MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 ghillie up theyre luvly and warm, i have a camel pack to wear under mine lol. anyon tried the new Carl Zeiss canon lenses yet? pricey like... I know what you wear under your ghillie suit and it's not a pretty sight... Carl Zeiss lenses? Okay if you don't mind paying for the name... Probably worth it if you're shooting film and enlarging to 10 x 8... (feet, not inches) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Been thinking of getting a 500mm lens.But i cant justify spending that amount of money just now. They are a bit pricey. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kay 3,709 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Been thinking of getting a 500mm lens.But i cant justify spending that amount of money just now. They are a bit pricey. I reccon if you earn a living from photography then a good lens is what you have to fork out for .. but i cant justify anything over 500 quid at a beginers hobby level Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Been thinking of getting a 500mm lens.But i cant justify spending that amount of money just now. They are a bit pricey. I reccon if you earn a living from photography then a good lens is what you have to fork out for .. but i cant justify anything over 500 quid at a beginers hobby level Agree Kay.But i feel i need that extra zoom.Got a few pennies put by.Maybe next year.How much do you think a decent one would cost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hannah4181 260 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Just a quick word on this . . . . . there is enough info on lens etc for people to get what they need. I will add that regardless of what kit you use photography is about so much more!!!! Seeing, composing and framing an image is the very key to delivering those "great" shots, being in tune with you subject, understanding and being passionate about it will make you a 100% better photographer. I have lost count of the amount of weddings i've been to and had the token "BLB" . . . (BIG LENS b*****d) . . Rock up like a strutting peacock, parading his mega expensive kit around . . . . generally his shots are awful, technically they may be sound . . . but they lack any feeling or emotion whatsoever . . and imo without that your pictures are worth nothing. Anyone starting out needs to fall in love with photography NOT the latest bit of kit . . . the advice i always give to beginners is go on a cheap dark room course, they are still around and it will again IMO make you understand the process and the skill involved . . . there is no better feeling than watching your images emerge as you agitate the developer. Old school and out dated as it is, i really believe that photography is being taken over by a crazed bunch of techno hungry morons without a clue about what makes the very essence of a photo. Hunt round charity shops for old photography books, look up some of the photography greats, look at their images and understand what it is that makes them so special. Expensive kit, photoshop and the whole digital movement are all wonderful and i use them all day everyday . . but even now i sometimes load a film and get back to basics to re aline my creativity . . . you may read this and think its a load of poetic shit . . . thats up to you, but no matter how much money you spend on kit you cannot be classed a photographer until you learn the rules of photography, which will in turn enable you to break them to create the shot you desire. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 44,334 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 . . . but they lack any feeling or emotion whatsoever . . and imo without that your pictures are worth nothing. i really believe that photography is being taken over by a crazed bunch of techno hungry morons without a clue about what makes the very essence of a photo. Hunt round charity shops for old photography books, look up some of the photography greats, look at their images and understand what it is that makes them so special. How refreshing, there speakes someone with soul!!!!.....now I know naff all about photography, but I do know about images and the look and feel they create and I rekon the Essex Girl is spot on Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) Just a quick word on this . . . . . there is enough info on lens etc for people to get what they need. I will add that regardless of what kit you use photography is about so much more!!!! Seeing, composing and framing an image is the very key to delivering those "great" shots, being in tune with you subject, understanding and being passionate about it will make you a 100% better photographer. I have lost count of the amount of weddings i've been to and had the token "BLB" . . . (BIG LENS b*****d) . . Rock up like a strutting peacock, parading his mega expensive kit around . . . . generally his shots are awful, technically they may be sound . . . but they lack any feeling or emotion whatsoever . . and imo without that your pictures are worth nothing. Anyone starting out needs to fall in love with photography NOT the latest bit of kit . . . the advice i always give to beginners is go on a cheap dark room course, they are still around and it will again IMO make you understand the process and the skill involved . . . there is no better feeling than watching your images emerge as you agitate the developer. Old school and out dated as it is, i really believe that photography is being taken over by a crazed bunch of techno hungry morons without a clue about what makes the very essence of a photo. Hunt round charity shops for old photography books, look up some of the photography greats, look at their images and understand what it is that makes them so special. Expensive kit, photoshop and the whole digital movement are all wonderful and i use them all day everyday . . but even now i sometimes load a film and get back to basics to re aline my creativity . . . you may read this and think its a load of poetic shit . . . thats up to you, but no matter how much money you spend on kit you cannot be classed a photographer until you learn the rules of photography, which will in turn enable you to break them to create the shot you desire. Spoken from the heart Hannan.We only get out of it.What we are willing to put in.You have given me a bit of hope. atb. Catcher Edited October 23, 2010 by Catcher 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hannah4181 260 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 . . . but they lack any feeling or emotion whatsoever . . and imo without that your pictures are worth nothing. i really believe that photography is being taken over by a crazed bunch of techno hungry morons without a clue about what makes the very essence of a photo. Hunt round charity shops for old photography books, look up some of the photography greats, look at their images and understand what it is that makes them so special. How refreshing, there speakes someone with soul!!!!.....now I know naff all about photography, but I do know about images and the look and feel they create and I rekon the Essex Girl is spot on Er . . . . "Suffolk girl" please twinkle toes . . . i have standards! