Lenses

Mik
Mik
Award Winning™Posts: 14,633 in Photography
list you best lenses

just bought;

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8

41XQYPKEBEL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

getting the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L next week,
«1

Comments

  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    My best is the one you're getting next week Mik, fairly pricey, but worth it, very rarely leaves my camera, top class build quality, reliable, wide and very sharp.

    Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM
    Detail from Canon

    41ZWVVV2J9L._SL500_AA280_.jpg
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    Nikon 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX Black Lens

    41Xedpi5HFL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

    want to get

    310Br6UfamL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    I have:
    nikon-14-24mm.jpg
    14-24mm Nikkor f2.8
    nikon-24-70mm.jpg
    24-70mm Nikkor f2.8
    Nikon-70-200-f2_8-VR.jpg
    70-200mm Nikkor f2.8 VR
    All Full Frame

    I want:
    to get a Nikon AF-S Tele-Converter TC-17E II and some Primes.

    But my next purchases will be Speed Lights and sort out my studio... I have the space allocated I am just waiting for my holiday to be over so I can allocate some funds on that.
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    kit lens...woohoo!
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    The only reason my 17-40L ever leaves my camera is for this little beauty, other end of the scale in comparison, can pick these up for £60, awful and cheap build quality, but tack sharp image quality, and super fast @ f1.8, surely the best value camera lens on planet earth, great for portraits and other shenanigans.

    Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II – Famously known as the 'nifty fifty'
    Details from Canon


    --_tcm14-27040.gif
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    Ideally thats what i want now a nice 50mm lens but the afs ones cost a mint for the d40 smizzle.

    Id prefer to be able to take proper photos b4 i but any new lenses though.
  • Unknown
    Canon 10-22mm

    canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f3-5-4-5-usm-lens.jpg
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    aye Tom - I use Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II a fair bit.
  • Limbo
    Limbo
    Established Norm Posts: 27,223
    cocknose wrote:
    I have:
    14-24mm Nikkor f2.8
    24-70mm Nikkor f2.8
    70-200mm Nikkor f2.8 VR
    All Full Frame

    I want:
    to get a Nikon AF-S Tele-Converter TC-17E II and some Primes.

    But my next purchases will be Speed Lights and sort out my studio... I have the space allocated I am just waiting for my holiday to be over so I can allocate some funds on that.

    What would you recommend Cocker?

    I have the Kt lense and a wanky wideangle — want something with more range...
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    Limbo wrote:
    What would you recommend Cocker?

    I have the Kt lense and a wanky wideangle — want something with more range...

    what camera do you have?
  • pmek
    pmek
    Banned Posts: 9,297
    Use this -

    pentax50-200mm.jpg

    and this -

    pentax-smc-da-18-55-mm.1332706.jpg

    And sometimes this -

    3608121707_d6f0d4c947.jpg

    cost me £5 that one did. I like it :)
  • tomson
    tomson
    The in between is mine Posts: 4,208
    My bestest:
    41rjj1z14rL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

    70-200mm f2.8 IS.

    Closely followed by:

    31GQToTZUVL._SL500_AA250_.jpg

    17-55mm f2.8 IS.
  • Limbo
    Limbo
    Established Norm Posts: 27,223
    cocknose wrote:
    what camera do you have?

    D70
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    41rjj1z14rL._SL500_AA280_.jpg


    oooh thats a biggun
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    sweet jesus T
    tomson has very small knobbers mind.
  • tomson
    tomson
    The in between is mine Posts: 4,208
    Mik wrote:
    tomson has very small knobbers mind.

    Indeed I have (just the one tho)
  • Aibrean
    Aibrean
    Brutally Honest Posts: 2,458
    I have the Canon 70-300mm
  • austinkyle
    austinkyle
    BOLLOX! Posts: 912
    bahhh camera noob here. any chance you guys could explain more about each lens? or is it a "let-me-google-that-for-you" situation?

    what's the difference in mm? etc . ;x
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    Limbo wrote:
    D70
    How much do you wanna spend and what sort of subject do you shoot...

    If you have the kit lens and a wide-angle then maybe you want to cover the other end of your focal length needs.

