Also.....what kind of lens would one use to take extreme close up pictures?

 

Inbred, Can the Ca be caused by operator error ? I may of shot that on auto ? My last camera was a Nikon 5700 and it did a ok job but I'm starting to get into photography a little more so that's why my wife picked up the Rebel for me. I mostly will be using the camera for wakeboarding photos. As far as the firm ware I'm not sure I would ever need it but thank you ? I think the next lens I buy will be a fish eye.

 

I'm a self taught freelancer. My cameras help pay for some of my other hobbies. I do a little here and there on the side, a lot of kid stuff, weddings/parties here and there, etc. Brings me a few extra K in a year. Let's not tell the IRS though...

CA cannot be caused by user error, it's simply the laws of physics. Glasses like ED (extra-low dispersion), UD (ultra-low dispersion), Fluorite, etc. give much less CA than standard optical flint glass. Obviously, these glasses are extremely expensive. Fluorite, for example isn't even glass, it's Calcium Fluorite Crystal. The stuff is synthetically grown in Laboratory environments. Anyway, a canon L lense will have one or more elements made of such 'glasses' to help eliminate CA.

The CA in your gull picture isn't really that bad at all. But, Like I said, rim lit white objects are just gonna have issues with it. The slightest little bit sticks out to the trained eye. A little post processing could fix it right up. Now that I pointed it out, you'll probably be looking for little stuff like that in all your pics. Sorry bout that...

What exactly are your goals for buying a fisheye? Just want to go ultrawide, or do you want the crazy effects?

 

I thought the fish eye would be good for wake surfing (8 to 10 feet behind the boat). I'm a lithographer so I usaully pick up on stuff that others don't when it comes to images but it's hard to tell on a moniter.
Anyways I'm having a great time with my new camera and can't wait for some better weather so I can use it !
If you want you can see some of my wakeboarding pics hear is the link http://www.wakepics.com/member/Saltywalty. all my pics so far are with the Nikon 5700 so hopfully in the near future my pics will be getting much better.

 

http://www.wakepics.com/member/Saltywalty

 

One would use a 'Macro' lens. Macro lenses allow one to focus extremely close to the subject. Now many lens makers (third party makers like Sigma, Tamron, etc.) label a lot of their lenses as 'macros', but they really aren't macros. The thing to look for when looking for a macro lens is what's called the reproduction ratio. There's no thin line as to what's macro and what isn't, but a lot of photographers cosider true macro to be 1:1 ratio, which means that at the closest focus the lens can reach, the subject will be the exact same size on a film frame. I.E., if you take a picture of a ruler at 1:1 macro (life size), 1 inch on the ruler will measure 1 inch on the negative. This doesn't seem that spectacular, but when you enlarge that negative to make a print, you get some majorleague effects.

You can also get what's called a diopter (or close up lens) which is basically a magnifying glass that goes over a normal lens to make it a macro, but they really degrade your image.

Here's a couple shots at about 1.6:1 (60% larger than life size) with a true macro lens:

 

If you can, try to find somewhere you can rent one or buy from somewhere with a very liberal return policy. Should've brought this up a couple of months ago; I just sold one. They are a cheap way to go ultrawide, but they are not very practical for most images. With your crop factor, to get any neat fisheye effects, you'll need to be about 8 inches away from your subject. They're fun for a few trick shots here and there, but a wide rectilinear will be much more practical in the real world. Now Rectilinear lenses that wide are gonna cost a pretty penny. With a 300d, you have an EF-S lens mount, so you can use the canon 10-22mm. That is an amazing lens (I've got one for my 20d). It runs about $800, but it's the only way to get a flat, ultrawide effect on a 1.6 crop camera (and still have good quality). Downside is you can only use it on EF-S mount cameras, which right now only 2 exist (300d and 20d). However, the APS sized sensors aren't going anywhere for a while, and the market will produce more 1.6 crop cameras...

Also, if you don't already have them, circular polarizing filters on all your lenses will do wonders for your photos, especially sunny water shots like you take.

 

No I don't have a filter yet but intend on getting one. Thank you for all the great advice.

 

Now do me a favor...when you pass a guy fishing in a boat, give him some space!!!!


The a-holes who run the river where I fish have about 7 miles of straight water to do their stuff. I fish near the end of that stretch about 100 yards downstream of the rocks. So, they can turn around before they get to me (and put me on the outside arch of the wake), or they can get a whole extra 50 yards and turn with me on the inside of their circle, putting me on the inside arc of their wake. Ever been anchored and had someone take a High powered circle around you? Makes me want to float 1/8" steel cable with bobbers on either side of my boat...

A couple of those wakeboarders are just ******.

 

Well it just so happens that I'm a fisherman too ! So I'm always trying not to swamp them but I will admit that on some lakes it's tough to be respectfull. It's a shame I lost most of my good fishing pics on my last hard drive. I fish for King Salmon,Ling cod rockfish,Halibut , Striper and sturgion. And a little bit of fresh water stuff every now and then.

