Canon Lenses

[jimmy_mac]

Just got back from a few days away for New Year, so I figured I'd test out my new lens whilst I was there.

I got the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM for Christmas and couldn't wait to play!

Got some good pictures, but was a bit rushed with most of it as the people I was away with aren't geeky and point and click for pictures

Anyway, here's a couple.

Any advice or comments are welcome! It's a lovely piece of kit, but has taken some getting used to..I have several different versions of the 3rd image, but can't decide which one looks best.

 

[jimmy_mac]

Forgot to say, the whole point of the thread..

What lens next? I'm tempted by a fixed length 50mm or a sole purpose macro lens, but can't decide

 

[Rasclart]

Nice pics will view them when I get home my TFT here is so s**t it hurts. All pictures look mega dark because of it.

Nifty Fifty FTW. I believe the can 50mm f/1.8 is only like £50

Thought about the Sigma 10-20mm Ultra wide angle? I bought one a few days ago. Havent tested it properly but seems to have great potential

 

[McBunny]

im itching to buy the 10-20 sigma

my 50mm is never off my camera

 

[McBunny]

Nice pics will view them when I get home my TFT here is so s**t it hurts. All pictures look mega dark because of it.

Nifty Fifty FTW. I believe the can 50mm f/1.8 is only like £50

Thought about the Sigma 10-20mm Ultra wide angle? I bought one a few days ago. Havent tested it properly but seems to have great potential

by the way his pictures are all very dark

 

[McBunny]

 

[Andy.]

How good is the IS? I was also looking at this lens.

 

[Hayley]

Your friend is hot!!
Nice pictures

 

[McBunny]

 

[McBunny]

think i overdid the usm on the last one

 

[Rasclart]

Get the Sigma bunny you wont be dissapointed I love it so far, this is on a D80 but cant see it being any different?

LOL ahhh right I just assumed my monitor was doing the usual, they just look darker than normal. Doesnt look too bad the last one but blow it up with the USM on it

 

[McBunny]

yeah i really really fancy it but dont want to pay uk prices ! about 223 in HK 280 here 250 if imported to UKfrom HK

 

[jimmy_mac]

I've not touched any of the images, they were all taken in manual with 7 people who didn't want to stand around whilst I messed about..so no, they aren't perfect as I didn't have very much time, but I'll play with the ones I like if I get a chance.

The 50 is a must for me, but I'm more inclined to go for the f1.4, just need to read up before spending the extra £200

I'll take a look at the 10-20 sigma, thanks for the recommendation

The IS is good, but I've only had 30 pictures worth of use so far. I'll go out and take some with and some without for you if there's good light tomorrow.

Hayley, you've met Randel, at Neils birthday. You also met Jessica, his Fiancée.

 

[McBunny]

i suppose the other supposed must lense is the 70-200 f4L

 

[Rasclart]

I wasnt bashing your images by the way dude. Just assumed my monitor was off thats all.

Another one to consider the 85mm or 80mm f/1.8 which ever canon do would be pretty good for portraits and the like

 

[Jungle_Jim]

i would recommend the canon f1.8 50mm lens the image quality is amazing, and you can pick them up off ebay for around £50.
how much did your 28-135mm lens set you back, i bought one about 6 months ago to replace my sigma 28-135mm lens which broke, i managed to pick mine up for £225 new with a warrenty

 

[White16valver]

Get the 10-20 and come exploring with me

The f1.4 will be cracking for night shots though - I will be uber-jealous if you get that.

And good pics too I like the first waterfall one!

 

[jimmy_mac]

You got it for £225? You did get the IS Ultrasonic one right? If so..where, that's the cheapest by £70 that I've seen..

The pics weren't great, but I'm still getting used to it, it was more about the lenses than the images themselves. But thanks for nothing Chris

I think I'll be getting the f1.4 next Paul, the 10-20 can wait for now, but we do need to visit somewhere of interest soon

 

[White16valver]

Sweet

 

[unofficialPete]

hmmm what next...

10-22
Sigma 30 f/1.8 or Canon 28 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
430EX flash
Tripod if you you have the time to stop and shoot, more water movement etc...

70-200 F4L was buy-able at under 300 with the rebates on but to be honest I don't use mine as much as I thought I would...

Depends what your shooting really...

 

[dick]

im looking at getting the 70-200 L

im VERY tempted to go for the 2.8 tho over the f4 though, should i?

 

[Jungle_Jim]

You got it for £225? You did get the IS Ultrasonic one right? If so..where, that's the cheapest by £70 that I've seen..

The pics weren't great, but I'm still getting used to it, it was more about the lenses than the images themselves. But thanks for nothing Chris

I think I'll be getting the f1.4 next Paul, the 10-20 can wait for now, but we do need to visit somewhere of interest soon

yes mate but it seems like they arent selling any more

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=270154750616

 

[unofficialPete]

im looking at getting the 70-200 L

im VERY tempted to go for the 2.8 tho over the f4 though, should i?

Depends what are you shooting, how much do you need to stop action?
F4 IS vs f/2.8 non-IS?

