Ok, so these are the two lenses i'm looking at, pdreview has this really cool tool to compare them. Now, if someone could call me an idiot here that would be great, but it *seems like* doing a similar comparison at 50mm f5.6, and 55m f5.6 respectively, and it seems the fixed 50mm is a much sharper lense. However, if you drop down to the higher aperture sizes, it seems like the quality degrades from this point, being on par in the center, and a worse in the corners(however better in the 33% range which is confusing) than the 15-55mm lense, it seems like the gains here in aperture come with reduced image quality, which seems like it shoudn't be.
So, if the best image quality is at around f5 on the 50mm, however with no IS, i'm more likely to get a blurrier shot on this lense than the 18-55mm at f5.6, no? It seems like under ideal circumstances, the 50mm would be quite a bit sharper, but just hand holding the camera the 18-55 would give better results. So, someone tell me if i'm just reading this wrong or something, because it doesn't quite make sense to me.
PS: thanks to everyone has posted here, there has been tonssss of useful info
AFAIK you really cannot help getting degrading image quality at a wide open aperture and most lenses have a sharpest aperture to use that's not it's widest setting.
You also have to compare the type of blur you're going to be trading, if you have low available light it's nice to have those extra low Fstops to drop down to because a slightly less sharp image is better than a motion blurred one.
The idea is that you can go lower with the 50mm prime. 1.8 is 3 stops faster than 5.6, so yeah with IS you'd be able to take the same brightness photo, but you'd also be at 3x slower shutter speed, losing your action freezing abilities. Remember that sharpness isn't everything. I prefer getting the shot, even if it isn't razor sharp. I've got several photos I've taken at ISO1600, 1/30 of a second, and f/1.4 which is a ludicrous amount of light sucking abilities, and even then it was "just" enough light to get the photo, and one in three were blurred from the 1/30 shutter speed. I can't imagine being limited to 5.6 at 55mm.
50mm on a canon is equiv to 80mm, which is a bit "long". that's why I recommended the 28mm as well, because it's also relatively cheap and it's equiv to 44mm, much nicer for normal shots, but it's limited to 2.8mm. There is a 28mm 1.8, and a sigma 30mm 1.4, but they are pricier (and nicer).
Prime lenses force you to think about the lens fov. The only time zooms are good is when you are limited to how close or far you can get. Sports, weddings, animals, these are times when you need to be able to adjust the size the item is in your frame. With normal things you want to zoom with your feet. Walk closer or walk further.
Here is why (keep in mind this is on a full frame camera, so these lenses are behaving as intended). I can make a subject the same size on any of my 3 lenses (35mm, 50, and 85) by walking closer or further, but the amount of background you see will radically change. 35mm shows a lot of the surroundings to give you a sense of where they are. 85mm compresses and makes the things directly behind them much larger, and doesn't show much of their immediate surroundings. 50mm is halfway between. When I go to make a photo, I'm thinking about what affect I want.
Do I want to show nothing but some important background item like this? (85mm)
Do I want to show where the person is, like this? (35mm)
Both of these shots would change radically if I'd switched the lenses, but zoomed with my feet to keep them the same size in the frame. In the first, the church over his shoulder (the definitive landmark in Cologne) would have been miniscule with a 35mm lens and we'd start to see the roof and sides of his balcony, completely unimportant elements. In the 2nd, you wouldn't see the lights hanging from the building in the dark sky, or much of the building at all, you'd just have some white blown out walls behind her.
Having a zoom doesn't force you to think about this. You can of course, but with 2+ prime lenses spaced out in MM lengths, you *have* to think about which would be most appropriate for the shot. It also really gets you familiar with those lengths, knowing exactly what it will bring you. I think prime lenses have more character in how they render backgrounds and contrast as well. Most people with zooms, when they see something they want to take a photo of, lift the camera to their eye, then zoom till their subject is the size they want it in the frame, and take the photo. This completely ignores the relationship of the subject to the background and how much of it's surroundings are showing around it.
That, and without shelling out major dough, at equivalent focal ranges, zooms are never as sharp as prime lenses at the wide open apertures (where you'll be in low light). Sure the 1,500 USD 24-70mm 2.8 is about as sharp at 2.8 as the 100 dollar 50mm at 2.8, but it's 15x more expensive.
Also keep in mind that the important elements in a photo are almost never on the edges, so having soft edges isn't all that detrimental. I have the 50mm 1.8, and I've taken photos at 1.8 a lot. Do I wish it was sharper? Sure, but it's just a mental thing, the image has never suffered from it. At 1.8, 95% of the time, the only thing on the edges are super blurry background elements (from the narrow depth of field) where sharpness is irrelevant anyway.
But from what I understand, you can get Canon kit lenses for like 75-100 dollars on craigslist all day long, from people upgrading to nicer lenses. It almost doesn't make sense not to get one if you're limited in budget and do want more lens lengths.
A 20D + craigslist kit lens + 50mm 1.8 shouldn't run more than a new Rebel.
my d.zukio is a 1.8 and I have changed the lens for a long time just because so darned useful. Looking forward to finding me a 20d bodies to slap it on and a play. what would my 50mm prime be on the 20d body 75? I forget the frame size of it.
Yeah thanks guys, you bring up a lot of good points, in low light i would much rather have the speed than not be able to get the shot at all, even if a little blurry. Can always sharpen a bit in PS I think i'll get the 50mm, and look into other stuff down the road if i find it isnt flexible enough for me.
