File :-(, x, )
Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
So /p, with the upgrade from a 10D to 40D (a huge jump, one I'm glad I did), I was having a little fun shooting and decided to see just how sharp the 50/1.8 is.

I also thought this might be a good example of depth of field for /p; specifically, how unbelievably short it can be for "macro" subjects. These photos were taken at about 3ft from a tripod with a remote release.


The first photo is f/1.8$1/3rd; the second is f/2.8@1s, the third is f/8@8s (which is also a great example of how f-stops affect shutter speed.) ISO100, +1ev. Natural window light. No corrections; just straight raw from Aperture. JPEG compression @ "8" to keep the file sizes reasonable.

Note that in the first exposure, only a few very small areas up "high" are in focus. At f2.8, much more snaps into focus, and at f8, almost everything is in focus, and a speck of dust on the lens is now visible as a big circle, upper right corner. Note that the tallest objects in the photo are perhaps an inch off the table. For a further idea of size, these peelings are from 3 small Clementine oranges. Also of note is the file size, which takes an noticeable jump as the level of detail increases.

The low amount of noise even at an 8 second long exposure should be a decent example of how good canon's sensors are these days, although there are no mid-tone or dark areas in the photo, which is where noise is noticed first. I've been stunned at how good ISO1600 looks, even at 1:1.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3892Image Height2586
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
     File :-(, x)
F2.8...

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3892Image Height2586
>> Anonymous
we know
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Quite a jump in bodies indeed! Are you considering trying any of the EF-S lenses now you have a compatible body? There's some good buys to be had there.

It's a nice example. It's worth remembering with those wide primes and in portrait work. It gets a lot worse if you ever do true macro work. I've had a quarter segment of a fly's eye in focus when I've fluffed it. A nightmare for composition, but a challange is good.
>> Anonymous
Good learning experiment but you don't need to share this with us.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
     File :-(, x)
...and the last shot at F8. I have another shot at F11, but it was starting to soften up a bit due to diffraction.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3892Image Height2586
>> Anonymous
>>93510
A much better way to do this in order to see the effects of aperture would be to use a subject with more depth such as a series of the same object placed in a line and shot at a 45 degree angle so you can clearly see when one is in focus then others slowly come into focus as the aperture shrinks.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
>>93507

I beg to differ. Half of /p hasn't gotten beyond "here's a shot of my emo friend in their hoodie half-lit tilted sideways with half their body cut off. Is this a good photo y/n?"

Plenty of people ask about learning, and depth of field is a pretty important area to 'get'. Many people understand it, but don't realize just HOW important it becomes at close distances or with longer lenses.

This is a pure technical example. Nothing more. Relax.

>>93506

Kind of. I think the EF-s macro is interesting. The new wide IS zoom is also VERY interesting; I'm very curious as to how it stacks up against my 17-40.

Smaller, IS, significantly faster, probably lighter? Sounds like four great reasons. The only downsides seems to be price and build quality; guess they don't want to completely kill 17-40 or 16-35 sales. The big question mark is quality, but hey- if you can get the shot at 2.8 with IS but can't at f4 minus it, then deeply scrutinizing comparison shots isn't terribly germane.
>> Anonymous
>>93515
and we shoo away that half of /p/ and tell them to go learn something before coming back
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93515

I've used the 60mm macro for a while and it's certainly impressive to my eyes. Optically, it's just as good as the other macro lenses in the Canon range and the build quality is also very good for a consumer lens. Unless you really need weather sealing to match a weather sealed body it's fine. As a plus the 60mm front element doesn't rotate or move at all. They've not cut back on the quality of the glass for these crop body lenses, it would seem.

I like the lighter lenses, especially for macro work outside where I can get tired easily if I have to hold a longer and heavier lens steady. If I have to hike and hand hold for miles or in the cold then weight is an issue. The only thing I'd consider the longer ones for right now is more sensitive subjects like dragonflies, but it's not impossible to use the 60mm if you are patient enough.

