Canon Lenses...

[odd jim]

I've just been looking!!!! Still uncertain about what someone said about the ones made in China rather than Japan aren't as good.

Nah ignore that, thats a bit of a cliche'd old wives tale!

Do Tamron even have a factory in China? I thought they only had factories in Japan and the USA?

EDIT - they do have a factory in China, but as I say, dont worry about where they're made.

http://tamron-usa.com/lenses/factory.asp

 

[darrenwxm]

If you haven't got a remote yet why not set timer for more steady shots? I have the 50mm 1.8 lens it is so much better on my 500d than kit lens!

 

[DjLukeW]

OK let get one thing straight right form the start the 18-55 is not a bad lens, is it as good at the £750 17-55 f2.8 no, but to say it's a bad lens is just plain stupid.

Don't believe me then get on POTN and their lens archive section and look at the photos taken with it, now it's a huge thread so I'll just post a link that jumps 50 pages in, HERE Once your beyond the level of all the shots in there then it's time to upgrade.

andyred has really nailed it in the post just above, don't rush in to a same length lens, and I know 99% will say get a 50 f1.8 cause it's cheap, but if your not going to use that f.18 it's expensive, personally I sold mine as I never used it at all.

I do like the kit lens, the only reason I wanted the 1.8 was to give me better low light shots.

Appreciating everyones comments though. Thats why I like this forum, many helpful people and opinions

 

[Moreorless]

I do like the kit lens, the only reason I wanted the 1.8 was to give me better low light shots.

Appreciating everyones comments though. Thats why I like this forum, many helpful people and opinions

Theres really several elements at play with low light photography.

The large appatures of something like the 50mm 1.8 will allow you to have faster shutter speeds but the depth of field will also be greatly reduced. That can of course be helpful if your looking to isolate something by casting the rest of the image out of focus but alot of the landfscape shots you've posted wouldnt be possible at F 1.8.

Using IS or a tripod allows you to use longer shutting speeds without camera movement causing image blur. It doesnt help you take pics of moving subjects but it allows you to use higher appatures with greater depth of field.

The focal lenght of the lens also has a big effect on how easy it is to use in low light. Each individual part of an image will "move" less as you get wider(a tree that fills the frame at 40mm will be 1/4 the size at 10mm standing in the same position) so camera shake has less of a bluring effect.

 

[DjLukeW]

Awesome.

Cheers for the help

 

[Moreorless]

The easiest thing to do is of course bump up the ISO a little, the 1000D from what I'v seen doesnt lose much quality up to ISO 400.

Personally my expereince is that for landscape work large appatures(although I'v got nothing as large as 1.8) are more about controling the depth of field than they are low light shooting. Obviously the two can go hand in hand sometimes but unless you really like using a shallow depth of field that often as not won't be the case.

One thing to consider might I spose be trading in your 18-55 kit for a used 17-85mm IS(around £200 used). Its not the best lens in the world(although I'd guess alot of its bad rep was due to its much higher price in the past) and is actually slightly less sharp at the boarders than your kit at the wide end but it does have a better range, better focusing and better build quality. For me though the biggest plus would be the ability to use filters much more easily, a decent polarizer is IMHO a must have for landscape work and grads can be very useful aswell in certain situations.

If you want to use one then you don't need to break the bank to get a decent landscape tripod either, for things like macro and wildlife shooting the ability to adjust quickly and acurrately is very important but IMHO less so(although obviously still good to have) for more normal landscape shooting.

 

[woof woof]

I had a 17-85mm and I ended up giving it away and buying a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which was really sharp and suffered much less distortion at the wide end.

I'm a bit of a fan of wide aperture lenses so I'd be leaning towards a fast lens of some sort. One thing that's often said against them is that the DoF is paper thin at f1.x but that's only half true, really, as when your camera to subject distance is a little longer the DoF can be a lot deeper and whole image shots may not look obviously paper thin DoF shots. So you do really still have a lot of control and options even if shooting at f1.x

 

[Moreorless]

I had a 17-85mm and I ended up giving it away and buying a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which was really sharp and suffered much less distortion at the wide end.

I'm a bit of a fan of wide aperture lenses so I'd be leaning towards a fast lens of some sort. One thing that's often said against them is that the DoF is paper thin at f1.x but that's only half true, really, as when your camera to subject distance is a little longer the DoF can be a lot deeper and whole image shots may not look obviously paper thin DoF shots. So you do really still have a lot of control and options even if shooting at f1.x

Yeah I'd guess you could get away with 2.8 for certain landscapes shots although I was partly going on the pics the OP had posted here in the past which were city landscapes with a good deal of foreground. For that kind of shooting I don't think you'd want to give up IS unless you were prepaired to use a tripod alot of the time.

The extra 30/35mm at the long end could be pretty useful aswell, personally I felt very constrained by my 18-55's long end but have rarely felt so my by 15-85's when shooting landscapes.