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 44,334 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 . . . but they lack any feeling or emotion whatsoever . . and imo without that your pictures are worth nothing. i really believe that photography is being taken over by a crazed bunch of techno hungry morons without a clue about what makes the very essence of a photo. Hunt round charity shops for old photography books, look up some of the photography greats, look at their images and understand what it is that makes them so special. How refreshing, there speakes someone with soul!!!!.....now I know naff all about photography, but I do know about images and the look and feel they create and I rekon the Essex Girl is spot on Er . . . . "Suffolk girl" please twinkle toes . . . i have standards! Depends what side of the road you are stood on!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chook Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. I had a look at the 28-300L with a view to maybe only having to carry one lens around all day, but tbh I didn't feel the image quality was all that you'd expect from L glass. It may have just been a bad copy that I tried, but after speaking to several other people they agreed that for an L lens it wasn't quite as sharp as it should be at the extremes... A very versatile lens though, a bit on the heavy side, but not much more than the 70-200 2.8. The 100-400L must be do for a re-vamp soon, might be one to consider? Although you'd still need another lens for the wider view... th e28-300 seems far too much of a focal range for me to go near. In theory it sounds ideal, a one-lens-for-all, type of thing, but in reality, if they were any good we would all have them. I bought a sigma 50-500 with the same view. Frankly it was rubbish and i sold it. It depends on what you require i guess, The stigma 50-500 ive already been told is crap for canon - works better on nikon. Reson i was looking at the 28-300 is cause at events im either doing close up or distance, no time to switch - what do you think of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, the 70 - 200 is not long enough realy although i presume i could add to it, but would loose a bit anyway. Edited October 23, 2010 by chook Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. I had a look at the 28-300L with a view to maybe only having to carry one lens around all day, but tbh I didn't feel the image quality was all that you'd expect from L glass. It may have just been a bad copy that I tried, but after speaking to several other people they agreed that for an L lens it wasn't quite as sharp as it should be at the extremes... A very versatile lens though, a bit on the heavy side, but not much more than the 70-200 2.8. The 100-400L must be do for a re-vamp soon, might be one to consider? Although you'd still need another lens for the wider view... th e28-300 seems far too much of a focal range for me to go near. In theory it sounds ideal, a one-lens-for-all, type of thing, but in reality, if they were any good we would all have them. I bought a sigma 50-500 with the same view. Frankly it was rubbish and i sold it. It depends on what you require i guess, The stigma 50-500 ive already been told is crap for canon - works better on nikon. Reson i was looking at the 28-300 is cause at events im either doing close up or distance, no time to switch - what do you think of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, the 70 - 200 is not long enough realy although i presume i could add to it, but would loose a bit anyway. I read up on that stigma today http://www.ephotozin...DG-APO-HSM-4335 Some said pretty good.Others said bad in low light. I have the nikon 70-300 think i,ll stick with that for the moment. Edited October 23, 2010 by Catcher 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. I had a look at the 28-300L with a view to maybe only having to carry one lens around all day, but tbh I didn't feel the image quality was all that you'd expect from L glass. It may have just been a bad copy that I tried, but after speaking to several other people they agreed that for an L lens it wasn't quite as sharp as it should be at the extremes... A very versatile lens though, a bit on the heavy side, but not much more than the 70-200 2.8. The 100-400L must be do for a re-vamp soon, might be one to consider? Although you'd still need another lens for the wider view... th e28-300 seems far too much of a focal range for me to go near. In theory it sounds ideal, a one-lens-for-all, type of thing, but in reality, if they were any good we would all have them. I bought a sigma 50-500 with the same view. Frankly it was rubbish and i sold it. It depends on what you require i guess, The stigma 50-500 ive already been told is crap for canon - works better on nikon. Reson i was looking at the 28-300 is cause at events im either doing close up or distance, no time to switch - what do you think of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, the 70 - 200 is not long enough realy although i presume i could add to it, but would loose a bit anyway. I read up on that stigma today http://www.ephotozin...DG-APO-HSM-4335 Some said pretty good.Others said bad in low light. I have the nikon 70-300 think i,ll stick with that for the moment. The Sigma 50-500 is not highly rated at all, but the 150-500 seems a more reasonable lens for the price. I haven't tried one on a Canon, but the results from using this lens on a Nikon D700 are extremely good. I have no idea how it would perform on a crop sensor camera though... It's also wise to bear in mind that lenses can vary - Nikon's quality control is excellent, Sigma is not quite so good... Canon lenses can vary too - my 17-40 lens is a cracker but I have heard of people having to change them 3 or 4 times before getting one they are happy with... I spent a while the other day testing all my lenses and found a couple of the long zooms needed a bit of micro focus adjustment in camera to get them spot on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 The stigma 50-500 ive already been told is crap for canon - works better on nikon. Reson i was looking at the 28-300 is cause at events im either doing close up or distance, no time to switch - what do you think of the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM, the 70 - 200 is not long enough realy although i presume i could add to it, but would loose a bit anyway. Another option would be a 2.8 70-200 and a 1.4 extender. Alternatively - 2 camera bodies, one with 24-105 lens and the other with 100-400 or similar. That would cover every aspect! I didn't rate the 70-300 IS lens but the new 70-300L seems promising Got my eye on one of those, if the reviews are good, in which case a 100-400L will be on offer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
byron 1,093 Posted October 24, 2010 Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 a cheap dark room course,,,sounds sexy..lol.... some moods in this clip.. not a bad old song either.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.