morten_jespersen

<p>@Scott, Lex and Martin: <br>

Thanks for your input. I think I have to download a trial version to try it out. Have any of you tried DPP? Because my main concern is that if i can do the same to my photos with DPP that LR can, I will probably stay with DPP and spend my hard earned $$ on something else like a lens or photo printer.<br>

Regards, <br>

Morten</p>

<p>Hi all, <br>

I am interested in an updated 2012 take on the matchup between LR4 and DPP. Having limited funds, I wonder if the price of LR4 could be used elsewhere -- my next prime for instance? If money wasn't an issue, I would have a full frame camera and a lot of L's in my lens collection. Sadly, this is not the case, so I have to spend my money wisely. Is it wise to spend $$ on LR, with a free DPP in the world and so many desirable lenses to buy? Or are the features of LR so supperior that this is a must-have?<br>

Regards, <br>

Morten<br />(Canon 60d)</p>

@Rob,

I think I know DoF- but softness is at the focus point/points as well.

Regarding pixel peeping: this is not an interest of mine. The softness I see is almost visible on the camera screen.

Finally, I hear you on the testing.

:-) Morten

@Charles

Tanks for your input. I tried to explain my definition of "acceptable quality", but I know it is very hard. About print costs: My

only basis for stating "acceptable costs" is the reviews I have read -- I am a rookie, and I have nevet bought a printer for

photos, so the reviews and your valuable input is all I have to lean on.

I am not sure, I can find a store where I Can see the printer in action, but I think I will try.

Regards,

Morten

@Bob.

Tanks. I think I will explore this possibility further with some more controlled tests.

Regards,

Morten

@Rob,

No, I have not. I am still a rookie, and I genuinely do not know what to expect from the 35mm. Thus I am unable to judge

whether the lens i faulty or just performs as expected. And as I said, I wanted the speed. I am not that interested in its

perfomance from at f/5.6 and on.

Regards,

Morten

Hi all,

I just got my canon 35 f/2, and I am a bit dissappointed. It seems to be very soft from f/2 to f/4-ish. The issue seems to be more noticable with AF on. Could I have gotten a bad copy or am I expecting too much from this lens? I bought it for the speed,but if the lens is no good wide open, I really see no point in owning this lens. Then I think I'd rather return it and trade my 17-85 for a 17-55 f/2.8 instead.

So, what do you Think of this?

Renards,

Morten

<p>Canon Pixma MG6250 has caught my eye, and I just wanted to know, if this printer can produce prints of an acceptable quality. I have tried to sum up my needs, to give you guys an insight into my preferences and needs:</p>

<ul>

<li>Acceptable quality to me means margnially worse overall qality compared having a store print them. I am willing to accept this in order to have production control. </li>

<li>I don't need A3+ capability. When I do, I'll send them out. I may reconcider in the future. </li>

<li>Acceptable price range. Other camera investments are on the horizon (lenses mainly), so there is no financial room for the perfect pro-grade A2 printer in my household.</li>

<li>Acceptable print cost </li>

</ul>

<p>I look forward to you input.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Morten</p>

<p>Hi all,<br /> I went to the local lens pusher yesterday armed with all your input. After careful consideration I took a deep breath, swiped the creditcard and......(drumroll)...... left the shop with my new canon 35 mm f/2. The reasons were:<br>

<br /> - "Normal" lens on my crop cam (60d)<br /> - Since it is my only prime (so far), I would like it to be a good walkaround lens.<br /> - Good reviews.<br /> - 40% cheaper than Sigma 30 1.4 and Canon 28 1.8 (saving for my zoom upgrade).<br /> - Portraits are not that important. I have used my 70-200 f/4 L non-IS for this with some amazing results (in daylight).<br /> - Good-old-fashioned gut feeling.<br>

<br /> I am amazed of the amount of really great input you have provided me with. I'll be sure to include you in my future thoughts on gear requisition. Thanks for all your help. Regards, Morten</p>

<p>@Mike, <br>

I'll pretend that I didn't see those L's :o) But yes, I have made quite a detailed plan for the expansion of my equipment bag, I should probably have let you in on that. Damn, forgot new equipment bag -- the L primes just got pushed another 6 months back!</p>

<p>@Leslie, <br>

As I said all-round, which means in-door low-light, outside night shots, walkaround with narrow DOF.I am also thinking that 50mm is maybe too long, but I don't know. </p>

<p>@Daniel, <br>

So you are saying that upgrading my 17-85 to the 17-55 2.8 would give me more quality than any of the available primes?</p>

<p>@Mike, <br>

Naughty You! I told you no L lenses ;o) L primes are way down my list. First upgrades to my zooms (17-85 and 70-200 f4 Non-IS), then ultra wide like tokina 11-16, then more primes, then flash, then a full frame and thin I finally might consider L primes. We are talking years of photography. Should I still take the 50 1.8, given this priority?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi all, <br>

I am looking for my first prime for my 1.6 crop camera (EOS 60d). I would like a speedy all-round lens, and my upper price limit is around the canon 28 mm 1.8. Among the candidates are:</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 28 1.8</li>

<li>Canon 28 2.8</li>

<li>Canon 35 2.0 </li>

<li>Canon 50 1.4</li>

<li>Canon 50 1.8 </li>

<li>Sigma 30 1.4</li>

</ul>

<p>Specification-wise, I find the 28 1.8 one of the more interesting, but I am a bit nervous about some bad reviews – Photozone.de being the most negative. Both the 50mm have close to spotless reputation, but are they too tele-lens-like on my crop cam to go? 35 seems to have a very good rep too, and cheap too, but it is the slowest and also old and noisy. Please don’t say “buy the L lens” because I can’t – I would love to, but I just can’t. <br>

I hope you can help me. <br>

Regards, <br>

Morten</p>