 

[woof woof]

You can use any aperture you want for landscape or any other shot. The police wont enforce any front to back DoF convention and it's nice to see a little imagination and personality now and again rather than the same old tired same old same old.

 

[Moreorless]

You can use any aperture you want for landscape or any other shot. The police wont enforce any front to back DoF convention and it's nice to see a little imagination and personality now and again rather than the same old tired same old same old.

That was my point really, the larger appatures and thinner depths of field are certainly something that can be useful with landscape shots but don't depend on using them all the time to give you a good low light lens.

 

[Shutter]

Ok, first of all. Correct me if I am wrong here, I am quite surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet....

- The OP is shooting with a cropped camera and so uses EF-S mount lenses.
- The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens and for £75 posted (kerso) you cannot argue.
- The 50mm is an EF mount lens. In turn meaning the 50mm perspective on his crop will mean he is effectively shooting through a 80mm! This is useless for landscape!

I would think something like a 28mm would be 'better' but would still be a 44mm!

Go have a re think bud, sorry to be the PITA!

Re. the POTN pics, I've not seen anything remotely resembling that sharpness coming from my 18-55mm kit lens!!

Agreed!!

 

[cam1986]

50mm is an awesome lens. It has gone up more than £75 with Kerso (£85) but is worth every penny

 

[odd jim]

Ok, first of all. Correct me if I am wrong here, I am quite surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet....

- The OP is shooting with a cropped camera and so uses EF-S mount lenses.
- The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens and for £75 posted (kerso) you cannot argue.
- The 50mm is an EF mount lens. In turn meaning the 50mm perspective on his crop will mean he is effectively shooting through a 80mm! This is useless for landscape!

I would think something like a 28mm would be 'better' but would still be a 44mm!

Go have a re think bud, sorry to be the PITA!

Agreed!!

This is wrong.

I've shot some of my best landscape shots with a 50mm, on various crop bodies. In fact I've shot very nice landscapes at 200mm. To say 50mm is useless at shooting landscapes (even on a crop) is just wrong in every way! You don't need a wide-angle to shoot landscapes, a very common mis-conception.

And just because he's on a crop doesn't mean he exclusively uses EFS mount lenses?

 

[cam1986]

This is wrong.

I've shot some of my best landscape shots with a 50mm, on various crop bodies. In fact I've shot very nice landscapes at 200mm. To say 50mm is useless at shooting landscapes (even on a crop) is just wrong in every way! You don't need a wide-angle to shoot landscapes, a very common mis-conception.

And just because he's on a crop doesn't mean he exclusively uses EFS mount lenses?

I am new to photography but agree with what you say.

 

[Shutter]

This is wrong.

I've shot some of my best landscape shots with a 50mm, on various crop bodies. In fact I've shot very nice landscapes at 200mm. To say 50mm is useless at shooting landscapes (even on a crop) is just wrong in every way! You don't need a wide-angle to shoot landscapes, a very common mis-conception.

And just because he's on a crop doesn't mean he exclusively uses EFS mount lenses?

No. Not at all. In actual fact I am in Italy exclusively shooting with my 50 on my 450. So no he doesn't have to be exclusively on efs. That was not my point. I was highlighting the fact that he said he wanted wider, a EF 50mm is not any wider than his efs 18-55mm! It's the opposite!

And are you saying that I am incorrect with my statement about the crop factor?

 

[odd jim]

No. Not at all. In actual fact I am in Italy exclusively shooting with my 50 on my 450. So no he doesn't have to be exclusively on efs. That was not my point. I was highlighting the fact that he said he wanted wider, a EF 50mm is not any wider than his efs 18-55mm! It's the opposite!

And are you saying that I am incorrect with my statement about the crop factor?

No not the crop factor, you're incorrect when you say the 50mm isn't suitable for landscapes. It's superb for landscapes and as I said in my post, you dont always need a wide-angle to shoot landscapes.

Btw you have to multiply the crop factor onto EFS lenses as well.

 

[Yardbent]

Right so far Ive decided on the Canon 50mm F1.8 to replace my kit lens, and then Tamron SP 17-50mm F2.8 Di II

...lens..

anyway......why are you buying a 50mm 1.8...?
useful for low light shots ..agreed
too 'long' for indoor family shots where a 35mm 1.8 would be better

the Tamron is nice [ i read reviews]...but for landscapes you'll be at f5.6 or f8

or even at f16 or 22 to get slower shutter speeds, for the milky waterfall effect

i suggest you shoot with the kit lens for a while, and make a note of exactly where it falls short, and that will lead you to a better choice

 

[cam1986]

.....why are you buying a 50mm 1.8...?
useful for low light shots ..agreed
too 'long' for indoor family shots

Depends how big the room is? 50mm 1.8 is still a nice lens for family shots.