mike_connell1

<p>I compared those two cameras a while back and ended up going with the Canon. I wrote up my thoughts on the S90 now that I've had some time to play with it. You can check that out <a href="http://texasshooter.blogspot.com/2010/03/canon-s90-review.html">here</a> if you like.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I did manage to find this link to the manufacturer: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.komamura.co.jp/press/horseman_DigitalMCF.html</p>

<p>Has anyone had any experience with Horseman UV filters? I bought a Canon 70-200mm/4 recently, which is my first L series lens. I like to have a multi coated UV filter on my lens, primarily for protection. I usually buy Hoya or Promaster, but the sales guy at the local camera shop says he would use a "nicer" filter - the Horseman Multi Coated UV Digital filter. I can't find anything on these on the 'net. They cost twice as much as a Hoya (about $80). Is he just feeding me a line of horse crap or is the Horseman filter something that is truly worth twice the price?</p>

<p>The Canon hoods have a light absorbing fabric coating inside (at least the ones I have do.) I haven't looked at 3rd party hoods, but that is one area where they might cut corners.</p>

<p>Not sure if this is a processing question, but here goes. Can anyone tell me what causes the distortion of the rings around the cylinders in this picture? It's kind of like a drop hitting water. It is especially prevalent on the second structure from the left. This is an HDR processed photo and the distortion seems static. In the single exposures, they fluctuate with size of the photo. It was really confusing because I didn't see them in Lightroom, but they appeared in Photoshop and I discovered that they could disappear at some sizes. This was taken with a Canon 30D with a Canon 10-22mm lens, f11 @ 10mm. The phenomenon is present at larger apertures and longer focal lengths.<br>

<a title="Hutto Coop 3 by mdconnell67, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdconnell/4206816809/"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4206816809_586da3de76.jpg" alt="Hutto Coop 3" width="500" height="307" /></a></p>

<p>Tripod!</p>

<p>Lightroom and Photoshop serve different purposes and I use both. I bring my images from the camera into Lightroom for initial review and minor editing of things like white balance correction, basic tone balancing, and spot removal. Anything more advanced goes into Photoshop. </p>

<div></div>

<p>I thought about buying a macro lens a few months back. My concern was buying a special purpose lens like that for something that I only do from time to time. I like taking shots of flowers at macro from time to time, but I don't do anything else that a dedicated macro lens would be good for, such as portraits. I was convinced that extension tubes were not a good solution until a friend let me borrow a set. Well, I have to say that I was impressed with the results. With my Canon 50mm 1.8, the tubes made for a great inexpensive macro solution. I manually focus and shoot handheld with a flash held next to the lens front element. It comes down to how often you shoot macro and what your budget is, but IMO the tubes are a perfectly workable solution.</p>

<p>Here is a shot with the 50mm and a 36mm tube.<br /> <a title="Silver Sage Bloom by mdconnell67, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdconnell/3958902535/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3958902535_1f20743e6e.jpg" alt="Silver Sage Bloom" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

<p>Matt has it right; good, fast, cheap (and wide in this case) don't really go together. The Tokina 11-16mm is probably the least expensive quality choice. The Canon 10-22mm is a great lens. I'm borrowing one myself right now to see if I want to buy a copy. It's not very fast, but I use a tripod most of the time so that's not a big concern. Since you mentioned cars, you might want to see if you can rent or borrow a wide angle, especially if it's an ultra wide, to make sure it's what you want. Shooting things up close at uber-wide focal lengths is going to result in some distortion of the subject. I'm learning that there is an art to using an ultra wide angle!</p>

<p>Not exactly wide, but I picked up a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for a fast prime for handheld flash-less indoor shots. It's a reasonably priced prime. I used it a motorcycle show with success. My "wide angle" currently is the cheapo Canon 18-55mm. I think I paid $120 for it. It's a great value and I've got great shots with it from a tripod.</p>

<p>Here's a couple of samples to show you how shallow depth of field gets (handheld). I sometimes find it's easier to switch to manual at wide aperture, especially if the subject is close, and focus by moving myself and the camera back and forth.<br>

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qz066ksOfNA/Ss3s_HnBwsI/AAAAAAAABW4/K8O-1yMJDEQ/s1600-h/_MG_9249.jpg">1.8 @ 1/160, ISO 1600</a><br>

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qz066ksOfNA/SrmdfaXEEHI/AAAAAAAABVQ/SNFeOk35Wk8/s1600-h/_MG_8635.jpg">2.8 @ 1/20, ISO 400</a></p>

<p>Depends on what you're shooting. I was saving to buy a macro lens (Canon 100mm) when a friend lent me some extension tubes to play with. I ended up buying an extension tube set to use with my 50mm 1.8. That set up works well for me on flowers, but is too close in for bugs.</p>

<p><a title="_MG_9181 by mdconnell67, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdconnell/3958902535/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3958902535_1f20743e6e_m.jpg" alt="_MG_9181" width="240" height="160" /></a></p>

<p>I bought my first SLR, a Canon 30D this past summer for $400 used. I've seen refurb deals on Adorama.com from time to time.</p>

<p>I'm 42 and still trying to figure out what I want to be when I grow up. I started dabbling in photography a few months ago. I've got a lot to learn, but I've been enjoying it so far. I too have toyed with the idea of making a living off of it. It's too early to say if that will ever happen. For now, I'm just learning to consistently take good pictures. Something like a photo journalist sounds interesting. Maybe product photography for web and catalogs. I'm still figuring out what I like shooting best and what I do the best at. When I get to the point where I feel confident enough in my abilities, I thought I'd go around to some of the small businesses and offer to take photos for use on web sites and what-not. Probably do a few for free until there is work out there I could show people. </p>