    Maybe this:
    579306 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG Macro HSM II Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF-D

    Professional quality but not for a professional price. It is full-frame but it is better to get a full-frame lenses now because if you ever up-grade then you do not need to buy new expensive glass.
    The down-side of this lens is there is no stability control (VR) so you will probably need a tripod when you are zoomed all the way to 200mm, especially at low-light.
    It is the wedding photographers lens of choice.
  • Sookie
    Sookie
    Underachiever Posts: 259
    For the price the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II has been my best buy
  • Nilas
    Nilas
    ∴ Posts: 776
    Canon L 17-40mm 4.0


    canon-ef-17-40mm-side.jpg
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    In reverse order of purchase.

    My bestest:
    31GQToTZUVL._SS500_.jpg

    Canon EF-S 17-55mm ƒ/2.8 IS USM

    2nd Bestest:
    41ECW2G8TWL._SS500_.jpg

    Canon EF 70-300mm ƒ/4-5.6 IS USM

    Also have the nifty fifty - second lens I bought - best value-for-money you could think of.

    41wx0ebndXL._SS400_.jpg

    Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 II

    Then there's the one that came with the camera:
    41gRrUo8SuL._SS500_.jpg

    Canon EF 28-135mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 IS USM - I should sell it really as it has been in the closet since forever but it served me so well for so long that I can't quite bring myself to part with it. Yet.

    Also got a set of these:
    41D-QUCdeRL._SS500_.jpg

    Kenko DG Auto Extension Tube Set - turn any lens into a macro lens. Not quite as good as a real macro but pretty good for the price and nice to be able to macro at 300mm (though it's too dark there tbh so mostly use with the nifty fifty).
  • pmek
    pmek
    Banned Posts: 9,297
    Can I see some examples of those macro tubes?
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    Absolutely. Been looking to get them on since getting off-camera flash stuffs so will probably do that later today... will let you know. If not I'll pull out some older examples.
  • pmek
    pmek
    Banned Posts: 9,297
    Nice one.
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    Kemp wrote:
    Can I see some examples of those macro tubes?

    Here ya go: http://www.designerstalk.com/forums/photography/50061-kenko-extension-tubes.html
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    Is this any good for the price?
  • pmek
    pmek
    Banned Posts: 9,297
    It's fairly slow. But saying that my 50 - 200 is about the same and does some fairly good shots. I prefer faster lenses though.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Wouldn't be the speed I'd worry about, at that very cheap price for a zoom I'd be far more worried about the image quality, which is what it's all about in the end.
  • Limbo
    Limbo
    Established Norm Posts: 27,223
    cocknose wrote:
    How much do you wanna spend and what sort of subject do you shoot...

    If you have the kit lens and a wide-angle then maybe you want to cover the other end of your focal length needs.

    Maybe this:
    579306 Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG Macro HSM II Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF-D

    Professional quality but not for a professional price. It is full-frame but it is better to get a full-frame lenses now because if you ever up-grade then you do not need to buy new expensive glass.
    The down-side of this lens is there is no stability control (VR) so you will probably need a tripod when you are zoomed all the way to 200mm, especially at low-light.
    It is the wedding photographers lens of choice.

    Cheers cock.
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    Tom_E wrote:
    Wouldn't be the speed I'd worry about, at that very cheap price for a zoom I'd be far more worried about the image quality, which is what it's all about in the end.

    +1. That's super cheap especially with the range offered - doubt it's going to give you the quality result you are looking for. The target audience for that lens would be the grandparent taking photos at their grandkids sports day then printing the photos onto plain inkjet paper but thinking they look fantastic thanks to their cataracts.
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    Cheers guys, thought as much. Will be plumping for the Nikon lens I think. I really need a lesson on lenses though, still don't get all the terminology :(
  • Rik
    Rik
    GlasgowPosts: 12,721
    seen.to wrote:
    Also have the nifty fifty - second lens I bought - best value-for-money you could think of.