 

Since you guys are on this subject, I bought a Canon EOS Rebel K2 this year with an EF 28-80mm lens. It seems to take really good pictures, but I would like to get a stronger zoom lens. What does anyone recommend for bringing distance shots really close?

Are you guys discussing the digital rebel from Canon? Just curious of the differences. Thanks!

 

well, first question is what's your budget.

Second question is what do you normally photograph.

Third question is what films do you normally shoot?

By stronger, I'm assuming you mean longer focal length (more magnification)?

People always want me to help them buy a telephoto lens. They usually don't like the answers I give them. Most folks don't want to spend the money they need to in order to be happy. I'd suggest a 70-200mm zoom. As magnification increases, camera shake and subject movement become much more of an issue leading to blurry pictures. The absolute maximum exposure time usually needed for a camera/lens combo to be hand holdable without blurring the image is 1/focal length. For example, at the 28mm end of your lens, any exposure longer than 1/28 th of a second will lead to blurred images. this goes up to 1/80th of a second at the tele end of your lens. Unless you have very dim light, or a nervous condition, you won't have to worry about camera shake in most circumstances. Now when you get up to a 200mm focal length, 1/200 is the absolute minimum you need.

When it comes to telephotos, f/ratio is a big deal. you can get a decent f/5.6 lens very cheaply (this is what most people who ask me want to get. Problem is, number one, your camera will have a hard time autofocusing in a lot of situations due to the high f/ratio. Also, most of the things people want to shoot with the lens aren't in the best lighting. When you get into woods and shadows and dawn/dusk lighting and what not, unless youre shooting high speed grainy film, you aren't going to get close to the 1/200 exposure you need for a sharp picture. The quality on these lenses is not good, but ANYBODY can make a sharp lens at f/5.6. Main concern is build quality and reliability issues.

Continued...

 

when you want focal lengths this long, you really need fast glass (low f/ratios). Without the f/ratio, unless you're shooting on bright sunny days, you're going to have blur issues.

05fx4 has a 70-200 L f/4. This lens is expensive for most folks, at a little under $600 (compared to a little over $100 for the budget f/5.6). But, the quality is as good as can be bought anywhere. The cheap f/5.6 lens will take twice as long to take the photo as this f/4 lens will. It gives you a lot more latitude in low light, plus the quality is top notch. 70-200 'L' f/4 is a true bargain in the photo world.

The next step up is a constant f/2.8 lens, which will take a photo in half the time that (and 4 times quicker than the f/5.6 lens) Now the price is a lot more than the f/4. The lower the f/ratio is, the more glass is needed to make it, and it is also a lot harder to make one well, so the price goes up a lot. My workhorse is a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 on which I can use a teleconverter to make it a 100-280mm f/4. My Sigma runs about $700. Sigma is a 3rd party manufacturer, they make some really good stuff, and some really junky stuff. You really have to know your stuff to know which of their products to buy. The sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is one of their best offerings. It gives 95% of the performance of the canon 'L' equivalent (although the canon has much better weatherproofing), at about 60% of the price.

When I shoot a HS football game for example, I'll shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens running at a 3200 ISO level (film speed equivalent) to get exposures faster than 1/500 to freeze motion under stadium lights. Now that takes a lot more money and equipment than most people need to be happy.

Those big white lenses you see on the sidelines at nfl games, say for example a 600mm f/4, run over $7000, with many of them running over $11000

Bottom line is, If you go for a cheap slow (f/5.6) lens, you probably aren't going to be happy with a lot of your shots. Spending the cash for at least a good f/4 is the only thing I can honestly suggest. Most people don't want to hear that...

 

Thanks for the great info man...

$300-500 budget
Want to take pictures of wildlife, landscapes, people, etc.
Normally just use 35mm film.

I just want to have another lens I can replace the one that came with mine (28-80mm) and bring images closer that you can't normally get close to. (wildlife for example) I think maybe the 70-200mm that you suggested will probably work. I'll check into one of these. Thanks again!


Oh...and what do you think about the Canon Digital Rebel compared to say this EOS I have. Am I missing out on better quality photos with these , or can I get just as good of photos with mine. I have a small Camedia D-540 Olympus for my digital pictures. I guess it all depends on, like you said...what your taking pictures of.

 

When it comes to resolution, tonal range, archival longevity, exposure latitude, etc., nothing can beat good old fashioned film.

Digital is all the rage right now, people think it's new so it must be better. Most times it isn't.

Now that being said, there's certain things I need My cameras to do that film cameras cannot. When it comes to overall image quality, film cannot be beat. Film has its limitations, digital has its limitations. In the majority of instances, film is the better medium.

A digital SLR does make learning photography easier a lot of times, because you can get instant feedback of what experimenting with settings does. Photographers go digital for many reasons, but none of them are for better quality images in average situations.

I wouldn't suggest going out and getting a Digital Rebel (300d) just yet. Coming up shortly, it will be discontinued and replaced with a newer version (probably 350d or something along those lines). When this happens, it will be a better camera at about the same price the current rebel is selling for, and any current rebels on the shelf or hardly used will drop a ton in price. This much I can guarantee.