Any photographers in here?

[tekkie]

you say that cause you have not tried it once you do you will change your mind

my advice dont try it

you can get damn fine images with the kit lens if you work around the limitations, I personally hate the 50 1.8 it misfocused far to many times for my liking, the 50 1.4 on the other hand I really like.... but when the 50 1.8 focuses its definetly capable of very good images, its really near as good image quality wise as the 1.4

 

[sleeper3]

yeah sorry I don't know why I typed d50, I meant 50d.


the 40d is nice, but lacking several features that I would want, for example a high resolution LCD that is able to check focus in the field.


I have the 18-55mm kit lens, a 50mm 1.8 II, and a 55-250IS, and I'm not thrilled with any of them. Sure, they get the job done, but I have to do mega post processing to come out with winners. I shoot with an XTi, and sure, it gets the job done, but I have to shoot 400 or less ISO or else the only place I can use the pictures is facebook, because they degrade pictures so badly anyway that it doesn't make a difference.

I'm not saying that you can't get an entire setup for $600, I'm just saying that it's not a setup I would want to shoot with. If I had it to do over again, I'd start with the 50d and a 24-70 f2.8. it would cost you probably right around $2,000 and you'd have an amazing setup that is incredibly versatile and you can grow with. Oh, also, I'd buy it used.

That's just me though. I mean, what do I know.

 

[FlyinHawaiian]

While I agree that good images can be achieved with the kit lens, I've gotten to the point where it is WAY too limiting for my liking. My chief complaint is I can't get super-crisp images with it. The glass is really poor quality and its difficult to get a sharp photo out of it.

I might get myself a new short-lens for x-mas

 

[sleeper3]

you say that cause you have not tried it once you do you will change your mind

my advice dont try it

you can get damn fine images with the kit lens if you work around the limitations, I personally hate the 50 1.8 it misfocused far to many times for my liking, the 50 1.4 on the other hand I really like.... but when the 50 1.8 focuses its definetly capable of very good images, its really near as good image quality wise as the 1.4

The quality sucks unless you stop down to ~2.8 or so. At least, for my tastes that's the case.

 

[tekkie]

a few other recent pics

ticked me off I chopped this one

cant recall if I posted these earlier or not

 

[Wagonbacker9]

you say that cause you have not tried it once you do you will change your mind

my advice dont try it

you can get damn fine images with the kit lens if you work around the limitations, I personally hate the 50 1.8 it misfocused far to many times for my liking, the 50 1.4 on the other hand I really like.... but when the 50 1.8 focuses its definetly capable of very good images, its really near as good image quality wise as the 1.4

I did notice I switched over to manual focus pretty quickly, especially when I was trying to do different focal points than would be what the cam expects, but I have the Mk I, which is supposed to be better..

I like shooting the 50 a LOT more than the 18-55... probably partly because of the f stop, seeing as I haven't used the cam ONCE in a properly lit situation. lol

 

[sleeper3]

While I agree that good images can be achieved with the kit lens, I've gotten to the point where it is WAY too limiting for my liking. My chief complaint is I can't get super-crisp images with it. The glass is really poor quality and its difficult to get a sharp photo out of it.

I might get myself a new short-lens for x-mas

if you stop the kit lens down to f/8 you'd be surprised at how crisp the images can be. My beef is that at f/8, I can't create the bokeh effects that I love so much. here is an example:

amera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 38 mm
ISO Speed: 100

 

[sleeper3]

great pics tekkie I am loving the shallow DOF

 

[tekkie]

The quality sucks unless you stop down to ~2.8 or so. At least, for my tastes that's the case.

I dont agree with that quite, the dof is very shallow so you have to very careful how its used because you will only get a very small part sharp

but thats my experience with the lens, its not that its not sharp its that its not focusing properly sometimes, thats why when you step it down your getting more dof and it looks sharper

you have to be careful with the focus plane when shooting wide open for sure

 

[sleeper3]

I did notice I switched over to manual focus pretty quickly, especially when I was trying to do different focal points than would be what the cam expects, but I have the Mk I, which is supposed to be better..

I like shooting the 50 a LOT more than the 18-55... probably partly because of the f stop, seeing as I haven't used the cam ONCE in a properly lit situation. lol

I've never taken mine off of AF. I just use single point focus instead of multi. it gives you way more control over what the camera is focusing on. in fact, I almost never use multipoint unless I am shooting flying birds. Then it's multipoint, aiservo, and rapid fire FTW!

 

[Wagonbacker9]

My beef is that at f/8, I can't create the bokeh effects that I love so much. here is an example:

I think this is why I love the 50...

I've never taken mine off of AF. I just use single point focus instead of multi. it gives you way more control over what the camera is focusing on. in fact, I almost never use multipoint unless I am shooting flying birds. Then it's multipoint, aiservo, and rapid fire FTW!

I shoot mostly still, so that changes perspectives a LOT.

