[SunnyBoi]

Originally Posted by architect

So the 15-85 is the one to buy, right?

I keep getting confused between EF and EF-S lenses. I believe the EF-S are superior, right?

17-55 is superior in image quality, however 15-85 is cheaper. Depends on your budget.

EF lens work on full frame and crop bodies and EF-S work only on crop bodies.

In my case, I didn't have the budget for a 17-55, hence went and bought a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

@ R2D2 : I doubt I will be upgrading my body anytime soon. By medium telephoto, do you mean it will be difficult to use indoors? And a D lens is out as I need auto-focus.

It will not be difficult to use indoors. Infact medium telephotos are most commonly used indoors for portraits, good examples being the 85mm 1.4G and 1.4D that are very well known on full frame for this kind of work.

All you need to to is ensure that you are able to move back and forth to frame the shot. Expect great bokeh from an F/1.4 or 1.8 lens on either DX or FX.

Let us know what you finally wind up buying.

Edit - these lenses have very narrow DOF, so getting the focus right is very important
Regards,

[KameshR]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

@ R2D2 : I doubt I will be upgrading my body anytime soon. By medium telephoto, do you mean it will be difficult to use indoors? And a D lens is out as I need auto-focus.

Hi wildsdi5530, I was under the same predicament same time last year and went for the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D for my D3000.

I took several portraits and was immensely impressed but here is the thing. If I had shot 50 pictures a good 20+ would have been completely out of focus. Also as manim pointed out, on a DX body this lens becomes a telephoto and it sure is a pain when you do not have enough room to move around. Indoors, there were these twin terrible challenges of getting the focus right with lots of moving around (not to forget constantly bumping into people unknowingly and apologizing later) and there by missing the moment. Yet, it was interesting to learn the art of manual focus.

A 50mm sample picture in a low light situation - http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifti...ml#post2587456

Recently I upgraded to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX and trust me, it rarely left the body! The focus is real quick except of course when in extreme dim situations it would hunt for a moment. The need to move around drastically reduced too. I'm sure you would be pleased with the results when compared to the kit lens. The extra money that you would be putting in for the AF-S is well worth it. Ever since the 35mm came, the need for kit lens gradually reduced too. I use the kits lens only for a real wide angle shot and if I did not have the time to change the lens, then I would just simply step back 2 feet.

I will try to put a sample picture taken using the 35mm later.

Like many said before - To understand the ‘moving around’ bit when using a prime lens, with your 18-55 kit lens on, fix the length to 50mm and see if it’s challenging to take pictures. Try the same at 35mm.

[architect]

Originally Posted by SunnyBoi

EF lens work on full frame and crop bodies and EF-S work only on crop bodies.

Hmmm! While I am not going to buy a full-frame body in the near future, I might as well keep my lenses compatible with them. I guess I am going to stick to the 50 mm prime until I firm up my requirements. Thanks for the help.

[pillainp]

Originally Posted by architect

If I understand correctly, you mean the 15-85 is a good replacement to the 18-55 Kit lens AFTER I have bought the 55-250, right?

So the 15-85 is the one to buy, right? It is currently priced at Rs 47,500/- at Flipkart. This is the EF-S-15-85 F3.5-5.6 IS-USM. I can also look at the EF-S 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS-USM which is priced at Rs 29,090/- at Flipkart. Let me add that even the cheaper one will need some planning on my end before buying, since it's not a cheap glass!

I keep getting confused between EF and EF-S lenses. I believe the EF-S are superior, right?

What I mean is that whether or not you get the 55-250, the 15-85 would be the ideal upgrade from the 18-55, providing a very versatile range and excellent sharpness, while not entirely breaking the bank.

From there, you can get the 55-250 for an extremely VFM zoom; or go for the Tamron or Canon 70-300 or other zoom, while remaining pretty well covered at the wide end.

The EF/EF-S designation does not in itself imply optical superiority. EF-S simply means the lens was designed exclusively for use with 'crop' cameras like the 550D, 60D and 7D. EF lenses were designed for full-frame cameras like the 5D and 1D series, but you can also use them perfectly well with the crop cameras.

All Canon's "L" lenses are EF mount, but EF-S mount lenses like the 15-85 and the 17-55 offer optical quality that can be compared very favorably with the L's.

While you're at it, get a good flash unit, like the 430EX II. You'll need it.

[architect]

Originally Posted by pillainp

What I mean is that whether or not you get the 55-250, the 15-85 would be the ideal upgrade from the 18-55, providing a very versatile range and excellent sharpness, while not entirely breaking the bank.

From there, you can get the 55-250 for an extremely VFM zoom; or go for the Tamron or Canon 70-300 or other zoom, while remaining pretty well covered at the wide end.

I think I'll first get the 55-250 or (preferably) a similar range EF lens (max. compatibility, you see!). Then I'll get the 15-85 to replace the kit lens. Except for the wide end, the 50 prime does most of the work of the 18-55 (and much better) if you use the "two steps back / forward" rule instead of craving for a zoom lens.

