towards 17-40 after much consideration of my personal preferences.)

Kind regards, Matthijs.

1. Learn to have a thicker hide.

2. That my style is mostly about trying to capture what catches my eye.

3. To use two hard returns te prevent sentences being stitched together.

4. That some really good photographers are very friendly.

5. That there are some people here who are really knowledgable about photography but really shy about showing their work. (If you read this and think that must be me: please post more pictures! (don't worry, after three times asking this question I won't ask again.))

6. That postprocessing is not a dirty word. (However the jury is still out on Photoshop...)

Matthijs.

Why do I find photography beautiful?

1. It allows me to capture (when I'm lucky) the images that I see that I find beautiful.

2. It allows me to share the images that I find beautiful.

These are two fundamentally human things to me: the appreciation of beauty and the (high level?) communication with other humans on feelings and aesthetics.

So it's a combination of the selfcentered collector in me and the social/emotional communicator.

Should be enuff...

Kind regards, Matthijs.

Thanks for the input. I am happy and sad that it confirms my ideas. Happy in that my research is fine, sad that there

isn't some hidden gem in EF lenses.

Some more background: I'll use it for handheld daylight shots (abstract / landscape / architecture) and I do not need

an ultrawide at this point in my photography. For lowlight and short tele I have a 50/1.8 which I'll eventually upgrade

to a 50/1.4. (I played with a Canon EF-s ultrawide 10-22 and really didn't like the results. That's a personal taste

issue: it does not represent the world as I perceive it.)

The 16-35 is faster, wider and shorter than the 17-40 which are qualities I don't really need or, in the case of shorter,

want. It does seem to have great IQ so it's a high scoring contender in my list.

The 17-55/2.8 IS has a lot going for it, that's true but size/weight/build are less, the speed I do not need in my wide-

standard and the pictures I've seen seem less "lively" than the 17-40's. It's the lens that makes me wonder if I'm on

the right track. I should probably rent or lend both the 17-55/2.8 IS and the 17-40/4 to be really sure of my choice.

Apart from the-digital-picture.com, photozone.de and some other sources I looked at a lot of images at pbase.com

and pixelpeeper to come to my conclusions. As I write this I peep at slrgear.com.

Ratings: Construction 9.54 Image 8.92 Total 8.97 for the 17-40

The Canon 17-40mm f/4 L is a high quality lens with a full-frame image circle that showed really exceptional

performance on the EOS-20D we used to test it with.

Sharpness at maximum aperture is excellent across the board (just a slight decrease in sharpness around 30 mm),

and the "sweet spot" for sharpness is unusually broad, with truly excellent results from f/5.6 to f/8 at all focal lengths.

Chromatic aberration is moderate at 17mm, very low at 24 and 31mm, and then rises again for large apertures at

40mm.

Ratings: Construction 8.14 Image 9.38 Total 9.00 for the 17-55

It's great to see the camera manufacturers making more and more lenses optimized for their sub-frame DSLRs. A

great example of this trend is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, a really excellent wide-to-medium range zoom with

image stabilization.

This lens is decently sharp wide open, and wonderfully sharp at f/4, across its entire focal length range.

CA is a bit of a weak point for this lens, at least at its widest focal lengths.

My interpretation is that for my use they're optically very close with maybe even a slight edge for the 17-40.

As a standalone solution the EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS is beyond any doubt the better lens. However in my eventual kit with

my use the 17-40/4 seems to be the winner.

Eventual kit: 17-40/4 plus 50/1.4 plus 70-200/4 IS.

Thanks again for your help and I hope this thread'll help fellow photographers as well.

Matthijs.

Gentlemen and Ladies,

My lens of reference is the 70-200/4 IS. I have it and I am totally in love with what it does.

- Using it is easy.

- Pictures are of utter sharpness, living colour and real contrasts.

- It is very sturdy and the controls are smooth.

- It does not change shape when I use it.

The nitpickings are small: I think it is a little large, a little bit heavy and a lot of white.

I've read quite a lot on the internet and I think I know what's out there in EOS compatible lenses. (Canon,

Sigma, Tamron, Tokina)

Is there any wide to standard zoom that is compatible with a digital rebel and has all of these four characteristics?

My research was disappointing: it tells me there isn't one. The only wide to standard zoom that is remotely

comparable seems to be the Canon 17-40/4.

What's your (preferably hands-on) experience with lenses that (again preferably) have all four characteristics?

Thanks in advance, Matthijs.

I'm not sure if learning photography by using film really helps.

Yes, it teaches you about the roots of photography. And it teaches you about the chemistry, the magic and the patience. It teaches you the value of each shot because 1. each shot really costs money and 2. because you cannot see the result instantly you must be more sure of yourself before you shoot.