Ben, whats your thoughts on something like a 300d for $160, too old, or would it be workable? From what i've read the 300d has a lot of "software locked" features that you can unlock with a third party firmware update. I think i'll end up going with a used XT body for about $260, but if i could get by with the 300d maybe i could get a nicer lens instead.
There aren't so many differences in the progress upgrades within a line. XXDs are mostly the same, it's only when you go to XXD or XD that it starts jumping in features. Canon locks down feature sets based on price. Even the newest 500d has areas that aren't as nice as the 10D (original XXD camera). That said, 160 dollars sounds like a steal.
Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Sony, all brands have great dslr cameras and all depends of what you are aiming for.
I recommend you to check out http://www.cameralabs.com, you can see examples of photos taken with the main preferred cameras, with the different iso levels for each camera.
I'm also after one of these toys... prices in Europe are very prohibitive. You can buy a good camera in USA for 500 dollars, but in europe its price is more than 500 euro, very unfair when 1 euro = 1,4 dollar.
Ebay is a good place to buy some lenses, though they still are very expensive (some lenses are more expensive than the camera body!). I'd go for a pack with 2 cheap lenses.
Posting to confirm the Canon 50mm 1.8 is extremely awesome. Just mind-blowingly good for the price, I picked up mine about 6 months ago for a mere £50.
Eh I say one nice lens over two cheap ones. Doesn't matter how nice your camera is if your glass is crap.
Sure, but some combos include very high quality lenses. You don't need to pay more if you buy the lens separately. The lens is as important as the body (or more), so if someone won't need 2 lenses, go for a better lens.
I have said it before but my zukio 50mm a.8 is dirty cheap+ awesome. on ebay I got mine for 8 pound (about $15) and is one of the best makes around. So maybe worth a look for a few people. The 28mm was slightly more (around 20).
Sorry to spam with the love for old Olympus stuff.
There aren't so many differences in the progress upgrades within a line. XXDs are mostly the same, it's only when you go to XXD or XD that it starts jumping in features. Canon locks down feature sets based on price. Even the newest 500d has areas that aren't as nice as the 10D (original XXD camera). That said, 160 dollars sounds like a steal.
Ok, so either go cheap and get the 300d or go a little higher and go for a 20d. Sounds pretty good to me, thanks dude.
except the 500D shoots 1080p video, if that matters to you (it's been great for me). Just got my 50mm prime for xmas and have been loving the portraits over the last couple of days.
Yeah i dont care much about video, so not a big deal to me. I've been checking ebay and seeing 20D's go as low as about $220, so i think i'll just wait it out and snag one there when i can get it for a good price. I've also seen that 28mm lense go for about $150 as well, so i think i will grab the 50mm, and then wait til i can get a decent price on the 28 and grab that as well.
I was talking with my father in-law a bit and he mentioned alternate focus mirrors, he had an old Nikon N90 with a split prism focus mirror that was realllllly cool, turns out you can get one for a 20d for about $25 or so off ebay, but not a changeable part in the Rebel series.
Split prism is awesome, I didn't know you could get them for so cheap, I need to see if I can get one for my 5D.
One new awesome tech that just came out on the most expensive Hasselblad line (40k for just the body) is an internal gyroscope that adjusts the field of focus based on your recomposing. Most people put the center AF spot over their subject, achieve focus, then recompose the view, but since the focus is radial, that can move the focus behind your subject. This new tech can tell how much you rotated the camera view, and moves the focus to stay within that distance plane. In a few years I'm sure this will trickle down to normal cameras, along with Sony's new sensors that put the electronic circuit board behind the light diodes instead of the current way of having it between the diode and lens.
In the next 3-5 years I expect to see some really amazing jumps in sensor tech.
they retail for like $100(katz eye), but if you can find the proper one for your camera, you can get it for under $30 on ebay it seems, from china i guess tho. There was one for the 20d a couple days ago, looking now it looks like you can get them for rebels etc too.
Is that when there is a circle in the middle of the view finder and focusing brings the two half's together? if so yer its super helpful when focusing my slr.
Different focal lengths not only can bring the background closer or further away, they also push the perspective of your subject. Longer focal lengths tend to flatten perspective, tending to be ortographic on the extremes. So when taking ref pics for modelling or textures, the biggest the focal length, the better, since you're gonna use those pictures on the ortographic views and want as little perspective interference as possible.
Coincidentally, I was talking about this to mom earlier today and took those pics to illustrate:
That's quite important when taking portraits as well, since you can make people's features seem bigger, like mom's nose for example. And people who have fat faces will seem fatter on a bigger focal length.
I use, and love, a Canon 400D with Tamron 17-50 2.8
I would recommend it over a used 20D because it will have a larger screen, auto-vibration sensor cleaner, and several other bells and whistles. The 450D is the newer version, but the 400D should be found rather easily and affordably in the used market, since its a little bit older and was very popular.
Wha price are you seeing on the used 20ds? I managed to find a local auction for a 20d body, but it's significantly higher than a new 500d (1300sgd sans warranty vs 900sgd)
$200-330 USD for used 20d bodies depending on accessories and condition, they go higher than that too, but a good amount of them sell in that price range. You may be able to luck out and find someone willing to ship international.
Wow, that's a hell of a price difference. I've noticed a trend of local second-hand cameras not really shaving much off the price of the new articles, which is a bit annoying. Cheers for the heads up on the d20 prices.
on lenses - has anyone here ever tried one of the lensbabies models - perhaps the 'composer' even? once in a while i stumble over cool shots done with them but i am left wondering how practical these are or if it's just a gimmick one gets tired of quickly. can they do anything you couldn't do with a little post? also, lots of CA visible in those shots, what are the optical qualities like?
