Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 90
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by aparmley
    I will say why you shouldn't get one.

    First off its 80 bucks - Quality control isn't the best on a 80 dollar product. Some people have sharp 50's some have 50's with focus problems. I am the latter. My 50 1.8 was recently replaced with the 50 1.4 USM version. Its a night and day difference in quality and performance for me.

    The added benefit to getting a fast prime much like the 50 1.4, 35 2.0, 85 1.8 is primes are generally sharper than zooms and afford one the ability to shoot in lower light than zooms due to the lens large aperture, ie 1.4, 1.8, 2.0. The fastest zooms out there are 2.8 and those aren't cheap. Whereas the primes are faster, sharper and generally, if you don't buy L primes, they are more affordable than the fast constant zooms.
    That is why - Oh and add that for some people shooting with primes is more fun and interesting and that they are lighter in weight.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    I'd get a 28-135 IS used (find a nice copy on fredmiranda.com) for 325 or 350. IS helps in everything > 50 or so MM counting crop by a viewable ammount and deffinitly at 105 or 135 once you factor crop, even flash shots using built in flash will be sharper using an IS lens because 1/60th sec default shutter isn't fast enough to counteract hand movement @ 170 or 220 mm equiv focal lengths.

    A prime (such as 50 1.4, 85 1.8) is used in low light photography mostly or to make very thin DOF pictures (pictures where only a small area is in focus and most of the rest of scene is very much out of focus) a 50 1.4 is great for indoor parties, weddings or action shots without using a flash.

    The problem is that the lower the apatur number (f1.4) the more important acurate focus is because moving the camera a milimeter back may be the difference between a persons eyes in focus and nothing on their face being in focus.

    I liked my 28-135 when I owned it, but that's me.

    Tim

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    Thanks everyone for the advice.

    I've settled on ordering a 28-135 IS and I got the 50mm 1.8 at the store today and finally could start shooting. Wow, I love this thing... I've shot almost 300 photo's today.

    I've posted some of the 'test' pics online including 100% crops. I'd say I got a good copy of the 50mm, pics look very sharp to me.

    http://www.karinvandenberg.nl/copper...s.php?album=30
    (Click on the thumbnails and then again on the pics to get full size!)

    Keep in mind I'm new to SLR photography.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by kvdnberg
    Thanks everyone for the advice.

    I've settled on ordering a 28-135 IS and I got the 50mm 1.8 at the store today and finally could start shooting. Wow, I love this thing... I've shot almost 300 photo's today.

    I've posted some of the 'test' pics online including 100% crops. I'd say I got a good copy of the 50mm, pics look very sharp to me.

    http://www.karinvandenberg.nl/copper...s.php?album=30
    (Click on the thumbnails and then again on the pics to get full size!)

    Keep in mind I'm new to SLR photography.
    Congrats on the 30D and the 50 1.8, that 50 looks like a keeper! You lucky dog! Excellent job on hand holding those images of your father, I really like those images, good composition, great clarity in those images, and sharp to boot! Nice!

    I'll give you a tip on the dog photos! I've taken plenty, just ask these guys! Get down to his level and you'll see your dog images improve tenfold! [ie on your knees]
    Last edited by aparmley; 03-29-2006 at 04:04 PM.
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    Thanks for the tip! These were lucky shots, I went to a nature park to test the camera a bit and the dog walked up to me for just a second. Though I know the composition is far from interesting I did like the sharpness.

    I was pleasantly surprised with the shots of my dad, I was trying out the lens in low light and noticed that even at 2.5 it still had a rather long shutter speed, I honestly didn't think those pics would turn out well, let alone this well!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    The Prime Number!

    No reasonable costing zoom lens ($300-$500) will ever equal the quality of a good prime, like the EF 50mm f/1.8 ($70) or even more so for the EF 50mm f/1.4 ($300) or the EF 85mm F/1.8 ($300). For one thing... zooms really aren't set up for a lot of light. The price of their flexibility is the compromise in the amount of light they are able to take in, otherwise they would be enormous, quite heavy and rather pricey!

