File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/

I'm currently sporting the 17-85mm f/4 from Canon, which is exellent for streetphotography (a tad expensive though). I'm currently looking around for a telezoom for candigphotography, and the 70-300 f/4 from Sigma and Tamron. They seem pretty similar to me, and I've used my friend's Tamron version.

Problem is that the Tamron version is almost €60 cheaper than the Sigma version, yet I don't see much difference. Are the Sigma lenses of better quality or something?

I currently can't spend more than €200 as I am going on vacation on the 14th and I want one of these.

Getting one of these this afternoon if I can find a decent price in a store.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:03 12:42:58Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width530Image Height240
>> Anonymous
1. f/4 is not excellent for street photography. It's usable but less than ideal. I use a 35mm f/2.0.

2. Don't use a telephoto or telezoom for candids. It gets you in the habit of sneaking photos and taking pictures like a paparazzo or a voyeur, instead of getting down in the action. Not to mention that shorter focal lengths generally make prettier candids through perspective exaggeration...pretty much the only place you really want to use a lens that's longer than normal is portraits (2x normal) or wildlife (whatever you can handle).

Anyway, I've used sigmas and they're good lenses in general. Tamrons I have no experience with. Take a photo at the widest angle and widest aperture, since you'll probably be using both of those a lot in your candids, and compare -- see which one you like better.
>> Anonymous !uz8u2XmvbY
canon 85mm
do it.
>> Anonymous
>>216519

I was told candid is actually not interfering with whatever you're photographing, and doing it from a distance, hence the name "candid camera" (the tv show).

f/4 is fine for streetphotography, I use a flash when close or use a high ISO.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
There's a reason why all the famous guys used fast primes shorter than 50mm for their street photography, and it's not just because it gets against the spirit of being immersed in the environment you're shooting. With a long lens, the chances of you having someone come between you and the subject during a candid is really high, forcing you to take higher angles that just aren't that interesting most of the time for street.

200 Euros gets you the Sigma 28/1.8 or Canon 35/2 easily and the Sigma 24/1.8 is just out of your range. Consider those for candids.

If you actually want a cheap telezoom for other reasons, I see no reason why not to get those on such a budget. Or perhaps one of the 50ish-200ish zooms.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>216521
Okay you use a flash when you do street photography? 0/10, thread over.
>> Anonymous
It's more like 17-85 F5.6

F5.6 == hell
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>216523
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM
sup
>> Anonymous
Some things:

>f/4 is not excellent for street photography. It's usable but less than ideal.

Lol wut? Street is usually done at smaller apertures to allow for the whole prefocusing thing better.

It's obviously better to have a faster lens for when you need it, but f/4 is fine "for street." Before he got a Summicron-M fifty, Cartier-Bresson's fifty was f/3.5, not much slower. And film was much slower then.

>all the famous guys used fast primes shorter than 50mm for their street photography,

A miinor correction is in order: used primes 50mm or shorter

>Sigma 28/1.8

Not a good lens for street. Sounds like it is, but they packed macro, f/1.8, and 28mm all into one package, making the lens massive.

>Okay you use a flash when you do street photography? 0/10, thread over.

Bruce Gilden and David Alan Harvey are doing it wrong?
>I was told candid is actually not interfering with whatever you're photographing, and doing it from a distance, hence the name

Candid is not just not staged. Usually not interfering, but not always.

It can be done from any distance, but street and documentary photography is best done close. "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."- Robert Capa.
>> Anonymous
what's needed for street photography?
>> Anonymous
>>216648
A good eye, fast reflexes, usually not too wide, a talent for composition, human sensitivity, and the balls (need not be literal) to walk up to a person and shove a camera in their face coupled with the charm not to come off as an asshole or the apathy not to care.

A small, quiet camera and a normal or wide (but not too wide) lens helps.
>> Anonymous
>>216650
Strike the first "usually not to wide."

Messed up the editing.

While I'm at it, replace "lens" with "prime lens."
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>216647
Oh God, nice catch there. In my fury at the mediocrity of my own 35/3.5 (50mm equiv on my RF, so I guess I'm channeling HCB hurr hurr), I completely forgot that yeah it makes more sense to stop down and shoot hyperfocally.

28/1.8 is huge, but I doubt it's any huger than the 17-85, while being much more versatile (fast aperture, though as noted this may not come in use so often) and much more specific to the task (good length) at the same time.

