Perfect!! Thank you!!! I found the seller on ODP, and he look's legit. He has 3 of these lenses, relatively new, as well as other equipment on offer. Maybe it's worth a look. I will make sure its 100% before buying anything. I will also have a look at that lens you mentioned. Would I be able to zoom in from far away - say for example a pack of cheetahs / rhino or something with that lens? OR is the 70-300mm slightly better?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Genuinely useful vs overrated camping gear?
Perfect!! Thank you!!! I found the seller on ODP, and he look's legit. He has 3 of these lenses, relatively new, as well as other equipment on offer. Maybe it's worth a look. I will make sure its 100% before buying anything. I will also have a look at that lens you mentioned. Would I be able to zoom in from far away - say for example a pack of cheetahs / rhino or something with that lens? OR is the 70-300mm slightly better?
DTBA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,535
- Reaction score
- 904
DTBA
Executive Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,535
- Reaction score
- 904
Maybe I can help, U can buy this lens? and one for me to.. koffie would take one to http://www.ormsdirect.co.za/canon-ef-600mm-f-4-l-is-ii-usm-lens
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
The 70-300 has better build quality, a better focus motor (USM = Ultrasonic = quiet and fast), they're roughly equally sharp. The 55-200 is lighter and more compact. So it's a matter of price/size/weight.
nanonyous
Expert Member
Nicci, you mightn't be making the mistake, but seeing that you're saying there are 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM going for half the price of a new one (ie around R2.5k) makes me wonder if you're not perhaps seeing people advertising the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM? I have the latter, and while it's a good lens considering how inexpensive it is to learn about telephoto to supertelephoto shooting with, its performance is terrible. You're more likely to get decent shots out of your bridge in a similar range under most circumstances.
The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM performs similarly but still doesn't have full-time manual focus, so you're paying twice as much for a lens that has IS. By the time you're bothering with that you might as well be getting the 70-200m f/4L USM, which has full-time manual, comes with a hood included that takes a few hundred rand off the price anyway. Has the benefit of not changing in size at all while zooming/focusing, doesn't have a rotating front element, performs very well throughout its entire range almost regardless of aperture employed (many lenses are very 'soft' with a lot of chromatic aberration when shot at their widest apertures for at least some portion of their zoom range).
As for the long-exposures, yes your current lens can do that. Something that facilitates it is the use of a neutral density filter and, if taking the photos at sunset or sunrise, a graduated neutral density filter. To effectively employ both one generally wants to use a filter holder, seeing as you don't want to be sitting there holding a filter in place for as long as 30s - depending on just how smoothed you want the water to look of course. This presents you with a small problem with the 18-55mm kit lens (and the 55-250, and the 70-300, and the 75-300...). Each has a rotating front element for focusing.
You can set your camera to not focus when half-pressing the shutter button and to instead use one of the shoulder buttons at the back - something I do as a rule unless I need to do one-handed shooting - so you'd get your focus using that shoulder button, which will turn the front element, then you can adjust your filter holder carefully, softly, while holding in place the 'focus ring' of the 18-55mm lens.
Another filter that may be of interest is a circular polarizer, though good ones of this, as I already mentioned in this or another thread, are expensive for good ones, and you ideally want to buy one as large as the largest lens you ever intend on owning and using a step-up ring on smaller diameter lenses to fit it. Doing that means you usually can't fit a hood, though - not that fitting a hood is all that practical in many cases since you may need to adjust the angle of your CPL anyway, which involves either taking the hood off or reaching into it to adjust the filter, the latter which isn't possible on some lenses while still looking through the viewfinder to check the effect.
