Topic: Let's talk Canon digital SLRs... Part 2

[nickgregory]

the priority you listed out is completely accurate, as the hockey is more of an afterthought.  In terms of lenses she has already, she has the kit lens that came with the XTI (EFS18-55mm) and a portrait lens (EF50mm 1.. 

Honestly, she isnt even sure exactly how she would use it but 90% of what she shoots is portraits of our kid and landscapes.

[Jimna]

just looking at the lengths she has i would look for a zoom to give her options.?.?

[nickgregory]

just looking at the lengths she has i would look for a zoom to give her options.?.?

thats the plan

[eric.B]

just looking at the lengths she has i would look for a zoom to give her options.?.?

thats the plan

my lens list...

18-55efs
50 1.8
100 2.0
10-22 efs

to be honest, the only lens I'd like to add is either the canon 70-200L or the IS version.   

outdoors- 10 22efs(landscapes, some misc shots), 18-55efs (which is a good lens IMO)
people indoor stuff - 50 1.8, 18 55 efs
shows - 50 1.8, 100 f2 (both are fine for smaller shows/club setting)
outdoor people - once again the 50 and 100f2

the only area Id like to cover is indoor/outdoor sports/recitals/plays etc   for my neice/nephews, however I get away with the 100mm (160 on a cropped body) but I'd love to have something longer.  Adding the 70-200 would fill any gaps I have.
I find the Canon 100m f2 to be spectacular for most of the things Ive been taping (small clubs, bars etc) and it is VERY compact.  Plus it's fixed so I think the images are a bit sharper. 

I'd say bite the bullet and go for the sigma 70-200 or the canon IS or non IS.  Sure they are out of your budget for now, but you can use them into the future with body upgrades.  You have a fairly wide 18-55 efs and a fast 50, so I dont think you'd lose too much by skipping over the 50 to 70 mm range and jumping to a lens that 5 years down the road you wished you'd had all that time...  The only downside is if you move to a non-cropped body whereas the efs lens wont work which is my situation if I ever went full frame, but then I'd just keep my xti and use the 10-22 with 18-55 on the second body..

[stirinthesauce]

an option is this tamron

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=241&sort=7&cat=43&page=1

I picked this lens for my dad and used it in Costa Rica last year.  A damn fine lens!  I will probably pick this up for myself sometime over the canon L 24-105.  This lens has great IQ, gets fairly wide and a decent zoom range.  On a crop body not quite so wide but a good bit longer.

[Brian Skalinder]

Honestly, she isnt even sure exactly how she would use it [longer zoom] but 90% of what she shoots is portraits of our kid and landscapes.

I'll offer a different take to the tele zoom, based on your above comment, Nick.  Since she shoots ~90% with the kit lens, consider:

<1>  upgrading it

I shoot my nieces a lot, both indoors and out.  In addition to IQ, I especially appreciate a reasonably fast lens since the kids are mobile and the light isn't always great.  I'm not familiar with the Canon lineup, but am thinking something along the lines of an 18-55 or thereabouts, with fixed f/2.8.  In addition, I'd probably sell the 18-55 and replace it with an inexpensive (~$100) tele zoom.  Best of both worlds, I think:  better IQ and faster lens for the focal length she uses most + the option to play around with a tele zoom.  If it turns out she loves the tele zoom, you can always upgrade it later.  But I figure why spend big money on a tele zoom she may or may not use much.

<2>  adding a wide zoom

If she's happy with the 18-55 for kids and landscape, perhaps she'd appreciate the ability to go wide for landscapes.  Maybe a wide zoom, like 12-24, or 10-20, or in that range.  It would allow her to go nice & wide on landscapes, which you know she already enjoys shooting - and might very well enjoy even more with the extra width.  So maybe spend $400 on a nice wide zoom, since you know she enjoys shooting landscapes, and allocate ~$100 for an inexpensive tele zoom you can upgrade down the road if she decides she loves shooting the tele zoom.

Again, I'm not clued into the Canon-mount lineup, but those are two additional upgrade paths I'd consider.

[nickgregory]

Brian, thanks for the response.  I really need to get in her head a bit and figure out what she is really looking to take the next step to and some of these options will fall into line...