    The prime lens (28mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, or even the 200mm) will be the "sharper tool" in your bag. What it lacks in flexibility it more than makes up in clarity and focus control. You would most likely select it for "sitting subjects", like portraits of people or table-top photography. Its clarity is immediately noticable on monitors and your subsequent prints will be far sharper, when you compare them against the product of the zooms. Also... focus with the widest aperture (say f/1.4-2.8) will allow a softing of the foreground and background of a subject... that you just won't be able to quite acheive with a f/3.5-6.3 lens, even in the brightest of lighting conditions.

    I have spent hours in the studio, recently, doing exactly what we are discussing. Not one time has the zoom impressed me enough to select it as the lens of choice for this kind of controllable and close-up work. The EF 50mm f/1.8 'prime' gets the nod, everytime. The cost-effectiveness of this particular lens makes it the best-buy in my book, that is currently available.

    Your low-end zoom is the lens of choice for "field work", where continually changing primes off and on would be impractical, time-consuming and just downright dangerous. You sacrifice the depth-of-field to grab the action or distance that would make DOF rather moot.

    Now, of course, if you can spring for the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, or the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM... this discussion of "primes vs. zooms" is almost academic, because these lenses are of a quality far beyond the basic primes. To beat their capability, you would have to go to the "super primes", ie. EF 24mm f1.4L USM, EF 85 f/1.2L , or even the 135mm f/2L USM.

    The bottom line is all of this is, yeah, have a good prime in your bag. There will, most likely, be a time when things are quiet... you have some time... you take a shot with your zoom... and it is just not looking good enough . Grab the prime... postion yourself and your subject and fire away. It will all become apparent upon examination... sharp focus with good depth of field control .

    Personally, I just can't see how you can do without it... without sacrificing the ultimate quality of your close-ups and managable shots.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    i owned the 28-135 IS and from the various samples i've seen, the 28-105 USM is much sharper wide open, or anywhere below f8 for that matter. i liked my 28-135 and it produced some nice pictures, but it really felt like an f8 lens to me. below that, the contrast and sharpness were blah. the 28-105 USM is a heck of a lot cheaper too - seems like pretty amazing for what you pay. i say get the 28-105 and save the difference in $$$ for a tele or wide or whatever else you need.
    Last edited by ReF; 03-30-2006 at 05:59 AM.
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    I sort of agree with Ref. Unless you know for yourself why you want it to have IS, you should cancel the order and just go for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. The difference is half of the money for a nice macro like the Tamron 90mm f2.8 for instance . Or half of a 12-24mm Tokina. I ordered one and I just now got a message that it is in!

    Is the camera shop situation in Tilburg as crap as it is in Eindhoven? They never have what I want, I always end up ordering the lenses.
    Last edited by coldrain; 03-30-2006 at 06:50 AM.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    28
    I think I'm sold on the idea of the 28-105 f3.5-4.5...

    Having just got a 350D with the kit lens, I'm really missing a bit of telephoto range. I've had the 28-135 as a possibility, but it's twice the cost, and I'm not sure that IS will be overly beneficial. I've been scanning the net for the last week or so and the 28-105 has been getting good reviews. Obviously it's at the cheaper end of the market so it cannot compare to L glass, but I think I can live with that for now.

    A future target is a Canon 70-200L f4, but that is not going to be a possibility for some months (or more).

    I shall think about it for another week (I don't like impulse buying!) and continue looking at other possibilities just incase something even better appears.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain
    I sort of agree with Ref. Unless you know for yourself why you want it to have IS, you should cancel the order and just go for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. The difference is half of the money for a nice macro like the Tamron 90mm f2.8 for instance . Or half of a 12-24mm Tokina. I ordered one and I just now got a message that it is in!

    Is the camera shop situation in Tilburg as crap as it is in Eindhoven? They never have what I want, I always end up ordering the lenses.
    I don't live in Tilburg anymore, actually I live in Capelle near a well known internet store with plenty on stock but I don't go there anymore because they are very arrogant and treat you awfully quite often. I went to Zeist for the camera and 50mm lens. Small store, but very friendly and they know what they're doing and offer service as well as sharp prices.

    You all got me going back and forth on this issue though.. first I get a lot of votes for the 135 and now everyone's like 'no get the 105'... it's confusing! I'll put a little more research in it later. I still am waiting for the initial price quote on both lenses.
    Karin van den Berg
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
    Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (Ordered)
    Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
    Canon Powershot G2 / Canon Powershot A520

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •