Digital Photography Discussion

[tommykjensen]

Canon 70-200 mm EF f/4 L USM Zoom Lens

70-300 has IS, which would be nice as I have not yet mastered shooting without a tripod. Looking to stay below $1000 for a zoom.

This is a great lens and quality is still great with the 1,4x extender.

This is one of my better photos

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=HarrisHawk1.jpg

And this one was shot with the extender

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=HarrisHawk3.jpg

[DJDarknez]

Oh, the irony! I start a thread about being banned at a digital photo forum, and then I see this thread

I'm keeping it simple with a Nikon D50. Lens that is always on there is a Nikkor 18 - 55, and I have a 55 - 200 with VR.

[tgillespie]

All I have to say is wow. I cant say I hate flash photography anymore. The 430EX makes shooting indoors/low-light a treat. I was growing tired of nasty shadows and always setting up the tripod. Ample light and being able to bounce it now...

Thanks Kier.

The 70-200mm should be here tomorrow.

[Kier]

I wouldn't say that you should expect to send the 70-200f/4 off to Canon for calibration, but don't be surprised if the calibration is fairly badly off and it does indeed need attention at a service center.

The pay-off of course is that once this lens is calibrated properly, it's absolutely fantastic.

[tgillespie]

Got the lens yesterday, and spent a little bit of this afternoon shooting. Its definitively sharper than anything I've shot with before. If only it got any wider than 70mm, I could almost use it as a carry around lens. Thanks for the suggestions.

Thinking about the 1.4 converter now.

[Kier]

Focus is good?

[tgillespie]

It is. I used the cat for some real world focus tests and the lens seems to be pretty spot on, at least for my eye.

[Kier]

Excellent news If the AF is properly calibrated you have a real gem of a lens there.

[MrNase]

I bought the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro today but I couldn't test it yet.
I played around a bit but the macro didn't work as expected so I think I need to read the manual first.

However, I did some portaits and the results are great.
My friends look like blockheads - now the picture prove it.

[tgillespie]

I bought the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro today but I couldn't test it yet.
I played around a bit but the macro didn't work as expected so I think I need to read the manual first.

However, I did some portaits and the results are great.
My friends look like blockheads - now the picture prove it.

Looking forward to some pictures.

The things I'm starting to notice with some decent glass. I can't seem to master white balance. Would reading up and shooting in RAW allow for more control in pp? I'm spending to much time in Photoshop trying to rid my shots of Canon's warmth.

Few shots from the 70-200mm. You can see my failure to get the balance right.


Really warm, but left it alone. Focus seems good.


This is where I'm having the trouble. To warm if you ask me. Skin tone not on.


Skin tone a bit more on. Notice the carpet color?

Any suggestions on shooting or post processing is appreciated.

[Kier]

Buy a pocket WhiBal and shoot in Raw.

[tgillespie]

I hate to be a bother, but have yet another question.

A friend of mine has asked me to shoot their wedding this fall. They have been following my amature photography for a while now and assume that somehow my big camera and bag full of lenses equals awesome wedding pictures. After lots of thought and research, I asked them to hire a professional. Now I am debating whether to accept their offer and give it my best.

My goal in life is not to become a professional photographer, but its in my personality to be good at the things I like. That said, if I do accept, this is what I am thinking.

I have another set of friends getting married this April, which I have kindly asked if I could follow their photographer. They are waiting upon the pro's approval. Experience is experience, regardless.

On to the equipment dilemma. I have two 400D bodies that I can use. Other equipment.

17-85mm F/4 5.6 IS
17-85mm F/4 5.6 IS (roommate's)
50mm F/1.8
70-200mm F/4
430EX II
580EX II

I understand that none of these are versatile or fast enough for wedding photography. I was thinking of putting the 50mm on one of the bodies and then buying a fast prime 85mm F/1.8 or 100mm F/2.0. I really kind of hate the idea of being limited to two focal lengths of 50 and 100mm. Its the most economical way, but 50mm is still pretty long. For shots shorter than 50mm would you trust yourself with the 17-85mm at F/4 and the 580EX on top? The wedding and reception will have a roof no higher than 20 feet.

The most logical, but least economical is to ditch the 17-85mm and get the 24-70mm F/2.8L. Selling the 17-85mm would get me $400 closer to a $1000 lens, but thats still $600 for 2 stops, IIRC. Granted L series will get some sharpness, IQ, and build, but for $600?

My question is, do you think its reasonable to add a longer prime for $300 and use the zoom I currently have? Or is it a disaster in the making?

In the back of my mind, I'm telling myself the some day I'll eventually get the 24-70mm, so why not do it now. I really wish I didn't have a 1.6 body as my 17mm doesn't get short enough as it is. The 24 is going to make that even worse.

[tgillespie]

And some recent shots for those that enjoy this thread for viewing reasons.

[Steve Machol]

I hate to be a bother, but have yet another question.

A friend of mine has asked me to shoot their wedding this fall. They have been following my amature photography for a while now and assume that somehow my big camera and bag full of lenses equals awesome wedding pictures. After lots of thought and research, I asked them to hire a professional. Now I am debating whether to accept their offer and give it my best.

I did wedding photography for a while. The absolute worst ones were when you were doing this for a fried or co-worker for free or at cost. They seem to think that they can demand anything and everything from you because they don't see any value in the service you provide.

Sorry to be negative but you need to be aware of that possiblity.

BTW I shot weddings with a Mamiya C220 Twin Lens Reflex Medium format camera.



Excellent camera and results for the price (around $100 used IIRC.) Some of my very best pictures were taken with that camera. Still have it in fact.

[tgillespie]

I did wedding photography for a while. The absolute worst ones were when you were doing this for a fried or co-worker for free or at cost. They seem to think that they can demand anything and everything from you because they don't see any value in the service you provide.

Sorry to be negative but you need to be aware of that possiblity.

BTW I shot weddings with a Mamiya C220 Twin Lens Reflex Medium format camera.



Excellent camera and results for the price (around $100 used IIRC.) Some of my very best pictures were taken with that camera. Still have it in fact.

Which is something I've considered as well. If I go through with it, I will have her and and her soon to be husband sign an agreement that I am not legally required to provide a service. I'll shoot the wedding and do some post processing, but printing and distribution is all up to them. The post processing on several hundred pictures might take a while, but I enjoy that part as well. I still have yet to decide.

As for the wedding itself, I only know her through my current significant other, so there would be very little distraction during the ceremony and reception.