[bluntforcetrauma]

I have the ef 16-35mm f/2.8  L nice wide angle, sharp.
Also use the 24-70mm f/2.8 L

and the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS

I shoot a lot of portait/people

just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo

good luck in the search

[Chilly Brioschi]

Every tele-zoom that I've ever shot has a sweet spot.
Once I discover it, I always want to be there and begin to frame at that length more frequently.

I think that my next lens or two will be prime(s).

[stevetoney]

I shoot a lot of portait/people

just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo

But are you implying that the reason you can't take a good photo is your gear as the previous poster assumed?  I understand the previous posters point about lens sweet spots, but you can't get much better than L series lenses.

It seems that the point you're trying to make is that the best portrait/people photos takes alot of time and patience to get the best shots because the subjects either have to feel totally comfortable being in front of the lens or be oblivious to the fact that they're being photographed at all.

Finally, it could be how much time one spends in photoshop.  I'm new to this, but I'm absolutely AMAZED at the miracles that photoshop can work on creating great images from average source material.

Also just my two cents.

[bluntforcetrauma]

I shoot a lot of portait/people

just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo

But are you implying that the reason you can't take a good photo is your gear as the previous poster assumed?  I understand the previous posters point about lens sweet spots, but you can't get much better than L series lenses.

It seems that the point you're trying to make is that the best portrait/people photos takes alot of time and patience to get the best shots because the subjects either have to feel totally comfortable being in front of the lens or be oblivious to the fact that they're being photographed at all.

Finally, it could be how much time one spends in photoshop.  I'm new to this, but I'm absolutely AMAZED at the miracles that photoshop can work on creating great images from average source material.

Also just my two cents.

no not at all.  It was a light hearted comment about the fact that i think i have very good lenses and equipment its just me that needs to get better at taking the pictures--and getting them sharper.  I look like i can take pics just because of the equipment, i was just poking fun at myself for not taking good shots yet.

[stevetoney]

I shoot a lot of portait/people

just my .02 cents because i still cant seem to take a good photo

But are you implying that the reason you can't take a good photo is your gear as the previous poster assumed?  I understand the previous posters point about lens sweet spots, but you can't get much better than L series lenses.

It seems that the point you're trying to make is that the best portrait/people photos takes alot of time and patience to get the best shots because the subjects either have to feel totally comfortable being in front of the lens or be oblivious to the fact that they're being photographed at all.

Finally, it could be how much time one spends in photoshop.  I'm new to this, but I'm absolutely AMAZED at the miracles that photoshop can work on creating great images from average source material.

Also just my two cents.

no not at all.  It was a light hearted comment about the fact that i think i have very good lenses and equipment its just me that needs to get better at taking the pictures--and getting them sharper.  I look like i can take pics just because of the equipment, i was just poking fun at myself for not taking good shots yet.

Yeah, that's basically what I figured you were getting at.  The previous poster was implying that you need to get your lenses in the 'sweet spot', but my point is that you really do have the gear to get the goods.

Anyhow, your point is well taken, even a million bucks in photo gear can't buy good shots if you don't a) use the gear properly, or b) do what you gotta do to get the good shots (lighting, exposure, composition, etc.)

[cgrooves]

Subscribing to Page 2.

I'm still very pleased with both of my Tamron lenses.  They both are getting great reviews.  I picked up the 70-200 when it just hit the market, so I didn't have any reviews to go by at the time.  Here are some recent shots with the Tamrons.  The last is in low lighting, in an effort to depict what is to be expected in a concert environment.  I still haven't shot any live music, however.

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8:  50mm focal length; 100 ISO; 1/250 Tv; 11.0 Av

Tamron 70-200mm 2.8:  70mm focal length; 100 ISO; 1/200 Tv; 11.0 Av

Tamron 70-200mm 2.8:  200mm focal length; 100 ISO; 1/250 Tv; 7.1 Av

Tamron 70-200mm 2.8:  200mm focal lenght; 1600 ISO; 1/320 Tv; 2.8 Av

[Chilly Brioschi]

 The last is in low lighting, in an effort to depict what is to be expected in a concert environment. 

I'm guessing that last shot is about EV8 brighter than any concert that I've ever shot.
Rare to see white light, rare to see skin flare in a "rock" concert

Nice shots!
Film or dig... if so, what film?

[Jimna]

these are from my hike yesterday in Indian Peaks Wilderness from the west side of Flagstaff Mt.  I'm loving Colorado for the endless beauty to shoot.