 

[sleeper3]

I dont agree with that quite, the dof is very shallow so you have to very careful how its used because you will only get a very small part sharp

but thats my experience with the lens, its not that its not sharp its that its not focusing properly sometimes, thats why when you step it down your getting more dof and it looks sharper

you have to be careful with the focus plane when shooting wide open for sure

click this link and mouse over the picture to see the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 and you'll see what I am talking about.

 

[tekkie]

yeah sorry I don't know why I typed d50, I meant 50d.


the 40d is nice, but lacking several features that I would want, for example a high resolution LCD that is able to check focus in the field.


I have the 18-55mm kit lens, a 50mm 1.8 II, and a 55-250IS, and I'm not thrilled with any of them. Sure, they get the job done, but I have to do mega post processing to come out with winners. I shoot with an XTi, and sure, it gets the job done, but I have to shoot 400 or less ISO or else the only place I can use the pictures is facebook, because they degrade pictures so badly anyway that it doesn't make a difference.

I'm not saying that you can't get an entire setup for $600, I'm just saying that it's not a setup I would want to shoot with. If I had it to do over again, I'd start with the 50d and a 24-70 f2.8. it would cost you probably right around $2,000 and you'd have an amazing setup that is incredibly versatile and you can grow with. Oh, also, I'd buy it used.

That's just me though. I mean, what do I know.

that really depends on what your shooting

there is no way the XTI @ 400 is a limiting factor, if it is your probably exposing incorrectly, I shot with an XT and used 800 quite often and never had a problem, if you underexposing and increasing it then for sure you will have big issues

in fact I shoot at 800 & 1600 quite often on the 1D MKII and 40D

one thing I learned the hard way starting was being afraid to bump the iso up, thus getting slow shutter speeds and crap pictures, and not using a tripod was another big one

now I rarely do not use tripod, partly because using a big lens is far to heavy

 

[sleeper3]

I think this is why I love the 50...



I shoot mostly still, so that changes perspectives a LOT.

you also love the 50 because you shoot still. I took a trip to DC and shot the kit lens the entire time and left the 50 in the bag because I didn't have any control over my subject or where I could stand to take a picture of it. the 50 is definitely sharper than the kit lens, but I only use it for portraiture or the like.

 

[FlyinHawaiian]

if you stop the kit lens down to f/8 you'd be surprised at how crisp the images can be. My beef is that at f/8, I can't create the bokeh effects that I love so much. here is an example:


Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 38 mm
ISO Speed: 100

My beef is that a lot of my photos play with different light, most of it low. Stepping down to f/8 gets me some nasty slow shutter speeds, which I can't handhold. Seems kind of silly that you have to step it down to f/8 to get a crisp shot. I just want a faster lens that I can get the same crispness from...

 

[tekkie]

click this link and mouse over the picture to see the difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 and you'll see what I am talking about.

of course but your looking at a 100% crop of a picture, you will see that on most

your talking about a 100 buck lens of course its not going to be tack sharp

for sure at 1.8 its soft compared to 2.8, but you can say the same thing about most of the cheap lenses because not many of them are sharp wide open

 

[tekkie]

My beef is that a lot of my photos play with different light, most of it low. Stepping down to f/8 gets me some nasty slow shutter speeds, which I can't handhold. Seems kind of silly that you have to step it down to f/8 to get a crisp shot. I just want a faster lens that I can get the same crispness from...

get the 50 1.4, step down to f 2.2 or so and its damn sharp

 

[Wagonbacker9]

you also love the 50 because you shoot still. I took a trip to DC and shot the kit lens the entire time and left the 50 in the bag because I didn't have any control over my subject or where I could stand to take a picture of it. the 50 is definitely sharper than the kit lens, but I only use it for portraiture or the like.

This is what primes are for.... lol

 

[sleeper3]

My beef is that a lot of my photos play with different light, most of it low. Stepping down to f/8 gets me some nasty slow shutter speeds, which I can't handhold. Seems kind of silly that you have to step it down to f/8 to get a crisp shot. I just want a faster lens that I can get the same crispness from...

yeah if you're playing with light, you probably can play with placement, which means the 50mm f/1.8 is in play. I'd much rather use that, but sometimes I just can't. also, no lens is at it's sharpest wide open. even the Ls need a little stopping down before they're tack sharp. it's all about compromise.

of course but your looking at a 100% crop of a picture, you will see that on most

your talking about a 100 buck lens of course its not going to be tack sharp

for sure at 1.8 its soft compared to 2.8, but you can say the same thing about most of the cheap lenses because not many of them are sharp wide open

Well, I'm not trying to take ok photos. I'm trying to take the absolute best photos that my equipment will allow me.

get the 50 1.4, step down to f 2.2 or so and its damn sharp

I wish I had ponied up for the 1.4 instead of the 1.8... I just couldn't resist $80 for a pretty good lens.

 

[sleeper3]

This is what primes are for.... lol

yep, but I don't do much portrait type stuff, so that is why I favor zooms.