• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

PHOTOGRAPHY - The official Camera-setup Thread

pepperell said:
awesome shots. loved the side car racing!



question for the photographers... i want to get a wide angle lens for my canon xt. what's a good one?

I'm not sure what everybody here considers wide. But 17mm and up on a crop body comes out to 27mm. Which is what a kit lens is. Which is not really that wide. I would suggest the Canon 10-22mm lens as a wide angle. I hear a lot of good reviews on this lens. Sigma also makes a lens close to this focal length. But its not as sharp.
 
Last edited:
how you like it so far? any test shots? kinda pricey...

I actually got it from B&H for $349. I was originally going to get a 24-70L but it was taking me too long to save up for the funds. :p So I decided to get the 17-40L as it is around ~$625 after Canon rebate when I heard about the Sigma 17-70. Read some reviews and jumped on it. So at the price of the 17-40 got the Sigma, a CP, and GND filter kit.

Haven't had a chance to take pics yet. I'll post some pics this weekend though. :cool
 
get around to those test shots?

i'm thinking of the 28-135 it's a little slow but has IS. any thoughts? want something to replace the kit lens for walking around. i don't take that many landscape shots so it doesn't need to be very wide, more people shots. runs about 4 bills.

i'm gonna be a canon snob so if there is something better that is <$500 i'd consider it over this 1.
 
i just scored a 35-70 f/4 for $50 on flea bay!!!!:banana
 
pitslave said:
I'm not sure what everybody here considers wide. But 17mm and up on a crop body comes out to 27mm. Which is what a kit lens is. Which is not really that wide. I would suggest the Canon 10-22mm lens as a wide angle. I hear a lot of good reviews on this lens. Sigma also makes a lens close to this focal length. But its not as sharp.

I have this lens. It's the widest you can buy for that camera, I believe. Mine may not be a great copy as I seem to get some softness on the right side of most pics. Not sure if that's even possible, but for whatever reason, my hit ratio is lower with this lens than my 24-70 f4. It's also not that fast (3.5-5.6 I think), but if you want wide, it's the way to go.
 
Just chiming in to say that Mackey's avatar of Berto is porno classic. When I saw that as his AMA pic, I thought Ron Jeremy aint got squat on Berto's stash. Cheese city!
 
Grrr, why do lenses cost so much...

OK, I've been getting to be OK (not great, but OK) with my current setup (Canon XTi with the 75-300mm EF USM zoom)...

However, I'm realizing that for some of the areas I've been shooting, a 400mm telephoto would be that much nicer.

The GRRR factor. The 75-300mm wasn't too expensive (OK, it was downright reasonable). But going up to 400mm zoom and it gets pricey, especially since it seems that Canon now only sells such lenses in image stabilization flavors....

Any recommendations for 400MM EF autofocus lenses which won't break the bank?
 
I feel you. I have been borrowing a lns at the tracks from Wes Rowe...until it broke! at $2000 I can hardly afford a new lens, but after shooting wih it for a couple of days, I have been eyeballing old ladies with nice purses! :laughing
 
Look at the 400mm f5.6 L. I picked up a mint (looked brand new in every way) for less than $1000. It's super sharp and shooting sports or track it works very well.
 
+1

great outdoor sport lens...

trackjunkie said:
Look at the 400mm f5.6 L. I picked up a mint (looked brand new in every way) for less than $1000. It's super sharp and shooting sports or track it works very well.
 
The issue is when you get into the high power zoom lenses camera companies start thinking "pro lenses" and that = $$. They don't spend time building barging lens in this category. These lens have a lot of glass and a lot of precision moving parts Image stabilization quick focusing and high f stop #. I'll post a video if I can find it (can't use youtube from work) showing how much effort goes into producing high grade photographic lens.

300 is about as far as you are getting without spending some big bucks. Unless you shoot nikon and then you can get the 80-400 for $1300 or so. The other issue with Nikon (not sure about Canon) is there teleconverters (give a 1.4x, 2x magnification for 1 or 2 f stops so your 300 2.8 becomes a 420 f4 lens) only work correctly with there expensive lens so that's no help for the budget minded consumer.

BTW what need with suck a long lens? with the 1.5 multiplier on digital cameras your 300mm is already like a 450mm lens.

Also you can use nikon lens on your canon with an adapter ring. This gives you some more options to look at
 
Demoni said:
The issue is when you get into the high power zoom lenses camera companies start thinking "pro lenses" and that = $$. They don't spend time building barging lens in this category. These lens have a lot of glass and a lot of precision moving parts Image stabilization quick focusing and high f stop #. I'll post a video if I can find it (can't use youtube from work) showing how much effort goes into producing high grade photographic lens.


Yeah, I know. These are complicated, niche professional products. I understand WHY they are so vastly expensive. Its mostly griping, not wishing for the moon.

Worse is the prices of the CAMERAS have dropped hugely (I love the XTi), because these are electronics mostly, which do have these great cost scalings.

Again, Canon is like Nikon, the 1.4x and 2x multipliers only work with the high-end lenses. I checked. :(

I think the solution is "Find a local camera shop which will rent a 400mm EF zoom", since its not like MotoGP happens every week, and any AFM photograping, well, people get what they pay for. :)



BTW what need with such a long lens? with the 1.5 multiplier on digital cameras your 300mm is already like a 450mm lens.

Also you can use nikon lens on your canon with an adapter ring. This gives you some more options to look at

What need with such a long lense? Simply because as a peon-class spectator trying to get photos for fun rather than profit, a lot of good angles are pretty far out. So although the 300mm is perfect for the side shots:

daviesIMG_1891.JPG



400mm would be much better for some of the head-on shots, eg shooting at people going through turn 2:

AFM-3rd-round-522.jpg
 
I just bought a CANON S3 IS last week and haven't had a chance to get some shots yet. So I will try to get some this weekend. Anybody have this exact camera and have suggestions for Landscape (City shots at night/day)? Still shots of my motorcycle?Thanks.
 
Last edited:
As a followup, any recommendations on on-line lense rental?
 
Here you can see the proper uses of the 400 5.6... 2 of them in frame and was shot with +1.4x tele



oz-1.jpg
 
trackjunkie said:
Here you can see the proper uses of the 400 5.6... 2 of them in frame and was shot with +1.4x tele



oz-1.jpg

Let me guess, they saw you using a Nikon... Bloody Canon Mafia... :)

(For those who think the Ford v Chevy debate, or the Kawasaki v Honda debate is hot, try Canon v Nikon. :) )
 
MackeyStingray said:
get around to those test shots?

i'm thinking of the 28-135 it's a little slow but has IS. any thoughts? want something to replace the kit lens for walking around. i don't take that many landscape shots so it doesn't need to be very wide, more people shots. runs about 4 bills.

i'm gonna be a canon snob so if there is something better that is <$500 i'd consider it over this 1.

Oh snap! How did I miss this thread? Back from the dead!! :cool

I love the lens Mackey! As soon as it came in I did a focus test to make sure I didn't get a bad copy. She is good.



524469979_640a345b2f_o.jpg

524474651_cdc18208e1_o.jpg

524442494_93254cd68c_b.jpg


Wide shot. 17mm ...need to crop it a little though :p
524357834_8dfefba702_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top