<p>It's good to hear that someone else my age is not crazy about their current career and is considering photography as an option. Good luck!</p>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/4027787385_5fc5af9b25.jpg" width="500"

height="333" alt="Pumpkins_MG_9316_tonemapped_full" /></a>

<p>28mm isn't wide enough for landscape in my opinion. I bought a 18-55mm Canon IS for my first wide angle, general walk around outdoors. It's decent for the price, but not as sharp as the Tamron from what I've seen in sample pics. Neither that or the 28-135mm are fast lens, so they won't do well in low light without flash. I bought a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for my indoors no-flash lens. </p>

<div></div>

<p>I ended up getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4 today. The local shop had one in stock and I played with it in the store for a while. It's really nice! I didn't see any problems there, but they have a 14 day return policy so I feel safe. I've gotten some good shots in the house in poor lighting. I wish it were wider, but I think it will work fine. It's much better for casual shots in smallish rooms than my 50mm, so I think I'll get a lot of use out of it. I'll keep it on the camera for a couple of weeks and see how it goes. </p>

<p>Anthony, I'll post pics from the show late next month. :)</p>

<p>I was just curious. I don't want to use a flash, hence my interest in the fast lenses. Plus, I'm riding there on my bike so the less equipment I carry, the better! :) <br>

I'm a little surprised your 18-55mm looks so dull. I've only used mine for landscapes at f11-16 though. I'll have to play around with it some more. I haven't had it that long. It was an impulse buy when Adorama had them for $120 last month. It gets me wider than my 28-135mm outdoors, which is what I bought it for. </p>

<p>Thanks for the detailed answer and sample photos, Anthony! That is very helpful. You didn't use flash in any of those, did you?</p>

<p>Another thread I started has me wondering now. How much advantage is there really between the Tamron 17-50mm (no IS) at 2.8 and the Canon 18-55mm IS at 3.5? If you liked the 18-55mm focal length, you could stay with it by getting the very inexpensive Canon lens. 3.5 isn't very fast, but there is IS.</p>

<p>Interesting thought, Kenneth. I had assumed that 3.5 aperture wouldn't be enough even with IS in low light. I'm not sure how many stops the IS buys me. I'd only used the lens on a tripod outdoors so far. I did get some acceptable test shots just now in dimly lit rooms in my house at 800-1600 ISO. Noisy images of course, but not terrible after running through Noiseware. Sharpness is not great. My lens barrels pretty bad at 18mm. Perhaps that is typical? It's OK at 24mm. I should have added that I'd be handholding, with maybe a monopod. I'm still willing to spend some money to get sharper images and less post processing, probably up to the $500ish range if it makes a significant difference and will give me a lot of use with other indoor use. The 50mm has been really good, but in the small rooms of my house it's a close up lens. I've been using it a lot for macro with extension tubes as of late. </p>

<p>I'm new to shooting with a DSLR. I have a Canon 30D and these Canon lenses: 50mm 1.8, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, and 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS. Every year, I like to go to Cycle World's motorcycle show in Dallas. This will be the first year that I've got something besides a cheap point-n-shoot with me. This is a big show in a huge convention center. You've got the standard high power lights in the ceiling way up high and some displays will have additional lighting. There is chrome everywhere, so lots of flash bounce back. From my experimentation with my bike, I'd say that 30mm or less focal length is going to be the best working area. 35mm is not out of the question, but that's getting real tight on my 1.6x crop body. Most of the bikes are out where you can walk up to them. A lot are behind ropes, but most builders will let you slip in to take pictures if you ask. </p>

<p>I'm thinking that no flash and a wide, fast lens is in order (correct me if I'm wrong, please!) I'm thinking of purchasing one of the following, in order of preference:</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 28mm 1.8 (if I can find one!)</li>

<li>Sigma 30mm 1.4 (a little scary, seems like a lot of bad copies out there.)</li>

<li>Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (I already have a "wide" angle and is 2.8 fast enough?)</li>

<li>Canon 35mm 2.0 (getting a little too narrow.)</li>

</ul>

<p>Any other suggestions? I'm not a pro, so 'L' series are out of the question, at least for now. I don't want to spend a lot on crop specific lenses, in case I decide to go full frame later (yeah, I know I can always sell them.) I love my 50mm 1.8 and I basically want a wider counter part to that. I use the 50mm to take pictures indoors a lot and the new lens would probably replace it for a lot of things.</p>

<p>I'm attaching a picture taken with my old Canon A510, just to give an idea of the environment to expect. Note the flash bouncing off the chrome.</p><div></div>

<p>Yeah, I'd like to have the 1.8 speed. The 28mm 1.8 isn't available anywhere I've seen right now though. I am considering the Sigma 30mm 1.4, even though it's crop body only, because of the speed. It's easier to justify it as a prime in my mind I guess. I've already got a wide zoom, albeit too slow for indoors without flash or tripod. I'm afraid the Tamron you mentioned wouldn't be fast enough at 2.8. <br>

Sorry, Gina, didn't mean to hijack your thread! :)</p>

<p>Yes, you're right Tommy, 28mm isn't real wide on a crop body. I use a 30D and a 28-135mm lens so I know what it looks like. I do have a 18-55mm for my outdoors wide angle. 28mm is "acceptable" most of the time, but I'm just looking for something faster for handheld indoor shots with no flash. Wider is prefered, but if it doesn't let in enough light it wouldn't do me any good. I'd like to have a lens faster than 2.8, but I know that's tough in this range without spending a lot. Since I'm not a pro, I'm looking to stay under $500, so something like a 24mm 1.4 isn't feasible. Eventually, I see myself going full frame and don't want to spend a lot of money on a lens that won't work with the bigger sensors. The Tamron isn't terribly expensive, but it's crop body only.</p>