I use, and love, a Canon 400D with Tamron 17-50 2.8
I would recommend it over a used 20D because it will have a larger screen, auto-vibration sensor cleaner, and several other bells and whistles. The 450D is the newer version, but the 400D should be found rather easily and affordably in the used market, since its a little bit older and was very popular.
At iso 1600 the 400d sucks compared to the XXD line. You will see banding in the noise because of the sensor type, whereas the XXD and XD lines have a more random pattern that isn't as obvious to the eye. It might have more bells and whistles, but I've always valued final image quality over small tech advances.
The one exception to this, is when I went from a 40d to a 5D original, the 40d can turn off 1/3 stop iso increments, and the 5d cannot. 1/3 stops are fake ISO done in the firmware and have worse noise than the real stops, so I now have to scroll through them. And the 40D shows iso in the viewfinder at all times, and the 5D only when changing, but I'd still take my 5d anyday over the 40d, and I'd take my 40d any day over a 500d.
from my POV, one of the best things about the 5D is you're only paying for quality (and full-frame of course), not a shed-load of features i'd never use. This might not be the case for everyone though.
I upgraded to a 5D from a 350D, which had all the full-auto and landscapey/portraity/sportsy etc preset modes which i used for maybe the first few months while i was getting used to a dslr - and which did prove useful - but then never touched again. Also a built-in flash, same thing. Most of this is missing on a 5D (though it still has a forgiving P mode, which is auto with lots of manual overrides), it does expect you to know what you're doing with a dlsr. It will also show up the inadequacies of cheapy glass, the only lens i have been able to carry over was the 50mm
Im also looking for getting an entry level DSLR for some amatuer photo shooting. My dad owns a Nikon D70 with a Nikkor 18-135mm that I've been playing around with for some time.
Now after reading this thread it seems like people's money are on a used 20d and getting a fixed 50mm lense for forced learning on how to move your legs instead of using lense zoom, right?
I would love get a camera that I can have for a few years and the abillity to shoot some HD video. I followed the link that Blaizer posted on page to www.cameralabs.com and I immedialy spotted their "Best Buy" section with budget DSLR cams.
After reading the articles and watching the attached videos, I kinda got my heart locked on an Canon EOS 450D/Rebel XSi. Now this of course the one that costs the most(New price here in Denmark is around 730 dollars for the house and a 18-55mm IS lense). Would this be worth it? Or should one still aim for an older model and then buy some better glass instead?
So i ended up getting a 350d, was getting impatient waiting for a 20d to drop to my price range, so i just got the XT instead. Then the next day one went for like $210. Fuckers! Anyway i got a few extras with the 350d, kit lens, extra battery, 2+4 gb card and a wireless remote thing. Everything i need to start messing with it as soon as it gets here!
I ordered that 50mm 1.8 prime lens and i'm wondering what you guys think about using something like an older FD lense with a fd->ef mount, you can get them for cheap as hell. It seems like the big deal is you wouldn't have any auto control over it, but that in itself might be a fun/educational thing to do. Is there anyone who's done this and can give an opinion on it?
Also, cheap ass extension tubes. Again seems like only manual controls when doing this, you can buy a cannon brand one but they are quite a bit more expensive you have to pick a certain length unlike the cheap modular kits.
I'm sort of thinking maybe get a cheap older lens with a converter, and use that with the exclusively with the macro extenders as all of that stuff needs to be manual anyway.
And finally, thoughts on uv filters or anything else, what you cant live without, are cheap ones going to affect quality etc?
Ben, i grabbed "understanding exposure" and "understanding shutter speed" from the library, good reads. Also got a huge Ansel Adams book on technique etc that i havent dug into yet, looks like some cool stuff there too.
I would recommend getting at least a half-decent UV filter for the 50mm, if only to protect the front element. I have one of the Hoya ones on mine, seems like a reputable brand, I would recommend them. I use a Hoya cir-polarizing filter from time to time on the same lens, I've found it can really pop the contrast in some situations.
Yep, hoya uvs are pretty decent...of course if you want better ones look into the B+W brand. More expensive uv filters are thinner and have better coating (i think), so this reduces the additional ghosting/flaring you get when putting extra shit in front of the lens.
Idk about older lenses, but if you can live with full manual exposure then go ahead After a while it gets easier, hell my leica M3 doesn't have auto anything ( and I even use manual on my M8 )
Full manual is fun as hell, and experimenting doesn't cost you shit, unlike when you had to pay for film. I had a few months playing with a d80 about a year back, and for the most part I left everything on manual, from focus to exposure to aperture, etc. Way more fun, and you actually understand what the settings do.
UV filters are a leftover from film, they have no effect on a dslr at all other than protection. Cheapy ones will degrade quality though. It's a question of how expensive your lens is, what sort of environments you may be shooting in and whether you really need protection (lots of crud in the air?), and then balancing that with the cost of a filter
for photos rather than protection, you'd be better off with a good polarising filter, at least they have a use in terms of the image. They're a pain to use with a hood though, and really need removing when the light gets dim. On a holiday last year i was moving between outdoor and indoor, and screwing and unscrewing the thing so often i ended up dropping it and breaking the thread.