I recently got the 17-55 and I'm pretty impressed with it so far. It was a toss up between that and the 17-40. Early days, lack of time and terrible weather and lighting has limited my use of it, but it's living up to everything I've read so far. Build quality feels solid enough, on a par with and a similar look to the the 60mm macro and I believe the 50mm 1.4 too. It doesn't feel flimsy or loose like the 50mm 1.8 or the 18-55 kit lens. The IQ isn't lacking either. A lot of the test shots from it are very pleasing. If Canon had given it the full weather sealed case, lens hood and pouch it could have been an L lens (much the same for the 60mm macro).
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93518

I was sceptical about the IS in a wide angle at first as I'd been told it wouldn't make a difference, but after even the simplest tests it's impossible to deny it allows me to get a shot in conditions I simply couldn't before. For most photographers that's going to be a great thing. Especially so if you are in uncontrollable or variable conditions (usually that means anything outside of a scheduled shoot or a studio for most folk). Combined with the wide aperture it's going to be my ideal general purpose lens to have on the body as standard now.

The IS was impressive enough that I got a Nikon using friend to start upgrading his kit to VR versions of his lenses. It's like having monopod stability in your hands.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
onboard > lense

:P

anyway this is godamn boring.
>> Rawr !pBDDkuoH3.
Bump just to piss off>>93525
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>93529
I actually saged myself for some rather obvious trolling not due to the bordom level of this thread.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93525

It'd have been nicer and more interesting with a better set-up and subject, I think.

Also: lens > on board - any more of this tomfoolery and I shall challenge thee to pistols at dawn!
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>93515

I for one appreciate this post, fuck those arseholes who say other wise. /P/ still gets too much myspace shots and what should i buy threads.

I've got no problems with technical discussion, but if i see another D40 or D80 (they're both great, just get the d80 or d40 and more accessories) i might just switch to Sony to spite myself.

Blackadder, i also agree that VR is great for wide angles, i was spoilt for it when i still used my 18-200 VR, even though it prob would have been more useful at the long end, i only used it at the wide end and found it did definitnely help.

I somewhat miss it on my 17-55, but apparently VR is detrimental to bokeh???
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93543

Detrimental to bokeh? You've got me stumped there. That's the first I've heard of it. I know the 70-200 2.8 IS is considered a dream wedding and portrait lens. I've seen some very pleasing shots with it. I've never had any reports or complaints from anyone about unpleasant background blur for portraits or any other shots. I'd expect folks to have complained loudly if their wedding portraits came out badly.

I'll have to try it out with my own lens and anyone else's gear I can try (Nikon using friend with VR too) and see if I can notice anything that stands out.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>93553

it may well be a throwaway line i read on Flickr forums... but the problem is, how on earth do you measure bokeh? so forget i even mentioned, i'm starting to think it was bollocks.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93561

The only measurement for bokeh that I know is if it looks pretty and smooth to the eye. What else matters? I don't think there's any standard other than that. With longer focal lengths, wide apertures or circular apertures all thrown in it's usually all good.

If I've got the camera in a controlled set up and I remember, maybe I'll give it a shot to see. It won't cost to try.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I could see how IS might be bad for bokeh. It moves to keep you sharp on the focused spot, but I could see the parallax movement of the background stuff making the bokeh all ugly. But that's just a random theory I pulled out of my ass just now.

I just got the 18-55 IS last week, and I'm enjoying it. I'm planning to shoot some desperately boring resolution chart test shots with it to compare it against my 18-55 kit lens one of these days when I'm not doing holiday vacationing.
>> Anonymous
>>93711
According to the test at SLRgear, the new 18-55 IS is a definite improvement over the non-IS version. Well, it's about time Canon kit lenses stopped sucking...
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>93736
Last I heard, it's not the kit lens yet for Canons. Although I wouldn't imagine that's very far off, given the 18-55VR that Nikon just announced it'll be bundling.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I tried all kinds of apertures with this. Finally I ended up using f11 to get the whole angel sharp :-<

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern838Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:11:22 06:56:55Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/11.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmComment(c) Antti HakkarainenColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width533Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>93757
I think we'll see it bundled with the next model in the Rebel/xxxD line, if not sooner. IS is now a good selling point for low-end DSLRs, and Canon and Nikon are a bit behind lesser camera makers on that.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>93761

I think I remember some people mentioning they got it with the 40D recently. Either Canon or some shops have taken the initiative.
>> Anonymous
>>93757

Nikon isn't putting their 18-55 VR in kits yet either.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>93795
Yeah, but they've announced that they're going to. So I can't see Canon being far behind.
>> Anonymous
>>93808

Any date on when VR will be out with the kits?