"roflcopter" (roflroflroflcopter)
03/15/2015 at 20:15 • Filed to: None
0
29|
"roflcopter" (roflroflroflcopter)
03/15/2015 at 20:15 • Filed to: None | 0
| 29 |
I posted up last week looking for some advice on buying a cheap, used DSLR and had lots of awesome suggestions and advice thrown my way. Long story short, one of my friends heard I was looking and decided to lend me(on indefinitely loan) two cameras, a Canon 10D and 40D. They basically told me to use them and decide what kind of camera I would really end up needing quality wise and go from there. The issue is that both cameras have the kit lens that came on them and I know that should change, and since I am not buying a camera now I have some money to throw at that. I did some reading over on SpeedHunters about lenses and all, and it seems like it really comes down to what kind of shooting you plan on doing. I think I will mostly be shooting still cars and such in staged settings for the time being, and I've messed with my friends camera using a 35mm fixed length lens and liked that pretty well. So should I stick with a shorter fixed length lens? Go with something else? What length should I go for(30-80 all seem usable for this)? Anything else I should really worry about?
Tareim - V8 powered
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 20:17 |
|
This looks like a screenshot from a game rather than an actual racing car
|
roflcopter
> Tareim - V8 powered
03/15/2015 at 20:21 |
|
I think it's the colors that really do that, but there definitely is something striking about it.
Cebu
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 20:29 |
|
Digital image stabilization is actually worth the money.
Ballzonya
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 20:31 |
|
A fixed 35/f1.8 is a good choice for still photos of cars, or if you have a really close view of a race.
If you plan on going to the track to watch a race, a 100-300 is awesome for shooting cars going by at a distance
Stay away from cheap, off brand lenses if you can.
|
roflcopter
> Ballzonya
03/15/2015 at 20:34 |
|
I was looking at the Canon 35/f1.8s as they are decently cheap new and seemed to be relatively fitting. I think I'd rather start with the stuff I can set up easily(my own cars, local get togethers, that kind of thing) before trying to shoot actual races.
|
Ballzonya
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 20:41 |
|
consider getting a tripod as well. You'll be able to do cool shots at night with a long exposure.
|
roflcopter
> Ballzonya
03/15/2015 at 20:44 |
|
Would getting a 50mm vs the 35mm make a huge difference? It seem that the 50mm is about half the cost...
MysticStick
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 20:57 |
|
Shared to Photography so you'll get more answers.
Those kit lenses are a good starting point. The fixed focal length primes are awesome for speed and low light. You'll probably end up with a few lenses in your collection, a good prime can be a nice part of that.
|
roflcopter
> MysticStick
03/15/2015 at 21:05 |
|
I really liked using my friends 35mm when I got the chance, I took some pretty awesome pictures with it and they seemed to fit the style I was going for. My main questions is whether to go with a 35 or a 50, the 50 seems to be about half the cost...
|
MysticStick
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 21:19 |
|
Both can be nice, depends on the situation and camera. On a full-frame camera, the 50mm is considered prime, and the 35mm would be a bit of a wide-angle. On a crop-frame camera (pretty sure both the 10D and 40D are) the 35mm is considered prime and the 50mm is a bit of a telephoto.
So in other words, the 50 might be zoomed in too much, where the 35 might be like looking at the scene at sort of actual size. You can test that out with a kit lens, set the zoom and shoot without adjusting at the two focal lengths, the images are not exactly what you get but close enough to make a decision perhaps.
I'd get the 35mm probably.
AthomSfere
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 21:29 |
|
Its all your style here and where the kit lens is essential.
Get out and shoot and figure out what you seem to use the most often.
Also worth mention, because you are shooting DX cameras, your 35mm is effectively closer to a 50mm. Worth remembering if you ever read reviews/ tips and tricks but see them shooting 50mm on FX and saying they can't get wide enough for X.
To me, cars would be great at 35mm or wider on DX.
Car races, I'd probably want at least 80mm and a zoom so I can zoom and track.
People, I like about 50-200 for strong bokeh.
|
roflcopter
> AthomSfere
03/15/2015 at 21:31 |
|
I think I'm going to pick up the 50mm and see if I like it.. it's cheap enough that having it around won't be a bad thing in the long run. Then I'll get to get a good feel for where that puts me.
mcseanerson
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 21:45 |
|
I have the Canon 50 1.8 and am not a huge fan due to the plastic construction and tiny focus ring. If you want autofocus go for it or other canon lenses but if you are comfortable or even prefer manual focus you can save a ton of money buying vintage glass. Since you're on a crop sensor I would actually start with wider lenses since a 35mm will give you a narrower field of view than a 50mm on a full frame sensor camera.
