The Official TB Photography Thread

[Vic]

I need a bit of advice...

I have a Canon Rebel Xsi (yeah, I know it's not the shiz, but it's all I can afford).

I need a good F2.8 lens. I have the Sigma, which is ok, but I need a really good one. I know Canon has one that'll fit/work for about 1K that seems to be highly recommended. Any other suggestions?

 

[DigMe]

I don't know Canon lenses but I think you're going to need to post a bit more info for the guys that do. Prime or zoom? If zoom then how much zoom do you need? If Prime then do you need 35mm or 85mm... ?

bc

 

[DigMe]

Wait till you get a couple of speedlights, and realize what you can do with the wireless off-camera flash control. That's one of the best features about the 60D. The 7D was the first is Canon's line to have that, and I seriously love it!

I wish mine had that. The NIkon D90 does but that was out of my price range at the time. I'm probably going to order a cheap radio control from DealExtreme before long.

bc

 

[Vic]

I don't know Canon lenses but I think you're going to need to post a bit more info for the guys that do. Prime or zoom? If zoom then how much zoom do you need? If Prime then do you need 35mm or 85mm... ?

bc

It's a Digital Rebel Xsi, I'm thinking that's "35mm" (tho I think that number gets a little fudged when you talk about the diffs between film and digital?).

And I'm taking suggestions for fixed as well as zoom. A little zoom is nice to improve depth of field, but it'll mainly be used for product shots, so a fixed lens could also work, I think.

I have a feeling an F2.8 lens with a lot of zoom would be massively expensive for all the glass I think it'd need, so that's not really on my radar.

I guess I should say I'm trying hard to keep it under 1500 for the lens, and I'd really like to keep it under 1K. This alone probably filters the list a lot.

 

[chingas]

It's a Digital Rebel Xsi, I'm thinking that's "35mm" (tho I think that number gets a little fudged when you talk about the diffs between film and digital?).

And I'm taking suggestions for fixed as well as zoom. A little zoom is nice to improve depth of field, but it'll mainly be used for product shots, so a fixed lens could also work, I think.

I have a feeling an F2.8 lens with a lot of zoom would be massively expensive for all the glass I think it'd need, so that's not really on my radar.

I guess I should say I'm trying hard to keep it under 1500 for the lens, and I'd really like to keep it under 1K. This alone probably filters the list a lot.

I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 and I think it does a great job for the price (under $400). I've used it for product shots, band photos. It's the only zoom I have with two primes(50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8). Also, you'll have to consider the crop factor too when considering these lenses(lucky fro me, I don't have to with a 5D). In any case, investing in a good lens will benefit you more than the next latest and greatest camera body.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Often you'll see a "crop factor" mentioned (ie 1.6 for the canons), but it isn't entirely true as to what is happening. For example, take 3 pictures of the exact same scene using a 1.6, 1.5 and full frame camera, this is what would happen:

Because the sensor is smaller, you don't capture the surrounding bits of information. The crop factor is a way people use to refer to it as a psuedo zoom.

Any reason it has to be F2.8? Would using a larger aperture be a problem? The Canon EF 50mm/F1.8 prime is cheap and could fit the bill? Tho, as said, is a larger aperture (tho I'm still new to this, I don't see why it would be a problem).

 

[warwick.hoy]

Full Frame sensor is about the same size as a 35mm film frame.

1.6 crop is smaller and I think it may be also referred to as APS crop,..but don't quote.

I'm sure there is some sort equation to figure out focal length and depth of field differences between different sensor sizes and lens.

I could quite follow what you meant in you post Vic so I just did a google search for

"canon ef 35mm F2" which netted:

[This invalid link has been removed]

"canon ef 85mm f1.4"

http://www.google.com/search?q=cano...EcQrQQwAg&biw=1229&bih=518&fp=9111c1d610a8252

These lenses appear to be older film camera lenses and the XSi has a 1.6 crop sensor which these aren't designed for. They will work but focal lengths will be different and there is no guarantee that there will not be any vignetting.

 

[Vic]

EXCELLENT input... and you guys are right. No, it doesn't have to be an F2.8. It just has to be good in low light, and I don't care that much about a deep depth of field. Just good quality glass and excellent light capturing for faster shutter speeds with indoor, well lit (I have a couple cheap umbrella lights), NON-FLASH photography.

Thanks so far!!

 

[warwick.hoy]

Often you'll see a "crop factor" mentioned (ie 1.6 for the canons), but it isn't entirely true as to what is happening. For example, take 3 pictures of the exact same scene using a 1.6, 1.5 and full frame camera, this is what would happen:

Because the sensor is smaller, you don't capture the surrounding bits of information. The crop factor is a way people use to refer to it as a psuedo zoom.

Any reason it has to be F2.8? Would using a larger aperture be a problem? The Canon EF 50mm/F1.8 prime is cheap and could fit the bill? Tho, as said, is a larger aperture (tho I'm still new to this, I don't see why it would be a problem).

You compensate by simply moving you position or adjusting your zoom.

With image sensors I always make the connection with film sizes. If you try to make even a regular print (3x5,...4x6) out of something like 110 or disc camera negatives (about the size of a dime) you get really dull, grainy images because the negative is so small.

On the converse you can make high quality enlargements out of a medium or large format film because the discrepancy in size between the negative and the enlargement is less.

Same with image sensors. Although 1.6 crop will give you perfectly usuable images (this is no 110 or disc camera size) if you try to make extreme enlargements, it's gonna show its limitations. While not ideal,...35mm will give you the ability to make higher quality and larger enlargements.

It less of a field of view thing because you can compensate to get all the info in your frame,...it's more the "physical" quality of the information for lack of a better description.