A good pair of sunglasses works decently as a polarizing filter if you need one in a pinch. Obviously they'd have to be pretty big for a dslr lens, but if your girl wears those big sunnies that seem to be somewhat in vogue, they'll do. I've actually taken some decent impromptu shots with a pair of sunglasses, both with a dslr and a point and shoot.
So i ended up getting a 350d, was getting impatient waiting for a 20d to drop to my price range, so i just got the XT instead. Then the next day one went for like $210. Fuckers! Anyway i got a few extras with the 350d, kit lens, extra battery, 2+4 gb card and a wireless remote thing. Everything i need to start messing with it as soon as it gets here!
I ordered that 50mm 1.8 prime lens and i'm wondering what you guys think about using something like an older FD lense with a fd->ef mount, you can get them for cheap as hell. It seems like the big deal is you wouldn't have any auto control over it, but that in itself might be a fun/educational thing to do. Is there anyone who's done this and can give an opinion on it?
Also, cheap ass extension tubes. Again seems like only manual controls when doing this, you can buy a cannon brand one but they are quite a bit more expensive you have to pick a certain length unlike the cheap modular kits.
I'm sort of thinking maybe get a cheap older lens with a converter, and use that with the exclusively with the macro extenders as all of that stuff needs to be manual anyway.
And finally, thoughts on uv filters or anything else, what you cant live without, are cheap ones going to affect quality etc?
Ben, i grabbed "understanding exposure" and "understanding shutter speed" from the library, good reads. Also got a huge Ansel Adams book on technique etc that i havent dug into yet, looks like some cool stuff there too.
FD to EF has to have a piece of glass in it to adjust for the difference in flange distance, and it seriously degrades quality. I do not recommend going with FD lenses unless you have an actual FD camera. If you want to go older cheaper, buy old nikon or minolta glass with an adaptor, as long as the adaptor has no glass, you're ok, but cheap glass adaptors suck ass.
Do not buy UV filters, they are a waste of money. Your front elements don't need protection unless you're shooting in a sand storm in Iraq. I use my lenses in all kinds of conditions, and never use any filters, and have no problem. Cheap filters degrade image quality and add horrible flair, and expensive ones cost as much as nice lenses. They are seriously a waste of money.
If you happen to get into macro photography, you can find a set of bellows and use a nice FD with that, as there will be no glass and you're gonna be manual anyways. Any adapter you use, you're gonna loose stops. Also, you can't control the stops on DSLR lens' with bellows.
Anything flying fast enough to scratch your lens will probably kill you or hurt you pretty bad, so you best be paid to be there, or get the shot. The surface is pretty hard and the coating can get scratched, but will not have any effect on the lens itself. Also, you can run a lens with a decent scratch and not notice it. Cracks, no. When I shoot with huge ocean sprays, I run glass cover as spray can dry quick in the sun/air and will affect the shoot, so I swap to a clean glass cover. Also, I used a filter when working with a performer who eats fire, the dude kept spitting on the stuff, and the soot from the kerosene lamps did leave residue, so I swapped glass through the shoot. I use polarized filters for shooting things behind/around certain types of glass and the light isn't on their side or working with me. When things have polarized glass/tint, no filter, less trouble to edit in post.
FD to EF has to have a piece of glass in it to adjust for the difference in flange distance, and it seriously degrades quality. I do not recommend going with FD lenses unless you have an actual FD camera. If you want to go older cheaper, buy old nikon or minolta glass with an adaptor, as long as the adaptor has no glass, you're ok, but cheap glass adaptors suck ass.
Do not buy UV filters, they are a waste of money. Your front elements don't need protection unless you're shooting in a sand storm in Iraq. I use my lenses in all kinds of conditions, and never use any filters, and have no problem. Cheap filters degrade image quality and add horrible flair, and expensive ones cost as much as nice lenses. They are seriously a waste of money.
A lens hood would have prevented the same thing without degrading image quality.
I guess I'm just careful with my gear, but I'd rather have every photo I take be utmost quality, than in the 1:1,000,000 chance I drop my lens front first onto a jagged rock from a 10 foot ladder that the UV filter protects it.
Seriously, if you go on any serious photography forum, it's the amateurs swearing by UV filters, and the serious professionals who never mount anything on the front of their lens unless it's for a very specific purpose (like a graduated neutral density filter).
By all means, if you want to waste money and degrade the image quality, buy a crappy UV filter and put it on your lens, but I don't, and I've never regretted it, and I'm out all the time taking photos.
A good way to see the amount of image quality lost with a cheap filter is to take a picture of something with vivid colors and fine detail. Your colors can be corrected (much more work), but the detail will never be recovered.
When I was shooting rally cross, I didn't run a filter/glass cover. Just know when to use zoom, and when to turn the lens for focus in high dust situations. If I have my 70-200 2.8L, I have the camera strap and proper camera holding all the time. Properly holding the camera is the first part of the battle, next is stance. Having a battery grip helped that a lot. If I am going to be moving a lot from location to location to get a shot, I use the strap. I am more worried about having someone steal my shit than dropping my camera, and I've banged my 70~200 2.8L a few times.
Filters are for very specific things: I have my polarized filters for outdoor stuff with no people, nature shot and cars, two ND's for long exposures/time-lapse and an NDG for arena stuff with crazy lights up high (I haven't used this in a while...). Even in the above situations I may or may not use one of those filters. And these are not the $20 for 3 ebay/camera store filters. The majority of the filter's I have for the 85mm and the 70~200mm are $160+ for each one. The filters for the 77mm are stupid expensive.