I use a T2i and right now I have two Nikon AIS lenses (a 24mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/2.0) and a Canon EF lens (50mm f/1.8). I use my 24mm probably 90% of the time. The 50mm comes out when I'm at night without a tripod and when I really wish I just really need that closeup shot.
|
roflcopter
> mcseanerson
03/15/2015 at 21:48 |
|
I had a question about that... I'm not afraid of manual focus by a long shot, can you just slap on older lens on one of these? I saw that the FD lenses were enormously cheaper for the same level of glass.
|
AthomSfere
> MysticStick
03/15/2015 at 22:02 |
|
Wait, minor correction:
Both are always prime. Prime describes not being a zoom.
You have zooms (24-70mm) and primes like 24mm, 50mm, 200mm. Primes are usually faster than a zoom of about the same range and price (A 24mm 2.8 is probably cheaper than a 24-80mm)
|
mcseanerson
> roflcopter
03/15/2015 at 22:03 |
|
I would avoid the FD lenses and actually buy old Nikon glass for a Canon dslr. The FD lenses won't work without an adapter that needs a glass element where as the Nikon adapter is just a piece of metal to attach it at the right distance so nothing gets in between the lens and your sensor. In filmmaking a lot of people who shoot on Canon dslrs use Nikon AI and AIS lenses. One major benefit besides cost for filmmakers is that vintage Nikon lenses have the aperture ring on the outside so you don't have to change it with the camera software like modern Canon lenses.
|
MysticStick
> AthomSfere
03/15/2015 at 22:17 |
|
I sit corrected. In the old days we didn't have much zooms. We called a 105mm fixed lens a telephoto, and a 50mm a prime.
|
roflcopter
> mcseanerson
03/16/2015 at 00:20 |
|
Thank you for the information!
I actually just ordered a 50/f1.8 EF lens that should be nice to have, it was too good of a deal to pass up. But when I get a dedicated shorter lens I'll definitely look into that since most shots will be relatively easy to frame and should be super easy with a manual focus lens.
|
mcseanerson
> roflcopter
03/16/2015 at 00:35 |
|
Yeah, I keep debating whether or not I'm going to sell my 50 when I get my new Helios lens. I think I will probably keep it just so I have at least one EF lens and the added convenience that comes with using a modern lens. For filmmaking there's no difference between modern lenses and vintage lenses functionality wise though because you have to do everything manually.
Stephen the Canuck
> MysticStick
03/16/2015 at 07:48 |
|
105mm is still a telephoto lens. Prime means it has one focal length, zoom has a range of focal lengths. 50mm on a full frame sensor is apparently similar to the field of view of the human eye. Wider than that is described as wide angle, and narrower is described as telephoto.
Jonathan Harper
> Cebu
03/16/2015 at 08:55 |
|
especially if you plan on shooting any video with it
|
Jonathan Harper
> Tareim - V8 powered
03/16/2015 at 08:55 |
|
my exact thoughts
|
Stephen the Canuck
> AthomSfere
03/16/2015 at 11:52 |
|
Bokeh mostly has to do with the aperture of the lens, not the focal length.
|
Stephen the Canuck
> roflcopter
03/16/2015 at 13:41 |
|
The 50 f1.8 is a great lens for the price. I also really like my EF-S 24mm f2.8. If you could find a good deal on a Tamron/Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens that would also be a good choice.
Essentially this all will come down to budget again. You could also try to find an older Canon/Sigma 28-70 f2.8 lens. They're usually a decent price.
|
AthomSfere
> Stephen the Canuck
03/20/2015 at 20:22 |
|
And 35mm on DX is about the same FOV as 50mm on Full Frame...
|
AthomSfere
> Stephen the Canuck
03/20/2015 at 20:27 |
|
Well, yes and no.
For any focal length, a smaller F/# will give more bokeh... But a longer lens and the same F# will also provide more bokeh. 200mm at f3.5/ or even 4.5 will provide excellent bokeh (the closer you are to the minimum focusing distance the better too).
The problem I have (personally) with going the f2 or smaller route on a wider lens is your DOF is also thin, so you can get awesome bokeh at 24mm and f1.2 but you might also get sharp eyes and lips but a fuzzy nose and ears.
|
Stephen the Canuck
> AthomSfere
03/20/2015 at 20:41 |
|
True enough. Figuring all that out takes experience.
You also get into the number and shape of the aperture blades affecting the shape of the bokeh too.
|
AthomSfere
> Stephen the Canuck
03/20/2015 at 21:15 |
|
Oh geez, yes! Yes you do... But then to me it starts getting nit-picky. It's art, so its subjective of course but most the time how many points on a star from a light source has... well it doesn't matter to me. But I know people that crave X or B.
|
Stephen the Canuck
> AthomSfere
03/20/2015 at 22:17 |
|
Yeah. I agree. Some people get way too into the specs.