I had no idea DAH uses a flash for street. When I think flash + street, I think Weegee, which I figured OP wasn't really going for. Could you show some examples? I'm honestly intrigued.
>> Anonymous
>>216648
http://2point8.whileseated.org/2005/09/06/rule-1/

Read this.
Also, a consistent habit.
>> Anonymous
>>216902
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkIWW6vwrvM

don't cry. He's in magnum
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>216907
I kinda want to actually. What the hell does he want to achieve? If it's photos of bewildered people then I guess he's found a winning technique.
>> Anonymous
>>216643
>>216907
Wow, loved the vid! I love watching the pros do their thing! It's nice to know that I'm not the only photog who turns into a prick now and again...

>>216951
You've gotta point, it can start to feel like that. But I think the point is to snap the photo before the person knows what's going on and has a chance to change position. To be honest, a flash won't interfere if you get it right the first time. The jig's up after that one shot. Now if you're actually trying to get more than one shot of one subject, then it's a bad idea. However, Gilden obviously doesn't get that attached to his subjects (which is good, cause then it's not harrassment).
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>216979
The five or six examples I saw in the video before I closed it were of people with their eyes bugged out and a "get this hobo away from me" look. Interesting? Maybe, but that's sure not what they looked like before the photographer got there.
>> Anonymous
>28/1.8 is huge, but I doubt it's any huger than the 17-85

So why not improve all around? A Canon 28/2.8 or 28/1.8 (which has awful bokeh, but let's not go there) would be better and probably cheaper. The f/2.8 definitely is; the 50/1.8 is the only EF lens cheaper, and with the nice high ISOs on digital it's fast enough for most everything.

(In before people who don't know how to handhold and insist on absolute sharpness.)

>I had no idea DAH uses a flash for street.

He uses one all the time, or at least did on film. Remember "Cuba" was shot 100% on Velvia 50 without any pushing at all; he needed the flash (a cheap consumer Vivitar which he always set on automatic!) the use the films he wanted to; I read him saying in an interview he "always used the slowest film possible."

He seems to use it less now with the M8's cleaner files, judging from what he puts up on his website.

Here's a few where it's obvious, though from video I saw of him working on the "Cuba" book he used it for fill a lot.

http://www.davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=7&p=1
http://www.davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=7&p=1
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/cuba10.htm
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9910/cuba17.htm

>>216986
He talks about it later on in the video, why he does it.
>> Anonymous
>>217013
When I said "website" I meant "blog." He's got both of them, one (the website) just used for an incomplete gallery of his work and showing off the work of his protegees from his blog, which is updated pretty often, usually with recent win illustrating the post.
>> Anonymous
>>217013
>28/1.8 (which has awful bokeh, but let's not go there)

Actually, let's talk about that. I'm in the market for an USM/HSM prime because I'm not a big fan of the 35/2 whining AF. I was leaning towards the 28/1.8 because I can use it on my film body unlike the sigma(which is reputed to have worse bokeh. can you say bermuda?)

What's up? Have you used it?
>> Anonymous
>>217019
No, but I've seen pictures taken with it, and read things on it that also rate its bokeh poorly. It's all smudgey and blotchy, instead of just a nice smoothing out.

You can use the Sigma 28/1.8 on your film body- unless, are you talking about the 30/1.4? I like the bokeh on that one, though some people nitpick about triangles sometimes showing up in it the overall effect is nice.

Here's some pictures from a quick Flickr search ("Canon 28/1.8" and "Sigma 30/1.4" and randomly clicking around, works wonders) selected to show off the bokeh of the two lenses:

http://flickr.com/photos/liang_2005/1842656506/
http://flickr.com/photos/mx5chris/408766307/
http://flickr.com/photos/mx5chris/400844303/
http://flickr.com/photos/jviiret/63544233/
(And it's not even much better stopped to down to f/4 it seems, judging from this one.)

http://flickr.com/photos/chilledsalad/167407688/
http://flickr.com/photos/sym621/2570766290/
http://flickr.com/photos/mingthein/875446125/
http://flickr.com/photos/wolfgang-ante/2475037029/

But subjective opinions are subjective. Look at some more samples and call it yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>217023

I haven't been following the thread, but between the samples you posted, I think I like the bokeh on the 28 1.8 better, personally.
>> Anonymous
>>217023
Bokeh seriously depends on the exact situation, judging lens bokeh from flickr is a pretty bad idea.
>> Anonymous
>>217023
the bokeh on the 28/1.8 does seem a little nervous, but you loose the full frame capability on the 30/1.4