My flight was cancelled that saturday (oh man, I have so much to tell about Continental Airlines and Newark airport, and yes - I was among the "evacuated" yesterday.../rage) and the new one was a day later. So on sunday I went to B&H and got the 20D, a 28mm prime, a 50mm prime, and other stuff.
then I went to Venezuela and now I have about 1000 photos taken, though about 75% of them are worthless.
I didn't get the book so I basically experimented with stuff. The camera is great when used properly, but I really wanted to kick myself for not getting a tripod. I have rather shaky hands and though in some places you can just let the camera sit atop something, in most situations a tripod was a must have. I'll be posting some pics that I think are good later on in the according thread.
By all means, if you want to waste money and degrade the image quality, buy a crappy UV filter and put it on your lens, but I don't, and I've never regretted it, and I'm out all the time taking photos.
No need to get defensive, I was just trying to point out to EQ how a uv filter might come useful A good uv filter really doesn't degrade that much quality (so far I haven't seen any real tests proving that it does) unless of course you're shooting really really low light and have bright light sources, in which case some ghosting might occur due to internal reflections.
It's not really quite black and white either (amateurs use uv filters, pros don't) I know some pros who prefer to use them rather than hoods, and vice versa. The main argument being that hoods tend to add a lot of bulk to an already huge lens (not uncommon especially for the more exotic ones) and the uv filters that they can afford to buy don't affect the quality of their files at all.
Some of the advantages of having a uv filter:
1) Much, much easier to clean. It's quite nerve wracking when you have to clean the front element of a lens (finger prints, dust etc)
2) Some added weathersealing (rain, dust etc) In fact, there are some lenses which require you to use an additional filter to complete it's sealing.
3) The accidental scratch or drop (lens hoods do the same thing, although some don't prefer the added bulk)
4) Pop it on and never think about it again One common issue I see is that for some unexplainable reason, accidents happen when the hood is not mounted on the lens (or mounted reversed) The universe is cruel
Of course, crappy glass is still crappy glass..so get a good one if you do decide to have one on. Hoya brands are pretty decent, and they're not really that expensive either.
EDIT: Thought I'd do a quick comparison between filtered and unfiltered.
Notice how I haven't lost any of the contrast, microcontrast and color richness even when using a filter. You might see some dark spots on the right image, that's not vignetting..thats actually the filter's thread (I had to hold it in front of the lens, didn't have a filter for this particular lens)
100% crops..
No sharpening was done Any differences in quality is microscopic at best, and the plane of focus might have shifted ever so slightly for the filtered picture (holding a a camera with one hand while a filter with the other is a bit hard :P)
Of course, this is just an informal test. I'm not trying to discredit those who don't prefer to use uv filters...but hey, there's nothing wrong in using them either.
Almost everyone in this thread is talking about budget setups and good UV filters cost as much as decent prime lenses. And UV filters degrade flare, not really contrast or sharpness.
Even with my nice lenses, i'd rather spend 100 USD on a new lighting modifier than a UV filter. They're snake oil. If you personally want to use them, go ahead, but I hate it when it's bandied around as good advice for beginners when it's pretty awful. they will either A) buy a cheap UV filter that does nothing, or waste valuable money on a good UV filter that could have been spend on actual picture taking gear like lenses or a nicer body.
Copy pasted from another forum:
UV filters do have a purpose and are not completely a waste. If your lens is $1000, and you are willing to spend about $100 on UV filter, then it may be a good idea to use one if the conditions are messy. Some Canon lenses with weather sealing need a filter to complete the seal. Obviously anything that's going to harm your lens will harm your filter. So putting your filter on in a sand storm will save your lens but destroy your filter, and that's the goal at the high end. These situations though DO NOT apply to anyone who needs to have this explained to them. Your 17-55 4-5.6 IS/VR Kit Lens is worth about $50 in mint condition used. You can buy a new one for $150. It doesn't make sens to spend $100 on a filter to 'protect' it when you degrade the image quality by doing so. You can always use a hood to protect your lens if you're worried about it.
That image comparison was a response towards Lamont's claims that UV filters affect color and fine detail. I know that UV filters cause flaring, thats what i've been trying to point out for the last 2-3 posts yet everyone seems to think it's image IQ's arch nemesis or something.
I can understand why you hate them, most of your photography heavily involves strobes and studio lighting..so I can see where having a filter on would cause problems But for those who don't really do those type of photos, there are some merits to having a good UV filter. Again, i'm only trying to point out the advantages of having one to those new to photography. I don't recommend them buying one but I don't have a vendetta against filters either. In fact, I rarely use them myself.
( In my country shops tend to give away hoya filters for free, so I guess thats why the price of filters never bothered me..I get them for free :P )
But yeah, I admit defeat You obviously know much more in this subject matter, having more experience with lights and studio type photography. I'm horrible at that stuff XD
This has become my favorite thread
Thanks for all the help. I was told I need to have a filter and i just got one of the Hoya filters. Not that it will make a big difference for me but I think I will remove it and try to compare myself.
Replies
Ok, so these are the two lenses i'm looking at, pdreview has this really cool tool to compare them. Now, if someone could call me an idiot here that would be great, but it *seems like* doing a similar comparison at 50mm f5.6, and 55m f5.6 respectively, and it seems the fixed 50mm is a much sharper lense. However, if you drop down to the higher aperture sizes, it seems like the quality degrades from this point, being on par in the center, and a worse in the corners(however better in the 33% range which is confusing) than the 15-55mm lense, it seems like the gains here in aperture come with reduced image quality, which seems like it shoudn't be.
