Thanks Sean.
You say moot..................I say mute......................., it's really boils down to a steaming pile of shoot!! LOL! []
now turn your head and ...........
I'm a really good injinear!! Really.
Thanks Sean.
You say moot..................I say mute......................., it's really boils down to a steaming pile of shoot!! LOL! [
now turn your head and ...........
I'm a really good injinear!! Really.
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
I'm not sure what this test proves, other that when extension tubes are used to allow focusing closer, they limit the ability of a lens to focus farther away. So what? If you can take the shot without the extension tube, don't use the extension tube. Maybe I was unclear both in what she was asking, and what I was suggesting as a consideration.
From what I understood, she was taking pictures of models. She had said that she didn't have enough room, implying that she needed to be fitting into somewhere, and needed to go wider. I inferred that this meant she might need to get up close. i was thinking on the scale of model trains, legos, etc. If i'm taking wide angle pictures of lego men, I typically want to get closer than 2 feet.
So, my suggestions were, merely for consideration...
a) she might consider a couple of wider angle primes as opposed to a singlezoom, if she wants to get the sharpness of her 60mm prime, and doesn't need the flexibility of instantly changing field of view that comes with a zoom. A 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM would certainly be a nice zoom, but for that much money, you could do other things, particularly since she's using a tripod most of the time, and if these models are inanimate objects, she can change lenses without losing a shot.
b) IF she needs to get closer than these non-macro prime lenses will allow (or for that matter than a zoom will allow), extension tubes are an option that would allow her to do that. If the need arises to move closer, trying to keep the field of view (as opposed to cropping or zooming) I don't know of any other way to achieve that.
You might disagree with my suggestions, and my suggestions may not be the best, but given her situation, as I understand it, they seem perfectly reasonable to me.
She comes here to ask for advice and the lot of us go off on tangents about extension tubes and depth of field. Her husband makes "models and props" not micro-nano-bugs.
I didn't catch any specifics on exactly how big these props were. I imagined trying to make a model aircraft look like it could be a life-size aircraft. If I inferred incorrectly, I'm sorry about that.
I imagine that some of the models and especially the props can be faily large. That's why the OP doesn't have enough room to use the 60mm lens. She needs more "fov" (field of view) not necessarily "dof" (depth of field). Obviously, increased dof comes from increased "fov". So, the most valuable suggestion made so far is the use of free stacking software to increase dof.
I thought that the additional field of view necessary was because she was taking pictures of small things, constrained in small dimensions. Maybe I just went the wrong direction when my brain latched onto 'Macro.' If I misunderstood the application, again, sorry.
Hey Colin,
There is no reason to apologize. Until the OP follows up with us this none of us will be able to give ckw the answer she's looking for. We all have a dendency to assume what the situation is. How else would we have a basis for offering an opinion. I do understand theangle you are coming from. I use to build dioramas. I also had a summer job with a prop makerso I have a general idea that scalemodels can get rather large,from room size if it is a city layout to theatre stage size for set props and scenes.That is why I made the comments I did. My intent was hopefully to get the OP re-engaged and as you are trying to do also, help her find a solution. My intent was not to correct you or your suggestion and if I came across that way then obviously, Istill need to work harder on personal diplomacy when it comes to posting my views. Alot of my response had to do with DB's post on race cars......[]That wasthe motivation behind the test.
I just hope that ckw doesn't go spend money on a lens that she doesn't need. I still say the Sigma 17-70 should work fine. If it is under warranty, she should send it in to Sigma and have them fix it. That is the least expensive option. IMHO
CMB, I for one appreciate your level of detail.
CKW, I certainly don't want to steal your thread, but our questions overlap so much I'm hopeful that answers which I receive should help you as well.
This my first post as I'm pretty new to the site and photography in general. Well, in the 70's when things were mostly manual I dabbled. But for the last 20 years it's mostly been point and shoot. A few months ago I bought a used 30D and have been having a ballrelearning. Falling under the heading of "learn as you go" I recently discovered the lens which came on the camera is a POS and needs to be replaced. I'm hopful to find a replacement which not only fills my immediate need of an all around orwalk around lens but one which also becomes the base lens of maybe 2 or 3 in my ultimate stable. I'm thinking that a low zoom range ,low (high?)aperture lens should serve this purpose nicely. Ideally, something which is sharp, lets in a lot of light, has a wide focal range and is high quality. Pretty much any of the low zoom range Canon L series lenses would be perfect, but the price tag is a bit out of my range.Based on my research so far I am looking the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as well as the Canon 17-40 f4 L. I really like the idea of the Canon, but am concerned that the aperture will be very limiting in low light (indoor) conditions. On the other hand, the Tamron gets great reviews but not quite as great...