Anyway, with reference to koffiejunkie's last post regarding the USM - not all lenses with USM are automatically fast-focusing lenses. The 85 f/1.2L USM as an example is Canon's slowest focusing lens as far as I'm aware. The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, as an example, uses a Micro-USM motor which is VERY slow - slower than the 18-55mm IS kit lens your camera likely comes with and slower than the 55-250mm IS USM. The latter which, for its price, outperforms both the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM and 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM while being smaller, light, extends just like both of them do and still has a rotating front element with no FTM just like both of those lenses, too. If you're going to be learning to use your DSLR with a telephoto lens and want to get one right now, you're down to choosing either the 55-250mm IS or the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II/III (non-USM - the USM and non-USM focus equally quick, both are still noisy, the non-USM one just a bit noisier) if you want an essentially 'expendable' lens for now. The bare minimum I'd recommend stepping up to after that is the 70-300mm f/4L USM or, if you're feeling more spendy, to consider the 70-400mm f/4L IS USM or the 75-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, the latter two which fall in a price-range just above either the 70-200 f/4 IS or a 70-200mm f/2.8. The 100-400mm in use takes getting used to and is huge and heavy, but its IS is awesome and it performs very well. Just don't stick a crappy UV filter onto it to 'protect' its front element - it gets streaky bokeh from those really easily.
This is again why I don't recommend just running out and dropping money on things all willy-nilly, and especially don't necessarily listen to the sales guys at camera stores. They're salesmen. The same in large part goes for some of the guys in this thread, as I've been saying all along. One in a store just sold you a tripod for R1.3k - it may be a good tripod, but it wouldn't necessarily have been remotely necessary, or suitable, for what you may end up doing in your first year using the camera, at which point you might even find the tripod doesn't suit your requirements out of one since the head is likely the more expensive component of the kit you bought, and is the part you're most likely to replace.
If I had to play salesman, I'd say the 55-250mm or 75-300mm non-USM for now. They'll last you a year while you learn the ins and outs of working with a DSLR vs a bridge camera and by then you'll ideally be knowledgeable enough yourself that you can research the lenses available to you to find exactly what suits your needs. If you don't need top-tier performance or weather sealing there are lenses like the Sigma 150-500mm f/4-6.3, which costs around R9k and still has apparently great performing IS with full-time manual focus. It even comes with a tripod collar included in the box, which lenses like the 70-200mm f/4L USM don't, because Canon are stingy that way.
If you were to get a lens like that you could get a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to replace your 18-55mm kit lens. FTM, IS, quick USM and a decent performer, all while costing relatively little for what it is. If budget permits, 24-105mm f/4L IS USM instead, though depending on your requirements out of your photos this might not make sense to get, especially not if you're planning to get it for its weather sealing without pairing it to a weather sealed body to begin with.
Gonna say it again just because. Less money spending now, more learning from free resources, realise you can do a lot of your learning and research for free on your own later and don't need to rely on greasy salesmen to do your thinking for you, and that their thinking is purpose-designed to chase money out of your wallet, no matter how nice they may seem.
The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM performs similarly but still doesn't have full-time manual focus, so you're paying twice as much for a lens that has IS. By the time you're bothering with that you might as well be getting the 70-200m f/4L USM, which has full-time manual, comes with a hood included that takes a few hundred rand off the price anyway. Has the benefit of not changing in size at all while zooming/focusing, doesn't have a rotating front element, performs very well throughout its entire range almost regardless of aperture employed (many lenses are very 'soft' with a lot of chromatic aberration when shot at their widest apertures for at least some portion of their zoom range).
As for the long-exposures, yes your current lens can do that. Something that facilitates it is the use of a neutral density filter and, if taking the photos at sunset or sunrise, a graduated neutral density filter. To effectively employ both one generally wants to use a filter holder, seeing as you don't want to be sitting there holding a filter in place for as long as 30s - depending on just how smoothed you want the water to look of course. This presents you with a small problem with the 18-55mm kit lens (and the 55-250, and the 70-300, and the 75-300...). Each has a rotating front element for focusing.
You can set your camera to not focus when half-pressing the shutter button and to instead use one of the shoulder buttons at the back - something I do as a rule unless I need to do one-handed shooting - so you'd get your focus using that shoulder button, which will turn the front element, then you can adjust your filter holder carefully, softly, while holding in place the 'focus ring' of the 18-55mm lens.