For reference I consider anything over an 8x10 an enlargement,...or that pill they keep trying to sell me on pron sites.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Full Frame sensor is about the same size as a 35mm film frame.

1.6 crop is smaller and I think it may be also referred to as APS crop,..but don't quote.

I'm sure there is some sort equation to figure out focal length and depth of field differences between different sensor sizes and lens.

I could quite follow what you meant in you post Vic so I just did a google search for

"canon ef 35mm F2" which netted:

[This invalid link has been removed]

"canon ef 85mm f1.4"

http://www.google.com/search?q=cano...EcQrQQwAg&biw=1229&bih=518&fp=9111c1d610a8252

These lenses appear to be older film camera lenses and the XSi has a 1.6 crop sensor which these aren't designed for. They will work but focal lengths will be different and there is no guarantee that there will not be any vignetting.

The focal length doesn't change, just if you want to have the equivical image to what you'd get on a 35mm camera

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

You compensate by simply moving you position or adjusting your zoom.

With image sensors I always make the connection with film sizes. If you try to make even a regular print (3x5,...4x6) out of something like 110 or disc camera negatives (about the size of a dime) you get really dull, grainy images because the negative is so small.

On the converse you can make high quality enlargements out of a medium or large format film because the discrepancy in size between the negative and the enlargement is less.

Same with image sensors. Although 1.6 crop will give you perfectly usuable images (this is no 110 or disc camera size) if you try to make extreme enlargements, it's gonna show its limitations.

It less of a field of view thing because you can compensate to get all the info in your frame,...it's more the "physical" quality of the information for lack of a better description.

Could be completelly off base here, but wouldn't resolution have a bigger impact on the quality of enlargements?

I know that one big difference in quality between modern crop and modern full frame is the ability to handle noise, where the full frame will win out (more light per pixel).

Guff at taking pictures, but have a pretty decent background in physics

 

[warwick.hoy]

The focal length doesn't change, just if you want to have the equivical image to what you'd get on a 35mm camera

Yeah. There seems to be some sort of debate,...one that I've never gotten into. The best I can gather A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens no matter what camera it's on. But the field of view is going to be different from a Full Frame sensor and a 1.6 crop sensor not moving position is implicit).

A 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is roughly equal to an 80mm.

Could be completelly off base here, but wouldn't resolution have a bigger impact on the quality of enlargements?

I know that one big difference in quality between modern crop and modern full frame is the ability to handle noise, where the full frame will win out (more light per pixel).

Guff at taking pictures, but have a pretty decent background in physics

This is where my ignorance is showing

I think larger image sensors are what give you higher resolutions. So you and I are saying the same thing but you've got the technical jargon down,...and I'm just a hack Assuming Megapixels = resolution; I don't think there exists 15mp and up 1.6 image sensors.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I'm just anal retentive about that one, it is equivical, but so many people seem to hold the belief that there is a physical change in the focal length, which just peeves me, you know, one of those silly little irks!

 

[warwick.hoy]

Bump for post 973 edit and....

I'm just anal retentive about that one, it is equivical, but so many people seem to hold the belief that there is a physical change in the focal length, which just peeves me, you know, one of those silly little irks!

No worries

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

This is where my ignorance is showing

I think larger image sensors are what give you higher resolutions. I don't think there exists 15mp and up 1.6 image sensors.

My 60D (1.6 crop) is 18mp

You start hitting problems where the pixels are getting smaller and therefore get less light each, increasing the chance of noise.

Bump for post 973 edit and....





No worries

It's all good

 

[warwick.hoy]

^^^That makes sense. I did some research and that is called pixel density.

18mp on an 1.6 crop,..okay,...I didn't know they went that high,....I just assumed that was reaching the limitations of the image sensor.

 

[HEIST]

Well, this won't help, but check out the strobist.com, or Joe McNalley's work with speedlights....and prepare your checking account!

I love the strobist.

 

[DigMe]

EXCELLENT input... and you guys are right. No, it doesn't have to be an F2.8. It just has to be good in low light, and I don't care that much about a deep depth of field.

Then you should get a fast prime lens or two such as an 85mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 or 100m f2.0. Fast primes excel in what you are wanting.

bc

 

[Michael Jewels]

EXCELLENT input... and you guys are right. No, it doesn't have to be an F2.8. It just has to be good in low light, and I don't care that much about a deep depth of field. Just good quality glass and excellent light capturing for faster shutter speeds with indoor, well lit (I have a couple cheap umbrella lights), NON-FLASH photography.

Thanks so far!!

Vic, if you really don't need the focal length variability of a zoom lens, then I would go with a fast prime lens.

I use my 16-45 zoom for family, party and street/grab shots, but whenever I'm shooting anything serious, I use my primes.

I have a 70mm, a 100mm and my Lensbaby, which is equal to about 75mm on a Pentax digital.

One thing to consider when getting a prime to use mainly indoors is: How much shooting room will you generally have?

If you'll be doing mostly product/still life, then you shouldn't have a problem.

If you'll be doing full length portraits or groups, then anything over 50mm may be too long.

And don't rule out used lenses.

Good luck.

Mike

 

[Vic]

Vic...

Thanks!!

And no, I'm not ruling out used lenses AT ALL.

To answer some of your questions, the stuff I'd need the fast indoor lens for would mainly be for stuff as "big" as basses and rigs, and stuff as small as components (pedals, tuners, etc.), and typically against a neutral background for easy cut-out/extraction.

I would also like to get a nice fast wide angle (tho not fisheye) lens for stuff like trade shows, and maybe even inner city shots like where you can't back up far enough to get everything in.

BTW, if this is getting a bit polluting for the thread, I also happily accept PMs.

Sorry for being such a n00b.