    41wx0ebndXL._SS400_.jpg

    Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 II

    got that and the canon 18-55 stock lens. the 50mm is never off the camera. it forces me to think about the picture i am taking. the result is a better image.

    only down side is it could use a better auto focus. the thing can hunt a bit at times.

    bar studio work all i do is take pics of my kid farting about, though.

    next purchase is the tubes seen too has got.
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    scrooble wrote:
    Cheers guys, thought as much. Will be plumping for the Nikon lens I think. I really need a lesson on lenses though, still don't get all the terminology :(

    Briefly:


    Canon.....EF........70-300mm........ƒ/4-5.6......IS USM
    Brand.....mount.....focal-range.....aperture.....extras
    • Brand speaks for itself
    • Mount determines if it will fit your camera body
    • Focal range tells you the range of the lens, in this instance from 70mm to 300mm. For a prime this would be a single number, meaning no zoom.
    • Aperture determines aperture range from wide to tele in the zoom range (better to be a single lower number). The lower the number the faster the lens, so more light can be let in over the same exposure time compared to a higher number. Also effects depth-of-field - the lower the number the lower the depth-of-field you will be able to achieve.
    • Next the extras
      • IS stands for Image Stabilization on Canon lenses - on Nikon if you want this look for VR which I believe stands for vibration reduction
      • USM here indicates a quieter auto-focus, here meaning UltraSonic Motor I think - Not sure what the Nikon alternative is

    There are often other letters which denote versions such as the 17-40L which is popular on this thread, the L here stands for Luxury.

    There's loads more but hopefully these main points will help.
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    seen.to wrote:
    Briefly:


    Canon.....EF........70-300mm........ƒ/4-5.6......IS USM
    Brand.....mount.....focal-range.....aperture.....extras
    • Brand speaks for itself
    • Mount determines if it will fit your camera body
    • Focal range tells you the range of the lens, in this instance from 70mm to 300mm. For a prime this would be a single number, meaning no zoom.
    • Aperture determines aperture range from wide to tele in the zoom range (better to be a single lower number). The lower the number the faster the lens, so more light can be let in over the same exposure time compared to a higher number. Also effects depth-of-field - the lower the number the lower the depth-of-field you will be able to achieve.
    • Next the extras
      • IS stands for Image Stabilization on Canon lenses - on Nikon if you want this look for VR which I believe stands for vibration reduction
      • USM here indicates a quieter auto-focus, here meaning UltraSonic Motor I think - Not sure what the Nikon alternative is

    There are often other letters which denote versions such as the 17-40L which is popular on this thread, the L here stands for Luxury.

    There's loads more but hopefully these main points will help.

    Thanks for taking the time to do that seen.to, well explained.

    - In terms of the focal range, the d40 kit lens is 18 - 55ml, if i were to buy a 55 -200ml lens would that just start at the zoom level of the 55ml and provide zoom to 200ml?

    - What focal ranges do wide-angle lenses have?

    - So basically the lower the aperture number, the better the lens?
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    scrooble wrote:
    Thanks for taking the time to do that seen.to, well explained.
    No worries
    - In terms of the focal range, the d40 kit lens is 18 - 55ml, if i were to buy a 55 -200ml lens would that just start at the zoom level of the 55ml and provide zoom to 200ml?
    Yes. This would leave you with no gap between 18 and 200mm.
    - What focal ranges do wide-angle lenses have?
    The lower the number the wider the range, so at 18mm your 18-55 is wide angle. Ultra wide angles start at around 10mm. Anything below that is fish-eye I think.
    - So basically the lower the aperture number, the better the lens?
    Generally speaking, yes. There may be exceptions but I can't think of any off-hand.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    scrooble wrote:
    So basically the lower the aperture number, the better the lens?
    seen.to wrote:
    Generally speaking, yes. There may be exceptions but I can't think of any off-hand.

    I've got a f1.8 lens that cost £60.

    I've also got a f4.0 lens that cost £700.

    You can guess which is better, so there are definitely exceptions, although seen.to is right, the lower the number, generally the more you can do with the lens (if it is any good), different lenses for different purposes though…
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 just turned up.
    very good build and quality.

    now need to figure out how to use it.
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    Tom_E wrote:
    I've got a f1.8 lens that cost £60.

    I've also got a f4.0 lens that cost £700.

    You can guess which is better, so there are definitely exceptions, although seen.to is right, the lower the number, generally the more you can do with the lens (if it is any good), different lenses for different purposes though…

    Great point. When I wrote that I was thinking of a 70-200 ƒ/4.0 vs a 70-200 ƒ/2.8

    So, to kind of clarify;
    With two lenses that are the same except for the aperture the lower number is the better.
    With two completely different lenses you need to look at the other factors - as Tom says, price can be a good indication although there's often more to take into account. The more expensive lens may have a greater focal range or extras like IS but that doesn't guarantee better quality. The more expensive lens could also have less focal range and no extras.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:
    Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 just turned up.

    heard extremely good things about those, how much did you pick up for?
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    about £276.84 I think.
    Amazon but a reseller site within.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    oh and got some ahoi hoya filters as well - a good day.
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    Mik wrote:
    Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 just turned up.
    very good build and quality.

    now need to figure out how to use it.

    stick it on the end of your camera and point it at stuff and press the big button the the side
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    tried that - not as easy as you make out :)
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    You need to press the button on the top then ;)
  • tomson
    tomson
    The in between is mine Posts: 4,208
    Mik wrote:
    about £276.84 I think.
    Amazon but a reseller site within.