Being new and having no hands-on experience with any of this makes it really tough to make a decision. Anyone have any recommendations?
TIA, Jon
JonB, I've tested both.
The 17-40 f4 L is a very nice lens but the copy I had acted more like f4.5. If you like shooting in low natural lightthe slower aperturecould prove to be a hindrance. If you are going to be using your 30D for a while I highly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. If you haven't already, read Bryans review here. If you think that you may upgrade to full frame in the next six months I'd highly recommend the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Both are excellent lenses for the price. I just purchased the discontinued Canon EF 28-70 f2.8 L and tested it against the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI. I.Q. wise they're almost identical twins. The Canon, as would be expected, has faster, more accurate AF. I like em both!
The tammysare half the price brand new andcome witha six year warranty.
Thanks for the quick and informative reply Chuck. I have absolutely no plans to change camera bodies. This camera has all the features and capabilities I could ever want. I did read Bryans review of the Tamron which is why I'm considering it.
I was also going to consider theTamron 28-75 f2.8, but his review doesn't seem quite as favorable. Or maybe it's just that it didn't make his recommended list. Reading some of your other posts, it does seem like you are a fan. I'll keep my eye's open as I'm pricing things out. I did come across a refurbished Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for approx. $360. Does this seem like a good deal? Is there any downside to refurbished lenses? I have purchased a fair amount of reconditioned things in the past (I assume this is the same)and always been very happy with them. Never camera lenes though. I'm definitley feel as though I'm swimming upstream with all the choices and options.
Yeah, I think Bryan had a bad copy of the 28-75. The guys at slrgear.com apparently had a much better one to test. All I know, is itused to bethe first fast standard zoom of choice and those that have owned and used it give it highly favorable reviews. Now that the 17-50 DII is out, many 1.6X camera users have chosen it as thier first fast zoom. Yes, $360 refurbished is a good price. The onlyproblem I seeis that it probably doesn't include a six year warranty. I'd buy it new. Test it thoroughly, exchange it if it's soft, keep it if it's sharp. It's worth the extra $$. But, before you do,call Tamron and see what their warranty policy is on refurbished lenses. Adorama has one for $389 and I believe they honor it with a 1 year.
I asked about the warranty and it's 3 months. Pretty weak, but I guess it's better than nothing (used). How do you test a lens and know if it's soft or sharp? I don't really have anything to compare it against. Can you send me a link to the one on Adorama? I looked and can't find it. Perhaps it's gone....
Also for a 30D if you were going to own one lens would you go 17-50 or 28-75?
Daw-gone good question.....I feel like Clack on "Stump the Chump".
Iuse a focus chartand the method discribed on that page to test lenses. I tested my Tamron ata local photography shop before purchase. When the store owner put the images up on the screen for pixel peeping, we both said "What the heck?" The firstcopy was obviously soft. We mounted a second copy and re-ran the test. When those images came up we both said "That's more like it!"That copyappeared to be much sharper. Unfortunately, the "appeared to be much sharper" is rather subjective.
So, the stump part of the equation is what you could use to tell whether or not this newlens would be sharp.Shoota newspaper or the focus chart or a peanut butter jar/can ( I like Jif - though I'm not a choosey mother) with your POS kit lens and the newly aquiredTamron. The results should be staggeringly obvious unless the 18-55EF-S kit lens(I'm guessing here) isn't as bad as all the stuff you've read about it. That requires flare tests and CA tests and other stuff to really show how POS it is. I would say that the Tamrons (either one) should look much sharper than the 18-55 @f8from f8down to f3.2Wide open (f2.8)the centers would look about the same with the corners of the Tamrona tad softer. The only comparison I could make was Bryans ISO charts using the 18-55 II.
I do not know what POs lens you have so answering the last question of which one is hard to do. If you have the 17-85 or 18-55 or what ever, look through your photos witha viewer like Picasa and see what zoom range you most often use. If you favor the wide angle/landscape end then the 17-50 is your choice. If you favor the tele/candid portraitend then the 28-75 is a better choice.
Woops, Forgot the Link: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20347515.html?searchinfo=Tamron+17-50 Now, that's used, not refurbished, so I wouldn't expect any warranty. Sorry bout that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote