|
|
|
|
 #1594 1 Mar 2012 at 9.50am | |   |
|
Dinton Pastures
|
|
|
|
|
#1593 1 Mar 2012 at 0.06am | | |
|
In reply to Post #1591
Any f 1.4 lens is going to be expensive when compared to the others in the range. Unless you have a need for a fast lens then the less expensive 1.8 would cover most requirements. The advantage is that the f1.4 would be better in low light conditions.
A 35mm lens is known as a wide angle lens and is useful for landscape and shots indoors where you are photographing groups of people or in limited spaces.
The 50mm lens is known as a standard lens, a hangover from the 35mm film camera days. It is a good work horse and is used for general photography.
You can get a zoom lens which covers 18mm (wide angle) and all the inbetween sizes up to 50mm which on digital cameras is a small telephoto as the image is larger than it would be if used on a 35mm camera.
Cannon sell the above lens as part of their kit price with a range of bodies. It is not a bad lens but not as good as a dedicated prime lens but good enough for most general photography.
Have a look on ebay as there are some good deals on used and new models. Pick one of the trusted dealers and you can’t go wrong as you are covered by a returns policy. Pay by Paypal and you should be covered.
Check out lens reviews on the web for the model you are interested in. My best advice if you are certain of the lens you want then don’t settle for second best you will end up buying twice and that will be expensive
|
|
|
|
|
#1592 29 Feb 2012 at 8.05pm | | |
|
|
I'm also new to DSLR's, although not entirely new to photography. This thread is providing me with plenty of inspiration! Cheers guys!
|
|
|
|
|
#1591 29 Feb 2012 at 7.29pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1590
As a beginner to all this dslr photography I dont want to re-mortgage the house until I know if i'm going to advance beyond auto mode.
Just wondering about the quality of these cheaper options.
Otherwise considering a 50mm f1.8 canon version at £80, or 50mm f1.4 at £250 is it worth the extra money for the 35mm f1.4
|
|
|
|
|
#1590 29 Feb 2012 at 6.59pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1589
All I can say really, without even looking at the item you refer to, is that you get what you pay for. The canon one is £1200 for a reason! 
|
|
|
|
|
#1589 29 Feb 2012 at 2.02pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1000
Lens question
Has anyone used any lenses by a company called samyang. They do a 35mm f1.4 wide angle prime lens to fit canon for about £350 with a 3 year warranty, that I was considering buying. Just wondering what the quality is like. I know Tamron and sigma make accepted cheaper alternatives are these samyang lenses on par with those??
Think the canon version is about £1200 so cant afford one of those.
|
|
|
|
|
#1588 24 Feb 2012 at 3.22pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1583
Awesome photos there mate!
|
|
|
|
|
#1587 24 Feb 2012 at 1.08pm | | |
|
A few early flowers starting to come into bloom
|
|
|
|
|
#1586 24 Feb 2012 at 9.33am | | |
|
This image was produced using a flat bed scanner set at 600 dpi with a high pass filter introduced in Photoshop.
Needs some work but worth having a look at with other subjects
|
|
|
|
|
#1585 21 Feb 2012 at 3.22pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1583
Brillant stuff mate!! 
|
|
|
|
|
#1584 21 Feb 2012 at 8.27am | | |
|
In reply to Post #1583
The reason I asked about the Habronattus jumping spider is because they are a North American species and not found in this country, as far as I know. Was interested to learn if the shot was taken over the pond or you know of a source in this country.
Thomas Shahan made his name photographing this species and I believe pioneered the stacking layer approach, which gives a sharp image across the whole subject. I was thinking of having a go at this approach but was put off by the difficulty factor. Some thoughts on that would be useful. Great shots by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
#1583 21 Feb 2012 at 6.54am | | |
|
In reply to Post #1580
Thanks all. Jumping spiders are one of my favourite subjects and it all comes down to a matter of patience  eventually they will stop long enough to get a couple of shots off. The frustrating thing is when they jump onto the camera 
The vast majority of macro photographers dont chill the insects down prefering to shoot them in their natural enviroment as it adds to the challange. With the lens i use i need to be within 4 inches of the subject so their is alot of failed attempts but it is much more rewarding when you do finally get the shot you were after.
Heres a couple more.
Hoverfly sipping some sugar water i sprayed on a leaf
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 |  | |
|
|
#1582 20 Feb 2012 at 10.27pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1580
i have heard that some people do chill down some insects to keep them still long enough to get a pic, but like most things ethics comes into play here is it right?? is it wrong??
fantastic shots pro quality work there
|
|
|
|
|
#1581 19 Feb 2012 at 9.38pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1579
Some superb Macro work there 
|
|
|
|
|
#1580 19 Feb 2012 at 4.41pm | | |
|
In reply to Post #1579
Nice macro mate. How did you manage to track down the jumping spider, real difficult to photograph as they don’t settle for long
|
|
