My wife and my folks like our recent Alaskan Cruise so much that they're planning another cruise for next year, this time a fall cruise up the New England coast. Which means a perfect opportunity for some outdoor photography, what with the fall foliage and all.
The powers that be (read: The Mrs.) has granted me authority to pick up an additional piece of photography gear if needed for this trip. And of course, additional photography gear is always needed
My current lens kit includes a fast 50mm, the 70-300mm I picked up for Alaska, a 35-70mm and a decent 18-55mm. Bear in mind that the Canon XTi has a 1.6x crop factor, so these lenses all function as longer lenses than they are (meaning the widest I can get is the 18-55, which is more like a 28-88mm).
So my conundrum is this: a 10-22mm lens lens for wider landscape shots to capture the breadth of fall colors, or a 60mm macro to get up close and personal with the individual leaves.
Given that I'm building my overall gear kit as well as gearing up for a specific trip, what say all you Goodjer photographers?
Have you looked at the Tamron 10-22? From what I can see it will do some basic macro work (Macro Magnification Ratio 1:5.1 (at f=24mm, MFD:0.24m) according to the Tamron web site) It is cheaper than the Canon. Recent Tamrons are much improved from the older ones though still not quite the same quality of the Canons.
This review doesn't say much about the macro capabilities but does give a sense of the overall quality of the lens.
Better review at DPReview. It mentions the macro a little bit on page 3.
I have the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 Macro and I love it. I bought it for sports shooting and it works well for that. The macro capabilities are a bonus and I have used it for some basic macro work and it has performed pretty well. I'm not getting huge magnification out of it but it's plenty good enough for my use.
http://www.reddit.com/r/photography and http://www.reddit.com/r/photocritique are useful to me, but not large enough to be considered a full scale forum.
If I were you, I would get a dedicated macro lens, maybe even a 100mm. You can get close to a wide angle with what you have now, but you don't have anything really suited to macro. Plus, you can always stitch together a panorama if you absolutely need a wide angle shot.
Out of curiosity, do you have the 50mm 1.4? I'm considering picking that up.
Have you ever found a general photography forum on the caliber of GWJ, particularly one with members that provide critiques of each other's shots?
Photo.net was one of the first big ones I remember, and they still seem pretty good.
http://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture is also good, it isn't specifically for critique, but if you ask for it you'll get it, and it has about 5000 viewers.
It's something of a mistaken belief that one needs a wide lens to do landscape shots. Fundamentally, the moment of pulling the trigger is preceded by a composition phase. When shooting a landscape, the instinct is to think you need a wide lens to "get it all in" but (1) there is no natural dividing line for the 'it' to get in, and (2) no matter how wide your lens is, there will always be more 'it' that you can't fit. So instead of just spending money on a lens you're not sure you need, think about composition and how you can create compositions that fairly represent the landscape you're looking at with the field of view that you do have.
The real reason one might want a very wide lens is, IMO, for use in interior spaces where you'd like a large depth of field in cramped quarters. But that's not what you said you wanted to do.
If I were you, I would go to this site: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/ and pick your camera, and then the two lenses you want, and see which pictures appeal to you more. It gives you a good sense of what each one is capable of.
The 10-22 you linked is pretty much well loved across the board from what Ive read. Hard sell to buy a macro lens for a cruise.
I've been hanging around http://photography-on-the.net/ for a bit. It gets a little out of hand now and then, but the mods try to keep the worst of it in check.
What do you find yourself wanting to shoot the most- landscapes, interiors, or bugs?
Yeah, sorry about the edit. I figured maybe I misread you and that you were thinking beyond the cruise and switched things up.
BTW, I came across this blogger on landscape photography. I have no idea whether he's right, but he seemed to have some different ideas than "get out your wide-angle lens and shoot at the magic hour" approach, which is essentially all I'd have to offer with my non-leet photo skillz.
I just caved and bought a 50mm f/1.4. This will be my first lens after my kit lens and I am really excited to play with it. Feel free to follow or friend me on flickr (I have no idea if that is a thing you can do on flickr), I'd love some feedback.