Another filter that may be of interest is a circular polarizer, though good ones of this, as I already mentioned in this or another thread, are expensive for good ones, and you ideally want to buy one as large as the largest lens you ever intend on owning and using a step-up ring on smaller diameter lenses to fit it. Doing that means you usually can't fit a hood, though - not that fitting a hood is all that practical in many cases since you may need to adjust the angle of your CPL anyway, which involves either taking the hood off or reaching into it to adjust the filter, the latter which isn't possible on some lenses while still looking through the viewfinder to check the effect.
Anyway, with reference to koffiejunkie's last post regarding the USM - not all lenses with USM are automatically fast-focusing lenses. The 85 f/1.2L USM as an example is Canon's slowest focusing lens as far as I'm aware. The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, as an example, uses a Micro-USM motor which is VERY slow - slower than the 18-55mm IS kit lens your camera likely comes with and slower than the 55-250mm IS USM. The latter which, for its price, outperforms both the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM and 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM while being smaller, light, extends just like both of them do and still has a rotating front element with no FTM just like both of those lenses, too. If you're going to be learning to use your DSLR with a telephoto lens and want to get one right now, you're down to choosing either the 55-250mm IS or the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 II/III (non-USM - the USM and non-USM focus equally quick, both are still noisy, the non-USM one just a bit noisier) if you want an essentially 'expendable' lens for now. The bare minimum I'd recommend stepping up to after that is the 70-300mm f/4L USM or, if you're feeling more spendy, to consider the 70-400mm f/4L IS USM or the 75-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, the latter two which fall in a price-range just above either the 70-200 f/4 IS or a 70-200mm f/2.8. The 100-400mm in use takes getting used to and is huge and heavy, but its IS is awesome and it performs very well. Just don't stick a crappy UV filter onto it to 'protect' its front element - it gets streaky bokeh from those really easily.
This is again why I don't recommend just running out and dropping money on things all willy-nilly, and especially don't necessarily listen to the sales guys at camera stores. They're salesmen. The same in large part goes for some of the guys in this thread, as I've been saying all along. One in a store just sold you a tripod for R1.3k - it may be a good tripod, but it wouldn't necessarily have been remotely necessary, or suitable, for what you may end up doing in your first year using the camera, at which point you might even find the tripod doesn't suit your requirements out of one since the head is likely the more expensive component of the kit you bought, and is the part you're most likely to replace.
If I had to play salesman, I'd say the 55-250mm or 75-300mm non-USM for now. They'll last you a year while you learn the ins and outs of working with a DSLR vs a bridge camera and by then you'll ideally be knowledgeable enough yourself that you can research the lenses available to you to find exactly what suits your needs. If you don't need top-tier performance or weather sealing there are lenses like the Sigma 150-500mm f/4-6.3, which costs around R9k and still has apparently great performing IS with full-time manual focus. It even comes with a tripod collar included in the box, which lenses like the 70-200mm f/4L USM don't, because Canon are stingy that way.
If you were to get a lens like that you could get a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to replace your 18-55mm kit lens. FTM, IS, quick USM and a decent performer, all while costing relatively little for what it is. If budget permits, 24-105mm f/4L IS USM instead, though depending on your requirements out of your photos this might not make sense to get, especially not if you're planning to get it for its weather sealing without pairing it to a weather sealed body to begin with.
Gonna say it again just because. Less money spending now, more learning from free resources, realise you can do a lot of your learning and research for free on your own later and don't need to rely on greasy salesmen to do your thinking for you, and that their thinking is purpose-designed to chase money out of your wallet, no matter how nice they may seem.
So, just wanted to let you know, I bit the bullet and bought a 70-300 USM lens. Before I get flamed for spending money, I did buy this second hand, and got a great deal!! Off course, I will upgrade at a much later stage to a better telephoto lens, but this is just for my practice for now. I will also get a second hand wide angle and macro lens at some stage. Still going through all my books and the manual whilst I am recovering, but as soon as I am up and running I will take this baby out for some serious testing.