    I could have sold you mine, can't remember the last time I used it.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    tomson wrote:
    I could have sold you mine, can't remember the last time I used it.

    I'll give you £50 for it. ;)
  • TeZ
    TeZ
    _RFB Posts: 5,872
    ill give you £30.. oh wait.
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    This lot for £400, good deal?

    Tamron AF70-300mm F4-5.6 LD 1:2
    Sigma 70 - 300 mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro
    Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro
    Nikon 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 D(if)
    Nikon 35-70 f3.3-f4.5
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    You want me to do the legwork?

    You don't have a dog and bark yourself Tom.

    Thanks for the link :)
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Just get the fuck on with it Scroobs.

    Don't know Nikon lenses, but that deal may be a little cheap, are they in good condition, what type of photography do you want to do etc?

    Don't just buy a load of random glass.

    Think about what kind of photography you want to do.

    Landscape? Street photography? Bore the shit out of everyone with macro shots of flowers?

    Research and find a top quality lens (go prime [fixed length] if you don't have loads of cash to spare).

    Save money. Buy new quality lens. Take some photos. End.
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    Fair points Thomas. Well I would like a replacement for the d40 kit lens, a 'walk-around' lens I believe you call it. So 28-105 would be good for this? I would also like a bigger range lens to take on trips etc, like a 200mm i think. Macro I'm not too fussed about, but then again if I had the lens I may get into that area, would those macro bolt-ons do the trick?
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    tomson wrote:
    I could have sold you mine, can't remember the last time I used it.

    great...
    you are borderline useless.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 really nice - captures colours amazingly.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    scrooble wrote:
    Fair points Thomas. Well I would like a replacement for the d40 kit lens, a 'walk-around' lens I believe you call it. So 28-105 would be good for this? I would also like a bigger range lens to take on trips etc, like a 200mm i think. Macro I'm not too fussed about, but then again if I had the lens I may get into that area, would those macro bolt-ons do the trick?

    Fuck macro.

    28-105mm is a decent walkaround lens, but not very wide considering the 1.6 crop factor on your SLR (28mm is effectively 45mm, ie not wide), try and get something that starts around the 17mm mark if you want wider type landscape/street shots, you could get something like a 17-70/80ish mm as a great walkaround, and then a 70-200 for long range shenanigans.

    As I said, if you can't afford a decent zoom (they aren't cheap for top quality), then get a couple of prime (fixed lengths) lens at the range you want, primes usually offer tack sharp results for less money.
  • tomson
    tomson
    The in between is mine Posts: 4,208
    Mik wrote:
    great...
    you are borderline useless.

    Praise at last.


    Another good lens review site is: Photozone
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    great site cheers Mr T
  • rusty
    rusty
    Senior Member Posts: 1,887
    Yeah I've got a Nikkor 18-70mm for my D80, it's a good walk around lens. Then picked up a 70-300mm for my stalking hobby and a 50mm for those bokeh shots. Threw on a 2x teleconverter for shits and giggles... though it's a right cunt to focus when zoomed in on the 70-300mm with that teleconverter without a tripod, ack!
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    -Scrooble: Sell your Nikon and buy a Canon and you'll have a better chance that one of us will have heard of the lenses you speak of and might just be able to advise accordingly.
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    scrooble wrote:
    This lot for £400, good deal?

    Tamron AF70-300mm F4-5.6 LD 1:2
    Sigma 70 - 300 mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro
    Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro
    Nikon 28-105 f3.5-f4.5 D(if)
    Nikon 35-70 f3.3-f4.5

    two of them have the same focal length.. 70-300.... and they are all cheap lenses.. Fuck it mate.. i don't think it is worth it.
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    Cheers fellas, have asked him if he will split so might go for the Nikkon 28-105mm and save up for a decent 70-200/300. what should i offer assuming its in mint condition.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    scrooble wrote:
    Cheers fellas, have asked him if he will split so might go for the Nikkon 28-105mm and save up for a decent 70-200/300. what should i offer assuming its in mint condition.