So, if the best image quality is at around f5 on the 50mm, however with no IS, i'm more likely to get a blurrier shot on this lense than the 18-55mm at f5.6, no? It seems like under ideal circumstances, the 50mm would be quite a bit sharper, but just hand holding the camera the 18-55 would give better results. So, someone tell me if i'm just reading this wrong or something, because it doesn't quite make sense to me.
PS: thanks to everyone has posted here, there has been tonssss of useful info
You also have to compare the type of blur you're going to be trading, if you have low available light it's nice to have those extra low Fstops to drop down to because a slightly less sharp image is better than a motion blurred one.
50mm on a canon is equiv to 80mm, which is a bit "long". that's why I recommended the 28mm as well, because it's also relatively cheap and it's equiv to 44mm, much nicer for normal shots, but it's limited to 2.8mm. There is a 28mm 1.8, and a sigma 30mm 1.4, but they are pricier (and nicer).
Prime lenses force you to think about the lens fov. The only time zooms are good is when you are limited to how close or far you can get. Sports, weddings, animals, these are times when you need to be able to adjust the size the item is in your frame. With normal things you want to zoom with your feet. Walk closer or walk further.
Here is why (keep in mind this is on a full frame camera, so these lenses are behaving as intended). I can make a subject the same size on any of my 3 lenses (35mm, 50, and 85) by walking closer or further, but the amount of background you see will radically change. 35mm shows a lot of the surroundings to give you a sense of where they are. 85mm compresses and makes the things directly behind them much larger, and doesn't show much of their immediate surroundings. 50mm is halfway between. When I go to make a photo, I'm thinking about what affect I want.
Do I want to show nothing but some important background item like this? (85mm)
Do I want to show where the person is, like this? (35mm)
Both of these shots would change radically if I'd switched the lenses, but zoomed with my feet to keep them the same size in the frame. In the first, the church over his shoulder (the definitive landmark in Cologne) would have been miniscule with a 35mm lens and we'd start to see the roof and sides of his balcony, completely unimportant elements. In the 2nd, you wouldn't see the lights hanging from the building in the dark sky, or much of the building at all, you'd just have some white blown out walls behind her.
Having a zoom doesn't force you to think about this. You can of course, but with 2+ prime lenses spaced out in MM lengths, you *have* to think about which would be most appropriate for the shot. It also really gets you familiar with those lengths, knowing exactly what it will bring you. I think prime lenses have more character in how they render backgrounds and contrast as well. Most people with zooms, when they see something they want to take a photo of, lift the camera to their eye, then zoom till their subject is the size they want it in the frame, and take the photo. This completely ignores the relationship of the subject to the background and how much of it's surroundings are showing around it.
That, and without shelling out major dough, at equivalent focal ranges, zooms are never as sharp as prime lenses at the wide open apertures (where you'll be in low light). Sure the 1,500 USD 24-70mm 2.8 is about as sharp at 2.8 as the 100 dollar 50mm at 2.8, but it's 15x more expensive.
But from what I understand, you can get Canon kit lenses for like 75-100 dollars on craigslist all day long, from people upgrading to nicer lenses. It almost doesn't make sense not to get one if you're limited in budget and do want more lens lengths.
A 20D + craigslist kit lens + 50mm 1.8 shouldn't run more than a new Rebel.
Ben, whats your thoughts on something like a 300d for $160, too old, or would it be workable? From what i've read the 300d has a lot of "software locked" features that you can unlock with a third party firmware update. I think i'll end up going with a used XT body for about $260, but if i could get by with the 300d maybe i could get a nicer lens instead.
I recommend you to check out http://www.cameralabs.com, you can see examples of photos taken with the main preferred cameras, with the different iso levels for each camera.
I'm also after one of these toys... prices in Europe are very prohibitive. You can buy a good camera in USA for 500 dollars, but in europe its price is more than 500 euro, very unfair when 1 euro = 1,4 dollar.
Ebay is a good place to buy some lenses, though they still are very expensive (some lenses are more expensive than the camera body!). I'd go for a pack with 2 cheap lenses.
Sure, but some combos include very high quality lenses. You don't need to pay more if you buy the lens separately. The lens is as important as the body
Sorry to spam with the love for old Olympus stuff.
Ok, so either go cheap and get the 300d or go a little higher and go for a 20d. Sounds pretty good to me, thanks dude.
I was talking with my father in-law a bit and he mentioned alternate focus mirrors, he had an old Nikon N90 with a split prism focus mirror that was realllllly cool, turns out you can get one for a 20d for about $25 or so off ebay, but not a changeable part in the Rebel series.
One new awesome tech that just came out on the most expensive Hasselblad line (40k for just the body) is an internal gyroscope that adjusts the field of focus based on your recomposing. Most people put the center AF spot over their subject, achieve focus, then recompose the view, but since the focus is radial, that can move the focus behind your subject. This new tech can tell how much you rotated the camera view, and moves the focus to stay within that distance plane. In a few years I'm sure this will trickle down to normal cameras, along with Sony's new sensors that put the electronic circuit board behind the light diodes instead of the current way of having it between the diode and lens.
In the next 3-5 years I expect to see some really amazing jumps in sensor tech.
