Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 2, 2004, 1:38 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

eric -

You really ought to assemble the best out of this thread, recompose it and put it in an article on http://www.fredmiranda.com-

Also I put my vote in for the 50mm1.8 also. It has saved my rear end more than once.
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2004, 1:16 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

Setiprime: I can be pretty gutsy and get myself in tight spots, but when I set my mind to do soemthing and be great at it there is nothing that is going to stop me other than major injury or major illness.

For the issue of lenses I am really debating this I can most likely save enough cash to buy a 50mm f1.8 for $75 with S&H from BH, maybe less at other places, but how much an I losing compared to the F1.4 version of it? I mean its 3.5x the cost! Will I really every need an 50 mm F1.4 lens or is it that male part of me that wants the best just incase?

I was really thinking about getting the 70-200mm F2.0 L lens but when you consider the low end of that on the DRebel is 112 mm, and the high end 302 mm, it would be great but the problem is the place I am renting it at doesnt have the one with IS hence tripod only. I know the place the reception is being held its the size of a small bar with a small dance floor, and dark walls. Hence I was thinking a 85mm F1.8 auto lens, and a 100mm F2 lens for the other shots. My main thing before anything is set in stone is I am going to take pics of the place at the lowest and highest range on my canon and get an idea of what is the best for it.

For and idea of what I can with sub par equpiment and 30 second with ms paint to shrink the photos check out my monster truck thread under sports.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2004, 6:05 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

Victor -

My approach is one of practicality. The 50mm 1.4 is a very inexpensive lens., but it provides amazingly sharp shots and that is why people buy it. The 50 is the lens that used to be supplied with many film cameras as a starter lens.

50mm comes about as close as anything to the view that the human eye sees. Another advantage is the speed and that iswhat I use it for the most. I shoot a lot of horses in barns (similiar light levels to a church) and I can't use a flash because horses get 'spooked' easily. The 50mm lets meget good shots without the flash. The 'down' side is that you zoom with your feet.

My primary use lens is the Canon 28/135 IS- Although it is not an L lens, it does quite well. Consider that the range is very nice, you can shoot at 28 for crowd shots and zoom in to 135 for tight stuff. The lens isn't so big that it draws attention. I shoot across arenas at horse shows and get some pretty good stuff at Car races too. I left a link to my photos a few answers back. Oh yeah, thats the 28/135 in my Avatar (I don't know the old guy holding the camera).

when I am out shooting wildlife, birds or zoo animals, I use my Canon 100/400L USM. It does provide some great shots, but it should. Here in the states the lens is around $13 to $1500. Ya' probably want to wait a while on that one.

Either way - welcome to the community.
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2004, 12:05 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

Setiprime wrote:
Quote:
Victor -

My approach is one of practicality. The 50mm 1.4 is a very inexpensive lens., but it provides amazingly sharp shots and that is why people buy it. The 50 is the lens that used to be supplied with many film cameras as a starter lens.
Well my debate for buying a lens isnt if is should or shouldnt get a 50 mm lens but if i should get the F1.4 or F1.8, the 1.8 is pretty at $75, but the F1.4 is over $300 while that maybe inexpensive for some right now its not for me. I most likely will check around some mopre for the lenses but if I go with the 50mm F1.4 I will rent it for the wedding its only $6 a day and then save up for it but i do want 50 mm with a F stop of either 1.4 or 1.8.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2004, 3:29 PM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 33
Default

My wife wanted me to take shots of my son's wedding. It actually went quite well, considering. To be perfectly frank, I don't really remember toomuch since I was busy snapping away over 500 shots. Other than the formal familiy shots, I was not in too many shots myself from the regular shooter.

One thing I noticed is that composition is critical. I closely follow the rules of thirds. Especially, NEVER take pictures with the heads in the middle of the frame. Heads should be centered about 1/3 down from the top unless you need to compose something else in the image. I am amazed by so many pictures where shots are poorly composed.

Another is to be aware of the lighting. the wedding was in a large outdoor gazebo for weddings with glass doors. The bright outside light made the indoor shots very difficult making spot exposures necessary. Most of the group shots were with 28mm and other shots were in the 100mm range.
Jon S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2004, 3:47 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Setiprime.... thanks. I probably should. The thing is, though... I've never done a wedding. So while I can spout all these things about doing them, there are people who will discount my opinion because I haven't done it. So I just try to give what advice I can and be helpful. I have started to collect web links about wedding, though. Makes it much easier to supply them when they are right there.

VictorEM83
Personally, the difference wasn't worth it for me, so I got the 50 f1.8. If I looked it up correctly the difference isn't even 1stop, so it doesn't seem to me like you'll gain much. If you make sure you get the "II" model (not the original) then the difference isn't that great (not $300 great) to me.

I agree with your problems with the 70-200. Its a great lens, and you'd get some use out of it. But enough to make it worth it? It sounds like maybe not, from the location you described. I have the 28-135. It is a good lens, but not great. It might be good enough, though. I'm not sure. It does have IS, which would be a help.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:31 AM.