Gig photo's

[MadMailMan]

@MadMailMan, try the EF 35mm f/2. It's dirt cheap (ok, not as cheap as the 50mm f/1.8, but still), and offers roughly the same field of view that 50mm does on film.

I'm saving for either the Tamron 17-50 VC f/2,8 or the Canon 24-70 f/2,8 now. I prefer the versatility of the zooms over the primes (read: I don't know what I am doing with primes). I'll only really make up my mind which once I find out what can be done about my hot pixels. If it makes sense to get a new body I'm definately looking FF which means it's the canon lens.

I thought you got the 1.4?

Sudden rush of blood to the....... trigger finger. I do indeed have the f/1,4.

 

[bwana]

Congrats. The 50mm f1.8 lenses are just about the cheapest lens money can buy and are really awesome...

I like to shoot with aperture priority so set your camera on ISO 400 or so to start, aperture priority at f1.8 (so you can use what you paid for) and let the camera guess the shutter speed. If it still too slow/blurry up the ISO to 800/1600 but it will get noisier. (and this is (edit: one of the reasons) why people buy the big fancy cameras, because you can use iso 1600/3200 without any noise problems)

Strangely enough this is one of the few times I prefer to shoot manually - the lighting throws off the camera's meter too much for my taste.

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/14237/title/jan-and-viv/cat/920

Nikon D5000, 55-200mm VR lens
1/30s, f4.5, ISO1000, Focal length 98mm, no flash

They look familiar - same couple?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/picture.php?albumid=585&pictureid=4637

I'm saving for either the Tamron 17-50 VC f/2,8 or the Canon 24-70 f/2,8 now. I prefer the versatility of the zooms over the primes (read: I don't know what I am doing with primes). I'll only really make up my mind which once I find out what can be done about my hot pixels. If it makes sense to get a new body I'm definately looking FF which means it's the canon lens.

Try the Sigma.

 

[MadMailMan]

Try the Sigma.

Does Sigma do a 17-70 f/2,8 with some sort of IS? I really like the IS (VC or VR or whatever), gives me more room to move. So to say.

 

[bwana]

Does Sigma do a 17-70 f/2,8 with some sort of IS? I really like the IS (VC or VR or whatever), gives me more room to move. So to say.

Couldn't tell you offhand. I was just trying to offer up a more afforable alternative to the canon you mentioned. IS isn't a major consideration for me at such short focal lengths.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I'm saving for either the Tamron 17-50 VC f/2,8 or the Canon 24-70 f/2,8 now.

From what I've read so far people are pretty disappointed with the new Tammy - not as sharp as the old one. If you want that kind of range, there is really just one lens to buy: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. While it's a fair bit more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 non-VR, it's not much more than the VR model, and it's better in every respect.

 

[MadMailMan]

From what I've read so far people are pretty disappointed with the new Tammy - not as sharp as the old one. If you want that kind of range, there is really just one lens to buy: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. While it's a fair bit more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 non-VR, it's not much more than the VR model, and it's better in every respect.

I'm just not sure if I want to commit myself to too many EF-S lenses. What if I win the Lotto and can get a 5D or a used 1D??? Might be better off with a 17-40 f/4L and a 24-70 f/2,8. Bit more future proof if you know what I mean. All depends on what it's going to cost to patch up my 20d's dodgey hot pixels.

 

[bwana]

From what I've read so far people are pretty disappointed with the new Tammy - not as sharp as the old one. If you want that kind of range, there is really just one lens to buy: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. While it's a fair bit more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 non-VR, it's not much more than the VR model, and it's better in every respect.

From a lengthy discussion with someone who has the tamaron the only remotely negative thing they had to say about it is that the motor was a little on the noisy side. Everything else they said was very favourable.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I'm just not sure if I want to commit myself to too many EF-S lenses. What if I win the Lotto and can get a 5D or a used 1D???

What if you don't? What if you suddenly find yourself affording a Hasselblad digital back? Shouldn't you buy medium/large format glass with adapters instead? Sounds silly but it's only one step further than what you're saying. Being future proof is a weak argument unless you know you're definitely heading to full frame very soon. You can always sell it again, which isn't hard being in Europe with access to sites like eBay. Consider these completed listings for the 17-55mm f/2.8, used. The worst price paid is £600. Given that this lens was available for £650 (price went up last week*), that's not much of a loss.