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?LH_IncludeSIF=1&LH_AvailTo=1&_nkw=split+prism
Different focal lengths not only can bring the background closer or further away, they also push the perspective of your subject. Longer focal lengths tend to flatten perspective, tending to be ortographic on the extremes. So when taking ref pics for modelling or textures, the biggest the focal length, the better, since you're gonna use those pictures on the ortographic views and want as little perspective interference as possible.
Coincidentally, I was talking about this to mom earlier today and took those pics to illustrate:
That's quite important when taking portraits as well, since you can make people's features seem bigger, like mom's nose for example. And people who have fat faces will seem fatter on a bigger focal length.
I would recommend it over a used 20D because it will have a larger screen, auto-vibration sensor cleaner, and several other bells and whistles. The 450D is the newer version, but the 400D should be found rather easily and affordably in the used market, since its a little bit older and was very popular.
Yes.
At iso 1600 the 400d sucks compared to the XXD line. You will see banding in the noise because of the sensor type, whereas the XXD and XD lines have a more random pattern that isn't as obvious to the eye. It might have more bells and whistles, but I've always valued final image quality over small tech advances.
The one exception to this, is when I went from a 40d to a 5D original, the 40d can turn off 1/3 stop iso increments, and the 5d cannot. 1/3 stops are fake ISO done in the firmware and have worse noise than the real stops, so I now have to scroll through them. And the 40D shows iso in the viewfinder at all times, and the 5D only when changing, but I'd still take my 5d anyday over the 40d, and I'd take my 40d any day over a 500d.
I upgraded to a 5D from a 350D, which had all the full-auto and landscapey/portraity/sportsy etc preset modes which i used for maybe the first few months while i was getting used to a dslr - and which did prove useful - but then never touched again. Also a built-in flash, same thing. Most of this is missing on a 5D (though it still has a forgiving P mode, which is auto with lots of manual overrides), it does expect you to know what you're doing with a dlsr. It will also show up the inadequacies of cheapy glass, the only lens i have been able to carry over was the 50mm
Now after reading this thread it seems like people's money are on a used 20d and getting a fixed 50mm lense for forced learning on how to move your legs instead of using lense zoom, right?
I would love get a camera that I can have for a few years and the abillity to shoot some HD video. I followed the link that Blaizer posted on page to www.cameralabs.com and I immedialy spotted their "Best Buy" section with budget DSLR cams.
After reading the articles and watching the attached videos, I kinda got my heart locked on an Canon EOS 450D/Rebel XSi. Now this of course the one that costs the most(New price here in Denmark is around 730 dollars for the house and a 18-55mm IS lense). Would this be worth it? Or should one still aim for an older model and then buy some better glass instead?
Yep, best choice right now hands down. Anything more is pissing money away.
My kit = 5D, 28,35,50,85mm
I ordered that 50mm 1.8 prime lens and i'm wondering what you guys think about using something like an older FD lense with a fd->ef mount, you can get them for cheap as hell. It seems like the big deal is you wouldn't have any auto control over it, but that in itself might be a fun/educational thing to do. Is there anyone who's done this and can give an opinion on it?
I'm thinking something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-FD-28mm-f-2-8-WIDE-ANGLE-PRIME-MF-LENS-f2-8-28-mm_W0QQitemZ130349581142QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item1e5970c356
Also, cheap ass extension tubes. Again seems like only manual controls when doing this, you can buy a cannon brand one but they are quite a bit more expensive you have to pick a certain length unlike the cheap modular kits.
http://cgi.ebay.com/3-Ring-Macro-Extension-Tube-for-Canon-400D-350D-450D-Ne_W0QQitemZ160389545792QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens_Accessories?hash=item2557f63f40
I'm sort of thinking maybe get a cheap older lens with a converter, and use that with the exclusively with the macro extenders as all of that stuff needs to be manual anyway.
And finally, thoughts on uv filters or anything else, what you cant live without, are cheap ones going to affect quality etc?
Ben, i grabbed "understanding exposure" and "understanding shutter speed" from the library, good reads. Also got a huge Ansel Adams book on technique etc that i havent dug into yet, looks like some cool stuff there too.
Idk about older lenses, but if you can live with full manual exposure then go ahead
for photos rather than protection, you'd be better off with a good polarising filter, at least they have a use in terms of the image. They're a pain to use with a hood though, and really need removing when the light gets dim. On a holiday last year i was moving between outdoor and indoor, and screwing and unscrewing the thing so often i ended up dropping it and breaking the thread.
FD to EF has to have a piece of glass in it to adjust for the difference in flange distance, and it seriously degrades quality. I do not recommend going with FD lenses unless you have an actual FD camera. If you want to go older cheaper, buy old nikon or minolta glass with an adaptor, as long as the adaptor has no glass, you're ok, but cheap glass adaptors suck ass.
Do not buy UV filters, they are a waste of money. Your front elements don't need protection unless you're shooting in a sand storm in Iraq. I use my lenses in all kinds of conditions, and never use any filters, and have no problem. Cheap filters degrade image quality and add horrible flair, and expensive ones cost as much as nice lenses. They are seriously a waste of money.
Anything flying fast enough to scratch your lens will probably kill you or hurt you pretty bad, so you best be paid to be there, or get the shot. The surface is pretty hard and the coating can get scratched, but will not have any effect on the lens itself. Also, you can run a lens with a decent scratch and not notice it. Cracks, no. When I shoot with huge ocean sprays, I run glass cover as spray can dry quick in the sun/air and will affect the shoot, so I swap to a clean glass cover. Also, I used a filter when working with a performer who eats fire, the dude kept spitting on the stuff, and the soot from the kerosene lamps did leave residue, so I swapped glass through the shoot. I use polarized filters for shooting things behind/around certain types of glass and the light isn't on their side or working with me. When things have polarized glass/tint, no filter, less trouble to edit in post.