 

[MaLicE]

lol i dont get why everyone bigs up the sigma 10-20 i have it and yeh i use it and its nice... but far from my fav lens... does give some cool pics though...

 

[McBunny]

im looking at getting the 70-200 L

im VERY tempted to go for the 2.8 tho over the f4 though, should i?

Depends what are you shooting, how much do you need to stop action?
F4 IS vs f/2.8 non-IS?

and mainly it depends if you want to spend another £735 on the 2.8 over the f4 !!!

 

[Rasclart]

Nice pics Malice

Remember the vast majority of people here using this lens dont want to/cant afford the mega expensive lenses you use or have no need.

There arent exactly many alternatives in the ultra wide angle market either unless you want to go fish eye. For most people the extra for canon or nikon equiv simply isnt worth it. The lens gives a great perspective thats why people love it some people hate it

Depends what you shoot

 

[dick]

f**k didnt know there was that much of a price difference!
that f4 is cheap then!

i like wildlife most, and to be honest the 2.8 would be a great help especially for the mornings when animals are most active in the cool of the day, also i would be annoyed if i bought the f4 to be found out it wernt up to it. actually just had a look, id prolly go for the f2.8 Is at about a grand, or do i get something else as ive already got the 100-400 altho its could be quicker for mornings, argh.

stress, i should be annoyed about exams, but im more annoyed about choosing lenses :/

 

[unofficialPete]

f**k didnt know there was that much of a price difference!
that f4 is cheap then!

i like wildlife most, and to be honest the 2.8 would be a great help especially for the mornings when animals are most active in the cool of the day, also i would be annoyed if i bought the f4 to be found out it wernt up to it. actually just had a look, id prolly go for the f2.8 Is at about a grand, or do i get something else as ive already got the 100-400 altho its could be quicker for mornings, argh.

stress, i should be annoyed about exams, but im more annoyed about choosing lenses :/

I think the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a little short, might be fast but it won't have the reach, afraid the 300 f/2.8 IS is the only better option


p.s. :hail: 10mm..

 

[dk]

i love my 70-200 f4L, use it all the time, great for wildlife, well things like zoo's and animal kingdom in the US where the animals are in compounds, would need something longer for safaris i would have thought or an extender.

I am thinking of taking the plunge on the 50mm this month to see what the crack with it is, and talking aof cracks i dropped my camera onto a kurb while pissed in vegas the other day and chipped the filter ring, not happy but glad it was only the kit lens and not the L!

 

[Revels]

I think the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a little short, might be fast but it won't have the reach, afraid the 300 f/2.8 IS is the only better option


p.s. :hail: 10mm..

Did you take that? It a cracking image but it doesnt look real..

 

[unofficialPete]

I think the 70-200 f/2.8 would be a little short, might be fast but it won't have the reach, afraid the 300 f/2.8 IS is the only better option


p.s. :hail: 10mm..

Did you take that? It a cracking image but it doesnt look real..

Yup tis mine, do need to work on its realism but my cheap Cokin grey density filter left a nasty colour cast. Its since been modestly tone mapped in photomatix (HDR) and had its contrast adjusted in CS2. Might have a play again in a bit...

 

[Andy.]

Has anybody here used the 24-105 F4L IS lens? I am quite seriously thinking of skipping the 28-135 and going for the big brother instead.

Worth the extra?

 

[Rasclart]

Theres a tonemapped HDR I did the other day. Bit s**t as it was deadly windy and handheld I thought I was still but wasnt 100%

 

[jimmy_mac]

I think your "bit s**t" statement is harsh, the composition is pretty good, it's clear and personally I think that the tiny bits of movement in the trees/lawn/path give it a much softer feel than a stock photo. All my opinion of course.

 

[McBunny]

i agree tbh it looks alright

 

[Rasclart]

The cars piss me off as well. Tried cloning them out but it didnt look right to be honest so I left them. Might try again sometime. As the place is just beyond my back garden

 

[Waitey]

Hayley, you've met Randel, at Neils birthday. You also met Jessica, his Fiancée.

lol


I love Neil. I want to see him dance like Justin again.

 

[LiquidRich]

very nice photos mate the first one is good, it would be interesting to see what it would look like if you had used a faster shutter speed aswell

 

[® Andy]

very nice photos mate the first one is good, it would be interesting to see what it would look like if you had used a faster shutter speed aswell

Shot on ISO800 at 1/4 sec from the EXIF, so must have been pretty darn dark!

Must admit the generally dark, low saturation feel is something I often see pictures shot with a 400D. Don't know why that is!? Reckon my eyes see in "vivid" so I like my pictures that way and Canons tend not to favour that .

The 10-20 wangle is a favourite tool of my UE buddies because obviously it allows you to capture a lot more in confined buildings. In fact I know folk who explore with nothing else but that!

 

[jimmy_mac]

Hayley, you've met Randel, at Neils birthday. You also met Jessica, his Fiancée.

I love Neil. I want to see him dance like Justin again.

Andy, mine were only dark because it was really dark and I wanted to capture the feel of what it was like there, as opposed to camera trickery that I tends to get used.