* When the new price goes up, so does the 2nd hand price. The dpreview forums has many tales of people selling high end glass after some years for more than they paid new, thanks to the prices going up in general.

Might be better off with a 17-40 f/4L and a 24-70 f/2,8. Bit more future proof if you know what I mean. All depends on what it's going to cost to patch up my 20d's dodgey hot pixels.

Maybe find out how much the repairs will be. If it's too much, choose a new body and then buy your glass accordingly.

 

[koffiejunkie]

From a lengthy discussion with someone who has the tamaron the only remotely negative thing they had to say about it is that the motor was a little on the noisy side. Everything else they said was very favourable.

And have they tried both? I have tried the 17-50 non-VR. From what I've read, AF is the same on both old and new, and for my money, it doesn't compare with ring-type USM. Not to say the 17-50 AF is bad, not at all. But you get what you pay for.

 

[bwana]

And have they tried both? I have tried the 17-50 non-VR. From what I've read, AF is the same on both old and new, and for my money, it doesn't compare with ring-type USM. Not to say the 17-50 AF is bad, not at all. But you get what you pay for.

I couldn't say what other lenses he tried just how satisfied he was with his selection. He had a nice 300mm f/2.8 sigma on his 7D which interested me more.

 

[MadMailMan]

Maybe find out how much the repairs will be. If it's too much, choose a new body and then buy your glass accordingly.

That's exactly my plan. I've also been keeping an eye on ebay for a 5d MKI and those are coming up at fairly good prices. Ah well can't really do anything until Canon gives me a price on fixing my 20d. Wouldn't mind having the 20d back to original condition. It's already more camera than I actually need.

 

[koffiejunkie]

He had a nice 300mm f/2.8 sigma on his 7D which interested me more.

He he, of course

 

[bwana]

That's exactly my plan. I've also been keeping an eye on ebay for a 5d MKI and those are coming up at fairly good prices. Ah well can't really do anything until Canon gives me a price on fixing my 20d. Wouldn't mind having the 20d back to original condition. It's already more camera than I actually need.

I always thought I wanted a 5D but lately I've been toying with the idea of getting a second hand 1dmk2n.

 

[MadMailMan]

I always thought I wanted a 5D but lately I've been toying with the idea of getting a second hand 1dmk2n.

I would LOVE a 1dmk(whatever) but my wife keeps complaining that the 20d is too big to use with the battery grip on so I kinda need to get a camera that I can remove the extra bulk of the vert/battery grip. Otherwise it will be as frosty in my bedroom as it is outside for a very long time.

 

[bwana]

I would LOVE a 1dmk(whatever) but my wife keeps complaining that the 20d is too big to use with the battery grip on so I kinda need to get a camera that I can remove the extra bulk of the vert/battery grip. Otherwise it will be as frosty in my bedroom as it is outside for a very long time.

Get her a XXXD - it will seem like a P&S after a day with a 1D.

 

[MadMailMan]

Get her a XXXD - it will seem like a P&S after a day with a 1D.

You have the same problem as my wife. You both think I am made of money.

 

[bwana]

Looks like I'm shooting an evening concert next week and I was wondering if I should try and get my hands on a 70-200 f/2.8 or just stick with my 24-70 f/2.8 on one body and a 50mm f/1.4 on the other.

Would my 300mm f/2.8 be overkill?

No flash allowed.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Looks like I'm shooting an evening concert next week and I was wondering if I should try and get my hands on a 70-200 f/2.8 or just stick with my 24-70 f/2.8 on one body and a 50mm f/1.4 on the other.

Can you find out how close to the stage you'll be? I've found for being in the front in the crowd the 50mm was just long enough with some room for cropping.

Would my 300mm f/2.8 be overkill?

You might spill someone's drink!

No flash allowed.

Flush really suck for live gigs if it's indoors and lit with coloured light - the flash washes it all out.

 

[bwana]

Can you find out how close to the stage you'll be? I've found for being in the front in the crowd the 50mm was just long enough with some room for cropping.

Should be pretty close (I think on the eves) but then there might be more than a few of us.

 

[MadMailMan]

Should be pretty close (I think on the eves) but then there might be more than a few of us.

Unless you are hoping for a few close-up shots of the performer's nose hairs I would think the 300mm a bit of an overkill. Depends on the size of the stage tho too. You could always use the 300mm as a weapon to make sure you have enough space in the eves.