    Nikkor 18-70mm much better range for walkaround than the 28-105, do you not want to be able to take wide shots?
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    if it is MINT.. erm.. no more than 50quid. It is a 10yr old plastic lens and there are better cheap mid-focal ranged lenses out there. But for 50 quid it is almost disposable..

    EDIT: Tom got there before me
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    Tom_E wrote:
    Nikkor 18-70mm much better range for walkaround than the 28-105, do you not want to be able to take wide shots?

    But I have the kit lens 18-55 for that don't I? Fucking hell I really need my hand holding through this, I have no idea. Maybe I just stick to the kit lens until I've got my teeth into advanced photography principles and buy a 70-200mm with VR as the d40 doesn't have that built in, or is it AF that isn't built in?
  • rusty
    rusty
    Senior Member Posts: 1,887
    Tom_E wrote:
    Nikkor 18-70mm much better range for walkaround than the 28-105, do you not want to be able to take wide shots?

    Aye the Nikkor 18-70mm is much better. Here's an example of what the lens is like: Picasa Web Albums - Rhys - Lofoten, Norway

    I think all the photos in that album are D80 + 18-70mm Nikkor.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    exactly, most kit lenses are shit
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    Tom, et all.
    i am after a decent wide angle lense now - any suggestions?
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:
    Tom, et all.
    i am after a decent wide angle lense now - any suggestions?

    You just got one with the 17-40L?

    You mean super-wide? The Canon 10-20mm is meant to be excellent, Luxbrand on DT has got one. Sample shots with 10-20mm.

    Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    nah i got 85mm f1.8 - so if i got 17-40L that would be a good wide angel?
    Canon EF-S 10-22mm - ooer nice shots
  • scrooble
    scrooble
    One Pint or Two Love Posts: 6,562
    mik you thinking about fat fairies?
  • seen.to
    seen.to
    unusual suspect ™ DelawherePosts: 6,371
    Yeah, 17 is pretty wide. 10 is ultra-wide. 17-40 (or the superior 17-55 ;)) is more versatile. 10-22 is still a great lens though.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:
    nah i got 85mm f1.8 - so if i got 17-40L that would be a good wide angel?
    Canon EF-S 10-22mm - ooer nice shots

    17-40L is a top quality wide-angle lens as discussed before, probably better IQ than the 10-20mm, but not as wide obviously, I was close to getting the 10-20mm, but opted for the 17-40L, better walkaround focal range
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    memory like a fish.
    17-40L it is.
  • tomson
    tomson
    The in between is mine Posts: 4,208
    10-22... got one of them too, not overly useful as an everyday lens but great fun.
  • cocknose
    cocknose
    What's a Mod? Posts: 5,243
    yeah ultra-wide angles are cool.. but they sit in the camera bag most of the yr.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    you sellign that other lense T?
  • tomson
    tomson
    The in between is mine Posts: 4,208
    The 85mm prime? No, gonna hang on to it i'm afraid.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    you should be afraid.

    i have 85mm - I thought 17-40L for some reason - must have got it wrong.
    cheers big ears
  • nefera
    nefera
    Registered User Posts: 24
    scrooble wrote:
    Nikon 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX Black Lens

    me too! I love Nikon lenses. I want the other one as well, but i have to save some serious money before i can get it. Right now I'm working with a 55-135mm
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    ok - got the canon 17-40L to purchase this month.

    now — I want a lense that I can take portfolio work with - any suggestions?
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    would have thought a fixed focal length would be best since they are generally the sharpest.

    but then i know fuck all about cameras so probably best to ignore
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    haha me too. but i think your right.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    tom E - where the fuck are you? — you southern nancy.
    cuba?
  • KingCraig
    KingCraig
    ~ ChesterPosts: 7,224
    I think Specsavers have a sale on at the moment
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    If your shooting work, you wanna make a right angle construction that runs about 2 meters in length out of wood.

    Then shoot through umbrellas with some remote flashes.

    my own experiments have taught me that a cube thing is next to useless cause it restricts the angles you can shoot at plus you cant go really wide if you want a whole work collage like made-thought do.