For people here in Cpt - where is nice areas to go take photos - I know the winelands has some stunning scenery, but looking for places where I can go test out long exposure photos.
For people here in Cpt - where is nice areas to go take photos - I know the winelands has some stunning scenery, but looking for places where I can go test out long exposure photos.
nanonyous
Expert Member
Night-time here in Napier is awesomely dark if you're looking to do astro-photography. If you head out to an area between the triangle of Napier, Swellendam and Bredasdorp, you're a good 35km from the nearest light-source. I'm guessing you're more interested in city-oriented long exposures, though, in which case Sentinel Hill would be a good bet. Just make sure to go in a large'ish group for safety.
Thank you nanonyous! Yes, some place where waterfalls, or a nice beach with some nice rocks (will ask some friends) and some nice landscape shots. Hmm, I still have to test out night filming, as with my other camera, I came across a pack of wild dogs (super scarce to see) and it was dusk, so it took black pictures with two silver dots as eyes. I was quite upset about that, so I need to learn also how to take photos at night time as well.
nanonyous
Expert Member
Did the flash fire in that photo? If so, that's likely why. Your flash can only travel so far, especially when it doesn't have a zooming head, which I don't think I've ever heard of any bridge cameras having. Same applies to DSLRs.
Taking photos like that without any external light isn't really going to happen even if you had a very fast telephoto lens though. Attached is an example - this was taken under a full moon so bright that my friend and I could walk around as though it were daytime. It was taken at ISO400 f/4 15s
If you had a f/2.8 for this, the exposure would come down to ~8s. If you bump up the ISO to 800, 4s. Bump it to 1600, which is still usable with some cleaning, though your shadows (which on a night like this is virtually everything) will be quite noisy, and you bring it down to 2s.
If you were to use a faster lens like an f/1.8, you can bring it down to 1s. An f/1.4, you bring it down to 1/2s. Giving the ISO another bump to 3200, which on the 500D begins to look really ugly, you can get to 1/4s.
Now, if you're really wanting to go all out, you could bump the ISO to 25600, which is accessible via Magic Lantern. Converting photos taken with that to black and white can still provide some usable shots, but I wouldn't rely on it. 25600/12800/6400, so from 3200 up you're going 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60. Which for a 50mm lens (in this case the 50mm f/1.4) would be hand-holdable, though at such a shutter speed something like wild dogs will still be a bit blurry from their general movement.
This is where things like spotlights or zoom capable flashlights come in handy. LED flashlights are a bit problematic since they can cause ugly colour casts that will be even more detrimental to your photos than just shooting at ISO25600 and converting to black and white, and sucking up some motion blur. You'd think converting to black and white could eliminate the issues the colour casts would cause, but seeing as they could cause things like grass and the fur of the animals to blend in in terms of the tones produced, you might end up with an ugly image. Not all LED flashlights are equal, though, so if you already have some you'd like to try out anyway, just make sure to test them thoroughly in advance so you don't rely on them when you want to take photos that 'matter', only to find out they didn't work in an acceptable manner.
Maybe for someone that already understands photography but for average joe it's even more daunting than getting rid of the flashing timer on their microwave.
nanonyous
Expert Member
I was referring to it in the context of someone that didn't know a thing about using the camera, let alone 'photography'.
Last edited:
I want to take a picture of a red shirt with names on it but the red is "overpowering" the writing, how do I adjust my camera to filter out some of the red so that the black writing is more prominent?
nanonyous
Expert Member
Which camera, and post an example shot/crop of one.
nanonyous
Expert Member
Go there and reduce the saturation so your photos don't come out Rockwellised.
Thanks man, I will test it tomorrow when it's much lighter outside.
mercurial
MyBB Legend
I'm gonna watch to try and see you 
Not sure it it's being televised but if it is there's a good chance. I think MickeyD has spotted me at least once.I'm gonna watch to try and see you
mercurial
MyBB Legend
Not sure it it's being televised but if it is there's a good chance. I think MickeyD has spotted me at least once.
Is it for the cricket or rugby?