Originally Posted by pillainp

The EF/EF-S designation does not in itself imply optical superiority. EF-S simply means the lens was designed exclusively for use with 'crop' cameras like the 550D, 60D and 7D. EF lenses were designed for full-frame cameras like the 5D and 1D series, but you can also use them perfectly well with the crop cameras.

Yes, eventually, I would like to move in to a full-frame body. But, hankering for equipment should not overshadow the efforts to become a good photographer first. I have seen such fantastic pictures from P-n-S cameras and have taken some nice pictures from my Canon A520 D that I don't know if and when the full-frame body will happen. This is the reason I want to buy lesser of the EF-S variety.

Originally Posted by pillainp

While you're at it, get a good flash unit, like the 430EX II. You'll need it.

Yes, I guess that is next in line.

[pillainp]

If you are looking at EF lenses, the Canon EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD are pretty good in that range, albeit much costlier than the 55-250. Sigma also probably has something, though those lenses often garner mixed reviews.

As far as flashes are concerned, you can think about the Canon 430EX II (about 14K) or the Sunpak PZ42X (no HiSpeed Sync - own one myself, excellent for the price) or the one of the Yongnuo's (468, etc. - not too familiar with these). The latter two will cost about half the Canon Speedlite, and will have similar power and features but for HSS and some other areas.

[nitinbose]

Originally Posted by architect

I am indeed a casual / amateur shooter but I like to take good photographs. Beginner / Average or not I don't know: these are entirely relative terms, no?

Yes, these are relative terms. In simple terms, if you're going to use the camera for occasional casual shooting for your family, friends & relatives, functions & holidays, this lens is quite okay for you.

It may not be the right one if you're into specifics, such as color shade differences, comparing the picture quality from corner to corner and a difference of 5% is not acceptable for you or your work.

[architect]

Originally Posted by nitinbose

In simple terms, if you're going to use the camera for occasional casual shooting for your family, friends & relatives, functions & holidays, this lens is quite okay for you.

It may not be the right one if you're into specifics, such as color shade differences, comparing the picture quality from corner to corner and a difference of 5% is not acceptable for you or your work.

I am not an 'event' or 'holiday' photographer at all. That would be only 20% of my work. I carry my camera everyday outside and shoot buildings, landscapes, parks, flowers, objects, colours and a particular interest is portraits of friends, colleagues and kids (hence I love that 50 mm 1.8). In short, I am a hobbyist more than a casual photographer.

On top of that, being an architect, I have a certain interest in buildings. A certain portion of my photography is my own or others architectural work, including sites which are still greenfield / brownfield.

[download2live]

I had almost zeroed on the D3100+Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens.
The only point which held me back was that the D3100 did not have option to store the custom settings like my LX3. And I hate post processing.

But that prime lens. Someday I will have it.

[lazy]

Bangalore Nikon-BHPians

I am looking to buy the 35mm f/1.8 DX.
Nikon website lists it at 13170/- & flipkart at 12775/-.

Can I get a better price elsewhere?
Please let me know (with phone no of the store if possible).

cheers
lazy

[sachinj12]

Originally Posted by lazy

Bangalore Nikon-BHPians

I am looking to buy the 35mm f/1.8 DX.
Nikon website lists it at 13170/- & flipkart at 12775/-.

Can I get a better price elsewhere?
Please let me know (with phone no of the store if possible).

cheers
lazy

You can try Jayesh's shop-Foto Circle at Brigade Plaza,Anand Rao circle. There are few others who are reliable, but I personally prefer Jayesh as I know him well.I am usually billed lower than what he offers others. You may want to contact BHPian Shajufx, he might know other reliable sellers

[Rachit.K.Dogra]

Hi Guys,

I am in big trouble. I am planning to buy a DSLR.
Two options:
1) Canon 550D.
2) Nikon D5100.


My head says canon as it is cheaper and has some advantages over the nikon one. My heart says nikon as I have used a nikon d3000 for a month. I like the interface plus what I have read is that Nikon has slightly better picture quality and low light performance.

I am newbie and want to explore photography. But I have used the Nikon d3000 in manual mode for a month.

Some questions:
1) Is Nikon better picture quality and better low light performance worth extra 10K?
2) Canon has an advantage in terms of an inbuilt motor for autofocusing lenses. Are there good and cheap lenses which does not have autofocussing motors for canon. if yes please share some examples.
3) Nikon stocks seem to be a big problem as because of thailand floods there production is hit. Please share any please where I can find some good deals on Nikon.
4) Movie Modes is not much of criteria for me. I am looking more in terms of Still Photography.

Please share suggestions early as the deadline for offer on ebay lasts till tomorrow.

Thanks in advance

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@Raj
Over all softness? Have you shot with it first hand? If yes, then explain the crisp,clear,detailed quality you see in the "Why" Video. If no, then you are clearly just speculating. Let the product ship and then I will continue this discussion.
Cheers!

In my circle, only one person has been lucky enough to shoot a video on d4 so far and his conclusion from 30sec video is overall softness. But this was a pre production model and not actual production firmware, so anything can happen when we get the camera delivered to us.

[kartikk]

Anyone excited about Act of Valor?

IMDb - Act of Valor (2012)


*First full feature movie shot on Canon 5D Mark II (full HD)