Took The Car Out For Some Pics
- Thread starter braz2kuk
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,935
- Location
- South East
No, you don't.
Canon 50mm 1.8 is only £50 and it produces great results.
I got a 150mm Macro lens for £200 and again, it is a great lens.
The guy said he is a beginnner, I don't think he really needs to be spending £400+ on lenses yet.
The first part is true, you have a very tidy example of the car.
Second point however is quite a way off the mark.
I wouldn't start advising people on new lenses until they think that they have reached the limitations of the kit lens. After a while you will get a feel for what the lens is capable of and you will also get a grasp for the type of photography you're interested in. If the two don't correspond then yes by all means start looking around for new lens(es) but make sure to ask in here before you do!
As far as the photos go, you seem to have a fair grasp of composition (at least in the first and last image). I would recommend some Post Processing but apart from that, nicely done for your first few photos with the new camera.
*edit* beaten to it by squirrel but a valid point that I forgot to mention. Not sure where you got £400 for a first lens but that is utter gash as well.
Panzer
I spent less than £300 and got two decent lenses! Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Canon 50mm f1.8.
Both produce superior results to that of the Kit lens.
Comments like yours are no use what so ever!
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 23,935
- Location
- South East
I take it a 50mm 1.8 means 50mm lens at F1.8? What difference would that make to the pictures over using the kit lens zoomed to ~50mm?
Sorry for thread hijack
It is a prime 50mm lens with a maximum/minumum (can never remember which way round, I am a beginner too) aperture of 1.8.
It is a great lens and to be honest, I can't tell you why. For the price it just produces very sharp results.
Here is a review - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx
It means that at it's widest (most open) aperture it can stop to f/1.8
This means that in very low light conditions it can be opened right up. This is called stopping down but don't get me started on aperture numbers and what actually happens inside the camera!
The 50mm f/1.8 is also tack-sharp because it's a prime lens, meaning it's at a fixed focal length. It doesn't have to have quite such complex optics as a zoom lens like the 18-55mm lens because it doesn't have to account for all the different focal lengths in that range.
It really is a cracker because it's ideal for low light (or you could use that narrow depth of field artistically if you so desired) and it's also tack-sharp. A real bargain as well at £50. All Canon owners should have one!
Panzer
This means that in very low light conditions it can be opened right up. This is called stopping down but don't get me started on aperture numbers and what actually happens inside the camera!
The 50mm f/1.8 is also tack-sharp because it's a prime lens, meaning it's at a fixed focal length. It doesn't have to have quite such complex optics as a zoom lens like the 18-55mm lens because it doesn't have to account for all the different focal lengths in that range.
It really is a cracker because it's ideal for low light (or you could use that narrow depth of field artistically if you so desired) and it's also tack-sharp.
A real bargain as well at £50. All Canon owners should have one! Panzer
Some of it will be due to the lens, some of it will be due to the re-size and .jpg compression. He could try using a smaller aperture (bigger f/number). Also they don't appear to be PP'd so I would say a bit of levels work and a high-pass sharpen filter would do the job.
Panzer
Panzer
Sorry for the Hijack!!......
Would the 50mm lense make a good lense for wedding photos?.. I've been asked to do my mates wedding and I've only got the kit lense that came with my EOS33v (yes I know its a film camera!!.. I can't afford a dSLR at the mo!).. what would you suggest if not?
Those Porka piccies look very good!... need to try some arty shots now!... Long exposures etc...
Would the 50mm lense make a good lense for wedding photos?.. I've been asked to do my mates wedding and I've only got the kit lense that came with my EOS33v (yes I know its a film camera!!.. I can't afford a dSLR at the mo!).. what would you suggest if not?
Those Porka piccies look very good!... need to try some arty shots now!... Long exposures etc...
LOL! More hijacks in here than Brazil!
I don't think the photos are too bad, whilst the 18-55 isn't the greatest lens it was used at f/8 which gives acceptable results. A touch more sharpening would help but it's the location that I think is the biggest problem in these photos. A nice clean back drop or a gritty urban scene would look a lot better.
That's a damn clean car by the way!
I don't think the photos are too bad, whilst the 18-55 isn't the greatest lens it was used at f/8 which gives acceptable results. A touch more sharpening would help but it's the location that I think is the biggest problem in these photos. A nice clean back drop or a gritty urban scene would look a lot better.
That's a damn clean car by the way!
If you've got 2 bodies, the 50mm would be great on 1, with a wider zoom on the other. If you've only got 1, I'd suggest using just the zoom. Whilst the 50mm is nice, you might find it a bit restrictive using a prime.
Bear in mind that these are just my thoughts based on having done 1 wedding - I don't think I'd have survived without the zoom
I started off with the kit lens and then got a 50mm 1.8. I spent months just using the 50mm it's that good. The next step was to get the Sigma 70-300 which can be a good lens and as it's pretty cheap now, it'd be great for the learning curve.
If (and only if) you feel the need for wide angles, you can get a dedicated wide angle lens like the Sigma 10-20 (I got the 12-24 a few weeks before the 10-20 was announced, which is a fantastic lens).
I've recently got the Sigma 105mm macro lens which is great. I can't recommend it enough
Out of all those lenses, only the 12-24 cost over £400 (£450 if I remember correctly), but there's no point in going nuts spending money until you're comfortable with what you already have. When you're good and ready you can go mental spending all your cash on the L series lenses
If (and only if) you feel the need for wide angles, you can get a dedicated wide angle lens like the Sigma 10-20 (I got the 12-24 a few weeks before the 10-20 was announced, which is a fantastic lens).
I've recently got the Sigma 105mm macro lens which is great. I can't recommend it enough
Out of all those lenses, only the 12-24 cost over £400 (£450 if I remember correctly), but there's no point in going nuts spending money until you're comfortable with what you already have. When you're good and ready you can go mental spending all your cash on the L series lenses
The two car shot are really nicely composed, would maybe have gone with a shallower DOF on the first as the back ground is a bit distracting in places. The Sky in both shots is a bit boring maybe badly exposed due to getting the right exposure for the car or maybe just a bad sky day.
I'd load up a copy of PSP if you have it or get the trial for a play you'll be amased how much extra detail you can get back especially in the sky.
Good work keep practicing it's the only way to improve, oh and ignore the foold suggesting you need to blow £400 quid on a new lens or you pictures will be rubish he is talking out of his bottom.
I'd load up a copy of PSP if you have it or get the trial for a play you'll be amased how much extra detail you can get back especially in the sky.
Good work keep practicing it's the only way to improve, oh and ignore the foold suggesting you need to blow £400 quid on a new lens or you pictures will be rubish he is talking out of his bottom.
Taken with the 18-55..........it's MORE than ample to get people going so jumping on new users and saying "go spend the price of your camera again on glass or you're wasting your time" (interpretation) is ****
great picture, HDR?