However...

In digital you can see the result instantly. Thus you have instant gratification: that's nice when you're 10.

With instant results your learning curve might be shorter because you learn to adjust instantly.

Maybe if you are taught the differences between pixelsizes on sensors, their effect on magnification and on high ISO performance, what RAW is and what JPG is, what aperture does, focal length, shutterspeed and the effect of changing your ISO you can also learn what photography is.

Another thing to consider is a course in painting or a few dialogues with a painter to learn something about composition, contrast, color, leaving away and filling or cluttering your image...

But the preference of the giver and his estimation of the interests of the child is probably the most important factor in this decision.

Regards, Matthijs.

Don't try this at home...

I have a new T-mount (Opteka) 500mm mirror lens plus T-mount-EOS adapter and it is able to focus as it should.

So I'm guessing that T-mount lenses plus T-mount-EOS adapter will focus fine.

The image quality of this lens is not too good but it was dirt cheap and is fun to play with.

(It's has manual focus and a paperthin DoF ... that's not a nice combination, worse if you have a crop body with a small viewfinder, colors are often a bit washed out and while it's officially a f8 I'd guess it's a stop slower than that. Plus of course, with certain backgrounds, the bokeh is pretty ugly.)

On the plus side: I've shot some nice moon pictures with it and the x2 extender that came with it...

Regards, Matthijs.<div></div>

I couldn't resist adding one too:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7510471

It's shot with a Canon 50/1.8, a lens not really famous for it's bokeh quality but every now and then the stars align just right...

Regards, Matthijs.

This looks good and should get attention.

If everyone who agrees on that leaves a response on this thread it might gain a "hot thread" place...

Kind regards, Matthijs.

10 year olds are pretty smart.

So explain the benefits of a very good point and shoot (Panasonic Lumix LX3, Canon G9, Ricoh GX200) versus a good DSLR (pick any, just make it a relatively small one I'd say), explain the boundaries of the budget and let him choose for himself. Going to a good shop that has most of these in stock and letting him handle some of these can be very usefull too.

Another thought: if you use a DSLR, you might want to buy a DSLR that can use the same lenses so you can use each others.

Kind regards, Matthijs.

Never forget the 100/2 or even the 135/2.

If you like tight portraits, headshots, tight indoor sports pictures one of these in addition to a 50/1.4 would

be very nice.

Regards, Matthijs.

Dear GK,

Nice shooting!

The lenses you name are ranging from excellent (85/1.8) to good (50/1.8) to nice (55-250 IS).

Whether they are what you need depends on a number of issues:

1. What's your budget?

2. What do you miss most? (quality? range? macro? sturdiness?)

You say you need a prime and a medium telephoto.

I'd guess the prime is for lowlight work.

If you do lowlight what focal length would you want?

Nice options are: Sigma 30/1.4, Canon 50/1.8 (very cheap), Canon 85/1.8 or Canon 100/2 (both very good)

Medium telephoto's have a number of choices, I'll just name the Canons:

55-250 IS, pretty good, very affordable, 70-300 IS, good midpriced, 4 different 70-200's with high IQ, F4 or F2.8 and with or without IS ranging from $ 600 to $ 1700.

If I were you (and did not want to spend too much) I'd go for the 55-250 and the 50/1.8.

Kind regards, Matthijs.

Steve, could you post a 100% crop of the area on which you focussed? It looks nice to me but I'm not a professional pixel peeper, I just like photography.

Another thing you should never forget is that your camera just records what is in front of it. Your eyes have auto-ISO, you are able to pan to see a view and your brain can pick out details in a cluttered image, so most of the time what you see is not what you get...

My feeling is that you focussed pretty close and the trees in the distance might be a little fuzzy because of that.

You could always do some focus and sharpness tests if you want to be sure. A small problem I have with these is that testing might lead you to mistrust your equipment, lowering your confidence in it and thereby hampering your vision.

Regards, Matthijs.

Just adding to the confusion: if you have a 50/1.8 why not buy a Canon 100/2 which is exactly twice as long as

the 50?

In regard to the posted question:Yes. (The 50 on a crop is roughly like an 85 on FF.)

Regarding 50's use indoor: Recently I shot some indoor volleyball pictures. As I prefer to shoot tight shots the

50/1.8 I used was way too short for me. Since you have a 50/1.8 you'll probably already know whether it's long

enough for you.

Regarding the buying of lenses in general: When buying lenses I would always look for a lens that gave me some

significant advantage over the lenses I already have. I your case I would wonder whether the 50/1.4 is enough of

an improvement to justify buying that as opposed to a lens that opens new realms for you. (A longer fast lens, a

cool wide lens or even a Macro lens.)

Good luck and remember to have fun, Matthijs.