Team-BHP - The DSLR Thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by phamilyman (Post 2255586)

Guruji, too much f2.8 ho gaya - badhai ho. ab gurgaon meat toh banti hai! :)

I can see that you are a hardcore non-vegetarian. Which dorm were you from?

@Rudra:
The equipment is jaw droppingly impressive. The photographs even more so.:thumbs up

Quote:

Not for regular usage but one of the best rectilinear corrected lens.. 14mm, 2.8L. Expensive for sure but returns every paisa back.

the sigma 12-24 that sells for 1/3rd the price can match the 14MM @ 14mm but cannot shoot at f2.8.

The Nikon 14-24 at 14mm F2.8 shoots better than any glass in this world including the CZ series. No wonder people buy a converter to use that lens on a 5D or a 1DS.

Not to take away the beauty of the canon lens, but the alternatives that are cheaper work very well.

But who shoots at F2.8 on a wide angle that often :)

Quote:

Shot with 5D Mark II and 180mm, 3.5L macro.

Now these shots are fantastic. Great lighting and deserves to go into some forums or stores as their ads. Good job.

Congratulations Rudra JI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen (Post 2255604)

Not for regular usage but one of the best rectilinear corrected lens.. 14mm, 2.8L. Expensive for sure but returns every paisa back.

When you say expensive I dare not ask more ,Even what is cheap in your eyes is expensive for ordinary mortals :-)

GD Sahab you got an excellent lens with Aperture ring , I feel it is much better that way for Macro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VW2010 (Post 2255844)

Not to take away the beauty of the canon lens, but the alternatives that are cheaper work very well.

Work very well is also subjective and greatly depends on usage. I agree with you here to a great extent. Problem starts when you go for really large blowups. Colour fringing at the edge lines play havoc. Any cheaper lens will have this issue and that’s why they’re cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VW2010

But who shoots at F2.8 on a wide angle that often :)

Not many and not common. 2.8 is not for using that as aperture as much as faster light transmission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VW2010

Great lighting and deserves to go into some forums or stores as their ads. Good job.

Thanks.

@Rudra Sen

Agreed. Unless one is making money out of this whole hobby, they should look at cheaper but good alternatives.

One of the reason why people go for the 100-300 Sigma which is now discontinued is because the lens is practically a prime at 100,200 and 280mm with a drop at 300mm (wide open). It matches the 100-400 even with a 1.4X tele and is very cheap. I recommend this lens when used ones are available for less than 425 USD. THis is a steal knowing the performance.

Similarly the tokina 11-16 is under rated. Another prime lens at all the Focal length from 11-16. Only issue is that i cant use it in a full frame.

Canon 14mm is second best to the Nikon 14-24. The Nikon is a beast of a lens.

And dont think i am a nikon fanboy. i envy nikon but own everything that Canon has :). Just now selling few canon stuffs to add the second body as Nikon :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by VW2010 (Post 2255966)

@Rudra Sen

Agreed. Unless one is making money out of this whole hobby, they should look at cheaper but good alternatives.

Sir Ji not to interrupt but as I got to know here Rudra Sen makes money out of it and it is profession for him so yes you are also right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen (Post 2255929)

Not many and not common. 2.8 is not for using that as aperture as much as faster light transmission.
Thanks.

What that means enlighten please if possible in layman termsplease: I though both are one and same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amitk26 (Post 2255997)

What that means enlighten please if possible in layman termsplease: I though both are one and same.

What he probably meant was, f/2.8 or f/4 or any such value, doesn't have much importance in a wide angle as an 'aperture' in terms of DOF and all, but only a deciding factor to control the light entering the camera.

I am not sure, please excuse me if Rudra ji meant something else!!

Quote:

What that means enlighten please if possible in layman termsplease: I though both are one and same.

As clevermax put it on a wide angle having a faster aperture helps with faster shutter speed while the compromise on DOF is not much. Being such a wide angle shooting at F2.8 will definitely have some fall of in the corners. The price one pays for the 14mm means the effect of sharpenss fall off in the corners will be very minimal even shooting at F2.8.

Stepping down the lens will only make it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen (Post 2255604)

Not for regular usage but one of the best rectilinear corrected lens.. 14mm, 2.8L. Expensive for sure but returns every paisa back.

Shot with 5D Mark II and 180mm, 3.5L macro.

Attachment 506886

And here's the 180mm, 3.5L macro. Heaviest black lens from Canon's stable..

Attachment 506890

Shot with 1Ds Mark II and 100mm, 2.8 macro.

sirji, please do not post pictures like these. it is injurious to my keyboard (with the drool falling all over it) :D

awesome equipment you got there! :thumbs up

Quote:

Originally Posted by amitk26 (Post 2255997)

What that means enlighten please if possible in layman termsplease: I though both are one and same.

Yes it is. Sorry for adding this confusion.. Let me explain.

Long back I was pretty much interested in stage/dance shoot. I had a 75-200mm 3.5 lens and had to push 400 ASA Kodak Tri-X film to 3200 ASA.. For low light situation that lens was dead. I could get maximum 1/15 @ 3.5 with that higher ISO and very often images came blur here and there..

Few year down the line I managed to pick up a 85 mm 1.2 (very first few from Canon's L range) as a second hand piece. Post that I could use 400 ASA as is, with 5.6 @ 1/60.

Aspheric lenses (as used in 14mm/85mm) optimise light transmission. To what extent is a matter of research. I'm sure we'll find this on the net.

One doesn't have to use a lens at 2.8. But there will be a difference in light transmission capacity and speed.

Quote:

Few year down the line I managed to pick up a 85 mm 1.2

Legendary lens. I still have mine and love every minute of it. I just want to add the 85mm F1.8 for anything that dont require the slow focussing 85mm. The finest lens ever produced by canon(i mean both 85mm :))

Quote:

Originally Posted by amitk26 (Post 2255445)

If money is no problem then no need to compromise buy best possible body and best lens but if you have X amount then you need to think how best to spend it.

Well this is hotly debated point , but the answer is yes lets say you have a 1000D with a good lens lu will get better pictures then with good body with mediocre lens.

As you are keen on macro buying a dedicated good 1:1 macro lens in 90-105 mm focal length makes more sense if you have a certain budget limit. So lets say 22K for 1000D and 19K for macro lens.

More number of megapixels help you to crop image and also to print big size images but you can use scaling algorithms in post processing to scale up for larger print size.

If you are interested in bird pictures and telephoto then I will suggest Canon 500D because 1000D does not have spot metering and also in tele range you will need more cropping.And a tele beyond 300mm is way too expensive then budget range you are putting up.

:confused:
Buying the DSLR project is temporarily postponed.
Time to do some more research.
Thanks a lot for confusing me to the maximum level.

About lenses, currently will settle for 18-55.
55-200 sometime later.
Then a macro.

Nikon 3100 was the best for my budget. (this year 30K)
But lack of DOF preview button is a deal breaker.