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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 10, 2010, 4:47 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boldstar View Post
Yes, I'll try to dig up some examples to post here.

In the meantime, one more question: If the IS kit lens does just as good of a job as something like the Tamron VC, at one-third of the cost, why would anyone buy the Tammy?
The larger aperture. (shallow depth of field, low light, etc.)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2010, 6:55 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Expanding on TCav's statement just a bit...
Image Stablization does nothing for you if you are shooting something that is moving even the slighest bit. It accounts for camera shake only. Wider aperture is necessary to get the shutter speed up to account for motion blur of the subject.
Having both a wide aperture and IS tends to lead to an entirely different perspective, a better one IMO. Dont take my opinion too deep though beacuse Ill have you taking a second out on the house buying glass. I started back into photography after quite a long break and attempted stunning results with less than stunning gear. If there is one thing that I have learned is you usually get what you pay for.....poor, mediocre, great, stunning and HOLY GRAIL! (EF 200 2.0L IS) With that in mind its up to the individual to decide what suits their purpose and expense account. Glass always comes first in the equation and body second.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2010, 7:07 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Boldstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The larger aperture. (shallow depth of field, low light, etc.)
Right, but if the larger apature of the Tamron (f/2.8) makes near zero difference than the kit lens wide open (f/3.5), when shooting in low-light situations, then I wonder if there's any point in my making the upgrade. I suppose better results are seen as the focal length increases?
Boldstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2010, 7:12 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Boldstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme View Post
Expanding on TCav's statement just a bit...
Image Stablization does nothing for you if you are shooting something that is moving even the slighest bit. It accounts for camera shake only. Wider aperture is necessary to get the shutter speed up to account for motion blur of the subject.
Having both a wide aperture and IS tends to lead to an entirely different perspective, a better one IMO. Dont take my opinion too deep though beacuse Ill have you taking a second out on the house buying glass.
Thanks for the input JustinThyme. I'm starting to understand the difference between IS and wider apature. And I realize that the lenses are more important than the camera body. I'm just wondering what I can do, in my price range, to get better indoor, low-light, no-flash photos (given that I usually shoot wide and zoom with my feet). Maybe the kit lens is the best I can do without spending the family fortune?

Man, if I had the budget, I'd be buying a few of those Holy Grails!
Boldstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2010, 7:16 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boldstar View Post
... I suppose better results are seen as the focal length increases?
Yeah, that.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 10, 2010, 7:21 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

For what you want to do, there's a fine line between what IS is giving you and what a larger aperture will give you. And if you want both, you have to pay for it.

If this was a big part of your plan for a new dSLR, you might have been better off with an unstabilized, large aperture, standard zoom on a stabilized body.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2010, 4:26 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

Hi this is only a suggestion what shutter speeds are you using there gets a point where you need a tripod or you have to use more light. Maybe get an external flash and use bounce instead of direct on board. Bounced flash will give a softer feel and canons use flash as fill in.

Last edited by wave01; Nov 11, 2010 at 4:32 AM.
wave01 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 9:35 AM.