    Lamps are no good cause they getting fooking well hot and you need loads to get the work bright enough, with the umbrellas you can go right in close with the lights and still have a nice even light.

    lighting is the crucial thing, lens not so important
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:
    tom E - where the fuck are you? — you southern nancy.
    cuba?

    haha, I wish I was in Cuba

    funnily enough, been attempting to photograph some of my printed output for my new site the last few weeks, none of the lens you have are really suitable for close-ups/crops etc, neither are mine, I have a 50mm prime and the 17-40L

    I've got some half decent results on the bigger format stuff (A3/A4) but can't get in close enough for smaller branding pieces like business cards/comp slips etc, going to resort to mock ups for now…

    What would be ideal is a high quality longer focal length zoom, something like this would do the trick, or a longer length prime.

    Also, to get decent results you're going to have to sort out effective off camera lighting etc, which I've found a real pain in the arse, I might getting half-decent at outdoor photography, but this is a different ball game, hard to get right.

    Will post up some of my efforts when I get the chance.

    Edit: CM beat me to it on the lighting, very important, and not something I've mastered at all, trying to do it on the cheap, I'm not spending £500 on lights etc just to take photos for my website.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    "outdoor photography'

    aye i took some outside and they look "ok" but my flat has the most dismal light ever.

    "739.99" - allow me if you would " fuck off tom"
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    anyone built a light box?
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:
    "outdoor photography'

    aye i took some outside and they look "ok" but my flat has the most dismal light ever.

    "739.99" - allow me if you would " fuck off tom"

    By outdoor photography I mean natural light obviously.

    As CM said, no good just using a lamp in your flat, going to take much more effort than that.

    Never go by Canon's prices, that lens is on Amazon for £461, maybe that's too long though, 28-135mm prob a better bet for these kind of shenanigans.
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    3944971433_27b7ebe5fe.jpg

    this is what i mean like this

    then mount it on top of a testle

    cause it has no sides or top then you can station the lights over the top or from the side and you have easy access to re-position the work. has be done with a diffuesed umbrealla for even light tho

    some of these rudeboys

    102003__1.jpg
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:

    Won't be as sharp as an L series or prime but should do the trick yeah, have you got a decent tripod too?
  • Klang
    Klang
    Ray fucking Purchase Posts: 17,206
    Is this the 'trying to bodge studio shots together on the cheap' discussion?

    If so, can I join in, I have had several occasions of making a complete cunt of this, and can concur with CM that lamps are shit.
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    then mount it on top of a testle

    wtf is a testle?

    do you have any pics of your set-up Dan?
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    kemp was doing well with this stuff http://www.designerstalk.com/forums/photography/47947-strobe-experiments.html

    luxbrand had a cheapish home lighting set-up and got some very decent product shots so it is doable without spending a fortune
  • Klang
    Klang
    Ray fucking Purchase Posts: 17,206
    Now it looks like I've got my office space I might just build a small studio.
  • Mik
    Mik
    Award Winning™ Posts: 14,633
    Tom_E wrote:
    Won't be as sharp as an L series or prime but should do the trick yeah, have you got a decent tripod too?

    what would be L / Prime series equivalent of that?
    aye decent tripod but thinking of a new one
  • CM_
    CM_
    Something Posts: 13,770
    Tom_E wrote:
    wtf is a testle?

    do you have any pics of your set-up Dan?


    hehe i meant a trestle, one of them wallpaper pasting tables you pick up for about a tenner in homebase.

    Nah havent got any photos im afraid, I made an awesome light cube using sections of pvc tube and and a parachute material for diffusion. It looked quite pro, but i quickly found it it was unsuitable.

    You can't shoot from the sides, you have to get inside it to make minute adjustments to the positioning of work and you need fucking football stadium lights to illuminate it. Last time i got it out i got really hot and irate an nearly kicked it over in a strop.

    I think the thing above is ideal. i havent made it yet but one day I will
  • Tom
    Tom
    Keeping d*d Happy Posts: 11,595
    Mik wrote:
    what would be L / Prime series equivalent of that?
    aye decent tripod but thinking of a new one

    get yourself a nice carbon fibre manfrotto tripod

    no L series lens at that length, but this would cover any shot you'd need :wink:
Sign In or Register to comment.
© Copyright 2003 - 2016 - DT