Now I just need to figure out what I am going to cut out of my budget this month to pay for it. I'm thinking food.
Hope you don't mind a tiny hijack? I'm interested in getting a zoom lens (EF Mount) and have been looking at the various forms of 70-300, 70-200, 75-300 and so forth. Price ranges from about $200 up to thousands. I have a 50mm F1.8 prime lens, and the kit lens (18-55mm). Looking for something that would be a good all-in-one solution for long trips...
I'm hoping for something <$500 - the Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is just a little out of reach. What would be my next best choice? I use it mostly for shooting nature + people (my family) and am just getting started with DSLR Video...
I like Lights as well, though I'd love to see it with a shallower depth of field to throw that background out of focus a bit and bring your attention to the lights a bit more.
I agree, but it was impossible with the kit lens I had. That picture is pretty much the reason I caved and bought the 50m f/1.4.
I also like IMG_0016 (skate boarder), I love panning shots and have played around with quite a few as well. The only about this one is I'd suggest a bit more active space in front of your subject. Having him right up at the left edge and moving that way looks uncomfortable to me, like he's about to run into the edge of the frame. I know some like to intentionally deprive moving subjects of active space, to give the impression of additional speed or motion. If that's what you're going for you hit it, I've just personally never liked that look. Personal preference I suppose :)
I can't say that it was intentional, I was just trying to get close and then he almost ran over me. Most of that set was ruined by the dust on my sensor, as you can probably tell.
I've been going through some of my shots over the last year and am putting together an online portfolio as well, though I'm using Picasa Web atm. Once I've gotten it narrowed down I'll post it, I'd love some feedback as well.
I'd love to see some of your stuff from your cruise.
Hope you don't mind a tiny hijack? I'm interested in getting a zoom lens (EF Mount) and have been looking at the various forms of 70-300, 70-200, 75-300 and so forth. Price ranges from about $200 up to thousands. I have a 50mm F1.8 prime lens, and the kit lens (18-55mm). Looking for something that would be a good all-in-one solution for long trips...
I'd go for this 18-200mm zoom. Pricey at $600, but it takes you all the way from a reasonably wide angle to a long range telephoto without having to worry about having the wrong lens on the camera at the perfect moment. Or I'd go shorter on the tele-end to save money and get the 18-135mm. That's about $400.
Teneman: Some pretty impressive telephoto shots in that album, like the whale and the duck. I'm amazed you had enough light to do that. It makes me what a telephoto, but I think the next thing I need to do is get another body to replace my ancient 300D.
I also really like 40 of 42, the abstract blurriness.
I've wanted a new lens for my A200 for a while now. That Tamron one someone linked seems to work very well. They have another one (70-300mm f4.0/5.6) that's significantly cheaper than the Konica Minolta/Sony alternatives I was looking at already.
There are some of the cruise shots in the portfolio I just posted, let me know what you think.
I don't like commenting on other people's photos, but one thing you can do is take a photo and compare it in flickr to other photographs of the same type of subject or activity, a good photo that catches your eye.
Ask yourself if you'd have rather taken the one the other guy took to the one you took. If the answer is yes, identify the elements that are in his or her photos that aren't in yours. That makes you think about what you like in a photo, what you'd like to do the next time, what kind of equipment you might need, etc. I generally find doing this kind of intimidating and depressing because so many people on the internet take better pictures than I do, but it does make me break apart photos to see what they're made of.
Rather than necro another photography thread, here is a picture I am proud of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexand...
Its with my new 50mm f/1.4, and it shows off the ability to take pictures in virtually no light pretty well.
Yeah, ISO 1600 is as high as my camera goes. If I get the T2i, which can go up at least two stops more, I am pretty convinced I could take pictures in moonlight without a problem. The downside is that I have about an inch wide focal field.
PS: You have a flickr stream I could subscribe to?
PPS: Any way to make flickr streams have more than a thumbnail in them?
Pages