Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-519.html)

I doubt that image is as is from the camera. Most probably shot in raw and very nicely post-processed.

Exactly, IS can't compensate for the need fast lenses in every case.

Wait, don't try to escape the money pit so easily. The effective FL starting at 24mm is the best thing for any walkaround zoom lens. I have had 12-60mm F/2.8-4 lens for 3 years now, whose EFL is 24-120mm. It can take care of 99% of my shooting needs. And if it is a high quality lens, you will never need to buy another lens, not even a prime. Think about it. If you can afford it, get 15-85mm as your only lens. You won't need anything else unless you suddenly develop interest in birds (Tele) and small bugs (macro).

ampere, if landscape is your priority, dont spend on a prime, it will not do any good to you. Dont take it as a professional or authoritative advise but from a person who is playing with his 9th lens in 2 years time :) I started with 'kit' and now owns 1.4 and 2.8 primes, but its always used for portrait shots. Landscape magic numbers are f/8 to f/16 regardless of the lens you own. Naturally low light landscape needs tripod. My 2 cents !

Amit, Shaju,

I am not on to street photography, Idea was to have a good low light, such that I can shoot indoors as well. (That was the reason, I mentioned, I would get a 50mm prime and not for landscape).

The reason for 17-55 was since I could get a combined lens which is a good wide angle (well next best to 10-22) and also a fast lens, it would have served my purpose both ways. Then as I mentioned in prior post I thought it may also help me shoot landscapes in low light (but at that time I did not realize that for landscape you need large DOF, f-2.8 may not work out. Thats where I was confused as to how to use a fast lens for good low light landscapes). Low light at home was anyway a need. If its not worth spending 1000$ for 17-55, I would buy the prime for home use and then practice more with 18-55 and then may think on the lines of 15-85.



Samu-san
But I thought 15-85 does not give F2-8 but only F3.5/5.6. That is the doubt, if I should go for it or not. If it started at f2.8, I would have jumped at it.

50mm 1.8 is very good for indoor use, I had 35mm 1.8 which is a perfect range on a cropped body. For low light landscape, kit is more than enough. I also had Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which is an all-rounder below 19k. I think Tamron has it in 17-50 spec, equally good as sigma in similar price tag. But for indoor usage, nothing beats 50mm 1.8 in quality and affordablilty. Open to correction.

When you say indoor use, what kind of objects are your shooting?

Given the fact that 17-55 also has the IS, I was very much tempted. That was the reason for looking at it.

I just realised that Canon makes no fast zooms for EF-S mount starting at 24mm EFL. That's a pity.

Mostly people and objects in this case.

That was the discussion: 17-55 (f-2.8) versus 24-70L (again f2.8)
Since 24-70 is for full frame, and I am not planning to shift. I thought 17-55 should be what all I need. Though it does not have enough mid-range zoom.

Another advantage of being in the Olympus, Nikon boats !! Hope the canon guys dont nail me live :D

Edit: Wow, this happens to be the 7777th post here, I could not be more happier than this, my week is made !

Samurai, canon does 16-35 2.8L. Its 25mm in APS-C

I think even 17-40L works for APS-C. Does it not?
And 16-35 we are talking 2000$ !!!!

@Tanveer, you have some beautiful shots in that set.

For indoor shots, you should have a hotshoe flash (preferably 3 :p), unless you're using natural light coming though a window etc. otherwise you just get dull lighting without definition under typical setups.

As Shaju stated earlier, tripods are essential for landscape photography. A CPL helps as well :)

If you want an ultrawide for a crop sensor, go for the tokina, you can't go wrong (couple of pics attached, one of which was recently exhibited).

Gosh! Tanveer each and every pic in that album is worthy of being a wall paper. Fabulous skills.
And you clicked all of these using a humble 18-55mm kit lens makes it even more extraordinary.

I'm officially become your fan. Thanks for posting that link.

Cheers

+1 Thank you very much Tanveer! Superb photos.

Regards,

Thats 27mm. Wide angle is 24mm and wider in 35mm format.
The 16-35 is the closest you come to in wide angle terms, in canon land.
Then of course, if you move away from canon you have the tokina 12-24 F/4 and Tokina 11-16 2.8
I own the Tamron 10-24 F/3.5-5.6 in canon mount.
I normally shot at F6.3/F7.1 with that lens.

Wide angle gives you wonderful perpective, if you know how to use it.
For example in landscapes
You can get the entire scene, esp when you want to capture reflections

You can get real low and close to ground. This is the most common use UWA


Finally, for architecture, there is simply no subsitute for a UWA. If I was doing more arcitechture photography, I would not have migrated away from UWA