They do come in handy once in a while
A lens hood would have prevented the same thing without degrading image quality.
I guess I'm just careful with my gear, but I'd rather have every photo I take be utmost quality, than in the 1:1,000,000 chance I drop my lens front first onto a jagged rock from a 10 foot ladder that the UV filter protects it.
Seriously, if you go on any serious photography forum, it's the amateurs swearing by UV filters, and the serious professionals who never mount anything on the front of their lens unless it's for a very specific purpose (like a graduated neutral density filter).
By all means, if you want to waste money and degrade the image quality, buy a crappy UV filter and put it on your lens, but I don't, and I've never regretted it, and I'm out all the time taking photos.
When I was shooting rally cross, I didn't run a filter/glass cover. Just know when to use zoom, and when to turn the lens for focus in high dust situations. If I have my 70-200 2.8L, I have the camera strap and proper camera holding all the time. Properly holding the camera is the first part of the battle, next is stance. Having a battery grip helped that a lot. If I am going to be moving a lot from location to location to get a shot, I use the strap. I am more worried about having someone steal my shit than dropping my camera, and I've banged my 70~200 2.8L a few times.
Filters are for very specific things: I have my polarized filters for outdoor stuff with no people, nature shot and cars, two ND's for long exposures/time-lapse and an NDG for arena stuff with crazy lights up high (I haven't used this in a while...). Even in the above situations I may or may not use one of those filters. And these are not the $20 for 3 ebay/camera store filters. The majority of the filter's I have for the 85mm and the 70~200mm are $160+ for each one. The filters for the 77mm are stupid expensive.
My flight was cancelled that saturday (oh man, I have so much to tell about Continental Airlines and Newark airport, and yes - I was among the "evacuated" yesterday.../rage) and the new one was a day later. So on sunday I went to B&H and got the 20D, a 28mm prime, a 50mm prime, and other stuff.
then I went to Venezuela and now I have about 1000 photos taken, though about 75% of them are worthless.
I didn't get the book so I basically experimented with stuff. The camera is great when used properly, but I really wanted to kick myself for not getting a tripod. I have rather shaky hands and though in some places you can just let the camera sit atop something, in most situations a tripod was a must have. I'll be posting some pics that I think are good later on in the according thread.
It's good to be back home.
No need to get defensive, I was just trying to point out to EQ how a uv filter might come useful
It's not really quite black and white either (amateurs use uv filters, pros don't) I know some pros who prefer to use them rather than hoods, and vice versa. The main argument being that hoods tend to add a lot of bulk to an already huge lens (not uncommon especially for the more exotic ones) and the uv filters that they can afford to buy don't affect the quality of their files at all.
Some of the advantages of having a uv filter:
1) Much, much easier to clean. It's quite nerve wracking when you have to clean the front element of a lens (finger prints, dust etc)
2) Some added weathersealing (rain, dust etc) In fact, there are some lenses which require you to use an additional filter to complete it's sealing.
3) The accidental scratch or drop (lens hoods do the same thing, although some don't prefer the added bulk)
4) Pop it on and never think about it again
Of course, crappy glass is still crappy glass..so get a good one if you do decide to have one on. Hoya brands are pretty decent, and they're not really that expensive either.
EDIT: Thought I'd do a quick comparison between filtered and unfiltered.
Notice how I haven't lost any of the contrast, microcontrast and color richness even when using a filter. You might see some dark spots on the right image, that's not vignetting..thats actually the filter's thread (I had to hold it in front of the lens, didn't have a filter for this particular lens)
100% crops..
No sharpening was done
Of course, this is just an informal test. I'm not trying to discredit those who don't prefer to use uv filters...but hey, there's nothing wrong in using them either.
Even with my nice lenses, i'd rather spend 100 USD on a new lighting modifier than a UV filter. They're snake oil. If you personally want to use them, go ahead, but I hate it when it's bandied around as good advice for beginners when it's pretty awful. they will either A) buy a cheap UV filter that does nothing, or
Copy pasted from another forum:
UV filters do have a purpose and are not completely a waste. If your lens is $1000, and you are willing to spend about $100 on UV filter, then it may be a good idea to use one if the conditions are messy. Some Canon lenses with weather sealing need a filter to complete the seal. Obviously anything that's going to harm your lens will harm your filter. So putting your filter on in a sand storm will save your lens but destroy your filter, and that's the goal at the high end. These situations though DO NOT apply to anyone who needs to have this explained to them. Your 17-55 4-5.6 IS/VR Kit Lens is worth about $50 in mint condition used. You can buy a new one for $150. It doesn't make sens to spend $100 on a filter to 'protect' it when you degrade the image quality by doing so. You can always use a hood to protect your lens if you're worried about it.
I can understand why you hate them, most of your photography heavily involves strobes and studio lighting..so I can see where having a filter on would cause problems
( In my country shops tend to give away hoya filters for free, so I guess thats why the price of filters never bothered me..I get them for free :P )
But yeah, I admit defeat
Thanks for all the help. I was told I need to have a filter and i just got one of the Hoya filters. Not that it will make a big difference for me but I think I will remove it and try to compare myself.