Click Here!
Page 167 of 278 FirstFirst ... 67117157165166167168169177217267 ... LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,670 of 2773

Thread: ***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

  1. #1661
    Plutonium Nyborg WhoThePuck's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    927
    Liked
    0 times
    Karma
    1045000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default Thanks

    Valley Fan thanks for taking the time to help. I appreciate it.
    Quote Originally Posted by ValleyFan View Post
    might also want to look at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.
    The 17-55 was my original target to replace my EF-S 17-85, but I found I wanted more zoom, hence the 24-105 thought. (also saw a pro using the 24-105 as their walk around and spoke with them and they indicated it gave them good flexibility if they aren't sure what they are going to run into) I am concerned about the 24mm being more of a 38mm (1.6 crop) but the gain from 55 (if i went with the 17-55) to 105 would sure provide some flexibility on the zoom end. Then I just have to go buy the 10-22 ;-) to close the low end range gap......


    The EF 35mm f/1.4L is probably the finest mid-wide in the Canon line up
    Solved, this will be in my arsenal by x-mas hopefully.


    Quote Originally Posted by ValleyFan View Post
    Your best bet would probably go and rent the lenses
    I was considering this. I have seen several places listed in this thread going back a couple years; LensRental, LensProToGo, RentGlass and ZipLens. Is there a current favorite for Canon lenses? They all seem priced within 10 dollars of each other with shipping and insurance.


    Quote Originally Posted by ValleyFan View Post
    I think I misread this part originally:
    Other Canon users, do you have a place you have listed your lenses?
    Probably one of the better places to sell is fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom buy sell forum in terms of getting a non flake out buyer who knows what they are talking about.
    Probably written wrong more than a misread. In some forums I have seen folks list their equipment in their signatures. Now on LGK we usually have hockey stuff so a sig of 50D, 50f/1.8, 24-70....; would probably get us neg'd. You answered exactly what I was looking for in what you currently have and why; which was exactly what I was hoping for. (thanks again)

  2. #1662
    Sittin' on the couch VF's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Liked
    114 times
    Karma
    1057600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    16 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WhoThePuck View Post
    I was considering this. I have seen several places listed in this thread going back a couple years; LensRental, LensProToGo, RentGlass and ZipLens. Is there a current favorite for Canon lenses? They all seem priced within 10 dollars of each other with shipping and insurance.
    I actually now mostly rent from Samy's Camera (the one in Pasadena, they tend to be less dickish over there than Fairfax). They are usually right around the same price as mail order, and you can usually get a wide variety of stuff on a couple days notice.

  3. #1663
    Support the Fans SirJW's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    13,051
    Liked
    1540 times
    Karma
    7409605
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    217 Post(s)

    Default

    Very cool Flickr tool,

    Multicolr Search Lab - Ide Inc.

  4. #1664
    Lucky Luc! DRGinLBC's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Liked
    1623 times
    Karma
    2147483647
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    284 Post(s)

    Default

    Newbie here...don't run away!

    Here for a little advise since I am blown away at some of the talent here...great work to all those that posted.

    I recently purchased a Canon Rebel Xsi. With it, I purchased a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens.

    I am headed to SF in a couple weeks to visit my sister and wanted to take some pictures I found online. My sister lives in the Marina District and is directly across the street from the Palace of Fine Arts. I've seen some good pictures of this place and was wondering what settings I might use to shoot it at night. Here is an example of what I'm looking for:



    The second shot I am interested in taking is near the GG Bridge. Here is another example of the shot I am looking for. This person put his settings on this page so it might help. Any other input would be great since I don't know if I'll be shooting in the morning or evening.

    Golden Gate Bridge from Fort Point

    I will also be visiting Alcatraz. Any other suggestions on what sort of shots I might be looking for?

    Again...thank you for this thread. It's helped a great deal.

  5. #1665
    Go, Kings, Go Rinkrat's Avatar




    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    211,986
    Liked
    8512 times
    Karma
    477926340
    Images
    6741
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    673 Post(s)

    Default

    My bread and butter lens is my
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EW8074?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000EW8074]Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens for Canon DSLR Cameras[/ame]

    For hockey and other telephoto (car race)
    [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53X?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgoking82sco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00006I53X]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras[/ame]


    Quote Originally Posted by WhoThePuck View Post
    Picked up the Canon 50D over X-Mas.

    The kit lens was the EF 28-135. We used this in Mexico and it worked great; but was looking for wider. I also have 50mm F/1.8 and the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 USM.

    I sold the 28-135 on Craigslists and got the EF-S 17-85. I unfortunately tried some L glass at Ritz/Wolf and saw a big difference in clarity (not sure that is the right term).

    I am now looking to replace the EF-S 17-85 with possibly the EF 24-105 F/4L as my new walk around lens.

    Thoughts?

    (Another lens I've got penciled in for further acquisition is the EF 35mm f/1.4L to replace my 50mm F/1.8)

    I will have a hole at the wide-angle end of the range, but I'm thinking I may plug that at some point with the EF-S 10-22mm.

    RinkRat, have you posted your lens selection for the 50D anywhere? Other Canon users, do you have a place you have listed your lenses?

    Really curious what Canon owners use as their walk arounds.

  6. #1666
    Sittin' on the couch VF's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,424
    Liked
    114 times
    Karma
    1057600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    16 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DRGinLBC View Post
    I am headed to SF in a couple weeks to visit my sister and wanted to take some pictures I found online... I've seen some good pictures of this place and was wondering what settings I might use to shoot it at night.

    The second shot I am interested in taking is near the GG Bridge. Here is another example of the shot I am looking for. This person put his settings on this page so it might help. Any other input would be great since I don't know if I'll be shooting in the morning or evening.

    I will also be visiting Alcatraz. Any other suggestions on what sort of shots I might be looking for?
    Welcome! The first thing that is imperative for shots like those is a tripod. A decent tripod, not the cheapy knock off one that may or may not support a disposable camera. Tripods are annoying because when you are looking, you keep thinking, "it's a ****ing tripod, why would I spend $600" so you get the $50, and it works for a bit, but it drives you nuts and the camera won't stay locked down, so you get the $150, and that one is pretty good, but the head on it sucks, so you go and buy the $200 head. Now that you have a decent head, you start noticing that the legs aren't really doing you any favors, so you start looking again, and now you are back at the $600 pair of legs, and now you think to yourself, "****, I should have just gotten this one to start with."

    Now, that is not to say I think you have to go out and get the Gitzo 3 series carbon 6x type tripod and a Really Right Stuff bh-55 ball head out of the gate, but definitely look at a tripods with an eye toward your future needs. You need to get legs that can support the weight that you want to put on them, as well as what you are going to put on them in the future. Do you care that they are heavy (aluminum vs. carbon)? Do they have to fold up small, if they do are you willing to sacrifice the stability to get that small package? Heads are the same deal. Ball heads are the most flexible in terms of being able to exactly manipulate the camera where you want it, but you have to get one that is robust enough that the camera and a heavy lens won't slip when it is tightened down.

    Now to the actual shooting. What I would do is put the camera in manual, both these shots are more underexposed that what a camera exposure meter is going to want to give you. The first decision I personally like to make is aperture. Do I want a lot of things in focus (like the GG shot), or do a want certain areas out of focus. If you want more things in focus, you use higher f numbers, if you look at the GG bridge shot it is shot at f/8 with a relatively short lens. If you want some areas out of focus, you would shoot with a smaller f number (like f/2.8). The higher the f number, the less light is going to get into the camera, so higher f number is going to be longer shutter speeds. If you want the water blurred like both of these have, you are going to want the shutter open for several seconds. You can can compromise you aperture slightly to get the shutter speed you want and vice versa. You last variable of how much light it is going to take to get the picture you want is your ISO. Low ISOs (like 100) it is going to take a lot of light to expose. At ISO 200 you need half as much light as you would at ISO 100 (400 would take half the light of 200, and so on), so you shutter speed would be half as long, or you could close your aperture by one full stop. The trade off is noise in the image, the higher the ISO, the more noise you are likely going to introduce into the image. If you have a good tripod, it is good to stick with low ISOs (100, 200 range).

    With all that said, go down to where you want to shoot, get there with a good amount of time before the time of day you want to shoot, and start with settings similar to the bridge shot. The great thing about digital is you can then look at the image and see what you get. Start making adjustments to your exposure until you get the image that you want.

  7. #1667
    Plutonium Nyborg WhoThePuck's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    927
    Liked
    0 times
    Karma
    1045000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rinkrat View Post
    RR, I have found the 17-55 for about the same price as the 24-105. I understand that folks consider the 17-55 to be near L quality. Not owning an L lens I have no basis for comparison. (I have only shot with an L at the camera store.) Do you find this to be true?

    Would it be the f/2.8 for maybe low light (indoor) type shooting that makes it so attractive? Is it the 17mm? Are you accustomed to carrying more than 1 lens, so the gap beyond 55 isn't really a problem?

    Thanks in advance.

  8. #1668
    Support the Fans SirJW's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    13,051
    Liked
    1540 times
    Karma
    7409605
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    217 Post(s)

    Default

    Valley, you should write a book!

  9. #1669
    Go, Kings, Go Rinkrat's Avatar




    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    211,986
    Liked
    8512 times
    Karma
    477926340
    Images
    6741
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    673 Post(s)

    Default

    I think the only thing that keeps it from being and L lens is that it's notbuilt like a tank. As far as the photos it takes, it is so light and color sensitive that it works magic at low light. I can shoot a concert and compare to the guy standing right next to me who shot at exactly the same time and there is a certain magic from this lens that is unexplainable.






    Quote Originally Posted by WhoThePuck View Post
    RR, I have found the 17-55 for about the same price as the 24-105. I understand that folks consider the 17-55 to be near L quality. Not owning an L lens I have no basis for comparison. (I have only shot with an L at the camera store.) Do you find this to be true?

    Would it be the f/2.8 for maybe low light (indoor) type shooting that makes it so attractive? Is it the 17mm? Are you accustomed to carrying more than 1 lens, so the gap beyond 55 isn't really a problem?

    Thanks in advance.

  10. #1670
    what I am, you shall be nocturn's Avatar




    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    8,533
    Liked
    1862 times
    Karma
    4075000
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    476 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HeShootsNScores View Post
    thanks. Now I'm looking for a lens. I'm looking to get THIS ONE:
    Amazon.com: Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo

    I think...

    I'd love THIS ONE

    Amazon.com: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens: Camera & Photo

    but I think I may have spent my quota for a little while and don't think the wife would appreciate.

    any suggestions?
    I actually have both. The 18-55mm is a phenominal lens. The opitcs are sharp. A few pics at beginning of this thread I took with that lens. Great for portraits and landscapes. It also is a great "upclose" lens. The only gripe I have with it is the lack of a seperate focus ring.

    The 18-200 is also a good lens. A little noisy AF but still a good mid FL lens. I don't use it very often because I have a older 70-200 nikkor that has all the filters...and is a 2.8.

    Out of the 2 you listed, the 18-55mm is by far the best bang for the buck and the most versatile. Its a must have.
    "Quod tu es, ego fui, quod nunc sum et tu eris"

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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