The Photography Thread

[Paradigm]

Just interested, what lenses does everyone have for their Canons? Thinking about getting a 400D... probably get a 50mm prime? What else do you have?

[briareos_kerensky]

The 18-55mm included in the kit is a good compromise between sharpness, cost and zoom range; it's not the best zoom lens around but it will help in getting started without spending too much. A 50mm prime lens is a good choice, though things can get pricey...even the f1.8 requires a certain investment; they are extremely good lenses, though.
BTW, I have three lenses, the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM, the Canon EF 100mm macro and an old Sigma 70-300 APO DG acquired second hand. Well, I also have the EF-S 18-55mm from the 300D, but the 17-85 does whatever the 18-55 does and better.
If I had to buy an other lens, I'll get the 17-55mmm f2.8 IS USM and the 65mm MP-E, but having lenses that cover the 17-300mm range is more than enough, especially considering that 70% of my photos are taken with the 100mm macro.

[Ginger Tosser]

I've got 4 Canon lenses.

Canon EF100mm Macro
Canon EF70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF17-40mm f/4 L
Canon EF24-105mm f/4 L

Over the last year i've sold my 20-35mm, 80-200mm and 28-105 to fund the above.

The 50mm prime is very well recommended, superb quality although build is a bit plasticky. The best advice i could give is to buy quality glass as it will outlast your bodies. That said the kit lenses are a decent start. For most people they are good enough.

[Alastair]

I've 3 Canon Lenses (non of which are L's like rich man GT there )

Kit lens - 18-55mm f3.5?? - 60% of shots
28-80mm f4?? Hand me down from my Dad - barely ever use it
80-200 f4?? Hand me down from my Dad - barely ever use it

And 1 Tamron
AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - 40% of shots

I really think the kit lens is a great place to start, it more than likely wont have the zoom that you'll want at some stage and everyone berates it for not being sharp and whatever but to be honest it's a decent lens. I use it a lot and get great results (I think) and can't complain about the sharpness. Take a look at my shots to see examples of the kit lens.

The Tamron is great between 70 + 250mm and for the 99 quid I paid for it new I really cant complain, however, wide open apertures and full reach it's so soft it looks like it's out of focus which is a shame.

Paradigm, it depends on what you are planning to shoot what sort of lens you need, what sort of stuff are you interested in? Also, the 400D is tiny. It seems a great camera but after having a hands on I simply wouldn't buy it because of it's size. have a play with one and also something like a 30D to compare sizes and see what feels best.

[Richard.John]

I have the following:

Canon EF 17-40 mm f/4 L
Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8
Canon EF 85 mm f/1.8

The 50mm is a good lens for the money. It's so cheap that it would be criminal not to own one. The 17-40mm is good all rounder on a 1.6 crop body and has the build quality and superb peformance you would expect from an L series lens. The 85mm is stunning value (and produces superb pics) when you consider that the L version is about four times the price.

EDIT: To back up what Alastair said, you really should consider the 30D. If money is not an issue you won't regret spending the extra notes on what is a superb camera in every way.

[Paradigm]

Money is an issue, unfortunately. I've had a look at the pics each camera produces and IMO the 30D really isn't better at all in the image department and for ?280ish more (body only vs. 400D with lens) it's way, way more expensive. I haven't got massive hands and my fingers are slender so I don't find it particularly uncomfortable. Plus I'd rather have a D80 over a 30D. Ooh, controversial! Cheers for all the info guys. How much was the 17-40mm L and the 85mm? Where'd you buy them from?

[zeroboo]

i was wondering how do you guys deal with low light conditions without a tripod?

I was at my friend's graduation the other night (well round 4pm but dark outside already!). Most of the shots were taken indoors. I didn't want to use the flash as it gives off an extreme pal look to the subjects but on the other hand if i didn't use the flash i risk having all my pictures being shaky.

what do you recommend? i used a D80 with kit lens

[MartyG]

Wide apatures and high ISO is your only other option, the Nikon D80 will go to 3200 but it'll be grainy ( or rest it on something solid - mind if people move it won't help). Pics will be shaky at anything less than 1/30th sec at the wide end of the kit lens and at the zoom end you risk shake at 1/80th.

The flash shouldn't be making people look pale though, you're either too close or using it on too high a power, you can compensate by going -ve on the flash EV setting.

[Paradigm]

Aye, the D80's flash is well good, as it is on any DSLR. Shouldn't be getting excessive white face with the settings fiddled about with - have a go indoors on a mate or something. Otherwise you could buy an external flash - they're great and not terrifically expensive. Should be <?150 for a good Nikon one I'd have thought.

[Richard.John]

Money is an issue, unfortunately. I've had a look at the pics each camera produces and IMO the 30D really isn't better at all in the image department and for ?280ish more (body only vs. 400D with lens) it's way, way more expensive. I haven't got massive hands and my fingers are slender so I don't find it particularly uncomfortable. Plus I'd rather have a D80 over a 30D. Ooh, controversial! Cheers for all the info guys. How much was the 17-40mm L and the 85mm? Where'd you buy them from?

The 30D will have similar picture quality to the 400D. On paper of course it has less pixels but they have possibly hit the sweet spot in terms of 8.2M on an APS-C sized sensor so I am not sure if 2 million more makes any real world difference. The main issue for me was erogonomics anyway. Obviously, you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon so buy into the system that smiles at you the most and look forward to having your wallet drained year on year.

I got my lenses in Japan so paid about 465 GBP for the 17-40 and about 225 GBP for the 85. I don't know if Canon plays 'Rip off Britain' with its UK customers.

[Ginger Tosser]

How much was the 17-40mm L and the 85mm? Where'd you buy them from?

I paid ?480 for the 17-40mm, though i got ?70 cash back from Canon plus i traded a 20-35mm lens in and got ?130. I bought it from Jacobs in Birmingham, though i price matched they with AJPurdy. The prices of lenses are dropping at the moment probably due to the dollar. When i looked at the 24-105 IS at the start of the year it was around ?800. I got mine a month ago for ?664.

It's worth shopping around, some have found the HK importers to be much cheaper. Me i'd prefer to spend it in the UK.

[Paradigm]

Well I live in Birmingham so I may well trade in at Jacobs. By 'trade in' I mean I'd probably put my 18-55mm into part-ex, I don't think I'd miss the extra 15mm - I presume you and Peanuts use it for most of your general purpose stuff?

Edit: though a D80 with the 18-135mm would be cheaper. Makes me wonder whether I should trade flexibility for overall quality, though I do actually like the fact the 400D is small. Hmm! The 18-70mm is ?200 as well, so works out at about ?700. I do tend to prefer Nikon stuff to Canon... argh.

All this rests on me getting a job anyway!

[Gareth C]

i was wondering how do you guys deal with low light conditions without a tripod?

Get yourself a rangefinder Handheld at 1/8th is possible even for me (with very shaky hands)...

[Ginger Tosser]

I presume you and Peanuts use it for most of your general purpose stuff?

The lens is a little different for both of us as we have different camera. Peanuts has a 30D so the lens works out to be 27-64 due to the 1.6x crop factor. Whereas i use a 5D which is full frame so no crop. I do use it a fair amount but my most used lens is now the 24-105.

[Ginger Tosser]

For anyone that is interested PhotoShop CS3 is available on a beta at the moment.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/photoshopcs3/

You need an adobe account to access it (i just signed up). It seems to let you have a 30 day trial unless you've got a valid CS2 serial (though they have been having problems with the serial system). It does indicate that without the serial it only works for 2 days.

Believe me though, if you've got an Intel Mac you'll see the performance improvement in about 30 seconds!.

/edit. A quick look at the activation screen tells me i've only got 2 days left!