Tallyther
Junior Member
Posts: 27
|
I have bought piece by piece basic used Canon equipment (70-300mm 1:4-5.6 IS; 28-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS; 50mm 1:1.8II; mechanical macro extension tubes set; and a 40D body) because I haven't been able to afford high end stuff. My choices have been made based on my understanding of info gleaned in this forum. I've finally decided to get one nice lens. My criteria is simple. What is the lowest cost lens that will produce "Eye Popping Images" compared to what I have? I figure I'm going to have to buy a Prime lens and an extender. I like bird shots (maybe 50 feet away) but I'll learn to take pictures of subject matter that fits within the focal range of the best cheapest lens I can afford and live with what I have. I believe if you can't affort a yacht then find a boat that does something exceptionally well within your purse and work around that!
One more point! I've achieved many nice shots and a few eye popping pics with the 70-300 but not many. Maybe I'm relying to much on the "P" mode and I need to learn more about setting the fstop manually. So if you recommend gaining more knowledge rather than buying a better lens right now I will understand and appreciate your comments. This is my first digital camera and maybe I'm expecting too much from the lens I have and not enough from me!
P.S. I'm new to registering on this forum but have religiously read the posts over the last year and a half. I've really appreciated not only Bob Atkins valuable information but also everyone else who poses a question or inputs. It takes both groups (expert and not so expert) for me to understand sometimes.
Thanks for any comments.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
How much do you want to spend? I'd suggest the EF 85/1.8 USM if your budget is limited to under $400. If you can afford something closer to $1000 then I'd look at the EF 135/2.0L USM if you want a telephoto or the EF 35/1.4L USM if you want a wideangle and can afford close to $1400. The 135/2L USM will take the Canon extenders, but you will lose some image quality, especially with the 2x. All the fast "L" series telephoto lenses are very good, but most are also very expensive. The EF 200mm f2.0L IS USM is capable of giving stunning images, but at $4800 it should! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
Photoshop isn't the answer I'm afraid. For "eye popping" shots you really need high sharpness, high contrast and (usually) subject isolation via samll DOF and large background blur.
For that you need a lens with really good optics and a fast aperture. Sure you can sharpen up a soft image in Photoshop and make it look better but that's not quite the same thing.
For web use you can get away with a lot, but if you're making prints of any decent size then you need to start out with a good image.
The old saying about making silk purses out of sow's ears applies in this case!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tallyther
Junior Member
Posts: 27
|
Excellent responses by everyone and very helpful. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tallyther
Junior Member
Posts: 27
|
Thanks! You clued me in on what I really need to be focusing on ... no pun intended.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bmpress
|
"I've achieved many nice shots and a few eye popping pics with the 70-300 but not many. Maybe I'm relying to much on the "P" mode and I need to learn more about setting the f stop manually."
When using "P" mode you don't have any control over lens opening. So, before spending more you might want to set your camera to use the sweet spot of your lenses. For example, set the 70-300 to aperture priority and f8. I had this lens and found it to be extremely sharp at that setting up to 250mm.
Of course you also would need to eliminate camera shake to get the best out of your lens. Only after you do this will you be in a position to understand whether or not to purchase other lenses. My guess is that your percentage of sharp pictures will rise dramatically by taking this approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tallyther
Junior Member
Posts: 27
|
Thanks! I suspected that but confirmation helps a lot in building confidence!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
emanresu
|
EF 50mm f/1.8 II for $99 is certainly cheap (if not the cheapest!) and many people say it is sharp as a razor. The only problem is that quite a few people say it breaks easily.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bob Atkins
|
The EF 50/1.8 II isn't the world's best built lens, but unless you drop it it's pretty unlikely to break in normal operation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
emanresu
|
The EF 50/1.8 II isn't the world's best built lens, but unless you drop it it's pretty unlikely to break in normal operation.
I know, Bob, and it is funny to see some reviewers giving it a 1-star rating on Amazon because they dropped theirs... however, a bigger risk seems to be this lens getting stuck on a camera body forever, especially on XSi... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Author
