I had a 50D body
- canon 70-200
-sigma 12-24
-sigma 30mm f/1.4
- 62 and 67mm circular polarizers.
-Canon 580exII
-cactus v4 transmitters

But I sold that because of school and I'm just photographing with my late grandfathers Konica T2.

The Konica has
200mm 2.8 prime
28mm 1.8 prime
52mm 1.8 prime
All the Konica stuff is still in the original leather casings and still has the factory smooth finish.


Here's some of my stuff I've shot with the DSLR.

Friends Impreza STI


Volcanic eruption in Iceland ~3 years ago



old 528 still kickin' it


buddies VR4 in rallycross


Buddies mustang cobra powered volvo


Then I got a bit closer to the volcano



Those were just some highlights. the rest is in here Flickr: G3ML1NGZ's Photostream

 

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
Tamron 17-50VC f2.8
Canon 70-300is
Canon 430ex flash

Plus a few other things, tripods, a light stand and some home made soft boxes

A couple of results

My '5

MX5 Turbo Strobist by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr

Me racing a MK3

Me - Max5racing! by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr

Lightpainted MK3 racer

Jeremy's Max5 race car by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr

 

because of the crop sensor the 35mm on a crop is almost equal to the 50mm on a full frame camera. I agree with you that a 30-35mm is a really good portrait lens.

I had the sigma 30mm f/1.4 and when I get into the digital game again I'll get it again in a heartbeat.

 

still dont get why you guys want wide angle portrait lenses. are you really very pro nose?

 

I don't think we really want "portrait lenses". Its just that the 50mm is a little too zoomy on a DX camera, so the next as fast lens happens to be the 35mm. I wish someone could make a 18-300mm at f/2.0 so I could carry a single lens, and not the armada of lenses I do right now.

 

mm =| distortion. like my 12-24 had reasonably straight lines while the sigma 10-20 is way more distorted. it all comes down to lens design. But 35on the crop sensor~50mm on a full frame. So it all comes down to each individual lens and what sensor size it's mated with.

Check it.

 

I'm not talking distortion, I'm talking distance from subject.

 

This! For portraits, you should really be using 75-100mm 35mm equivalent focal lengths for portraits, otherwise you end up with very large noses. I have a set demonstrating this with a car picture somewhere, I shall find it....

My T4i with 18-135mm has arrived finally! It is pretty sweet. I'm loving the ability to switch between touch screen and hardware buttons. I'll be navigating the menus with the hardware buttons, then forget what I need to press to go forwards/backwards/etc and simply touch the screen to accomplish what I wanted.

The LCD is beautiful compared to the D40.

Up to ISO 3200 is usable for me.

The 18-135 STM is great. IMO it is THE lens that I would choose if I were stranded on an island with nothing else.

Too drunk to continue with this post, so I leave you with this:

 

Is it just me, or does Canon's selection of budget lenses kind of suck compared to Nikon?

Most of the Nikon lenses from the 50mm 1.8 to the 18-105 or 18-135 get good reviews for performance given the low price. But it seems like every lower-end Canon lens I look up has terrible reviews...

I'm considering selling the D50 setup (body, 50mm 1.8, 18-135mm) and switching to Canon, but the lens situation kind of turns me off.

 

I did not notice any problems with the lower-end lenses from Canon. I already assumed there are problems with the lower-end lenses of both brands. I've looked at both brands.

 

Gear:
D70s
Sigma 10-20
Nikon 18-70
Nikon 70-300
Nikon 35 1.8
Nikon SB600

A few of my better shots:

 

What would one recommend for a hobby lens to replace/compliment a Canon digital Rebel XT with the basic 18-55mm lens it came with?

 

I used the XT for many years, until I just recently replaced it with a T2i.
Its a great camera except that it is quite noisy, its really terrible in low light. You pretty much want to leave the ISO low and use a lot of light.

I would highly suggest getting the Canon F/1.8 50mm prime. It is the best bang for your buck, especially considering how much you need that large aperture because of the issue I mentioned above.

You can keep that 18-55 around for wider stuff, until you get a better wide angle. I have an old Tamron 17-35 that gets used more heavily than any lens Ive owned.



Earlier in the thread I posted a few pics I had taken with the T2i, but I have taken nearly ten thousand pics with my XT, here is a few random ones from my photobucket:

 

Thanks for the advice. I just added it to my Amazon wish list. One review says the only flaw is it will show body blemishes so sharp that you wouldn't otherwise even see them in a mirror.

 

Fast lenses (smaller numbered f stops) are great, and primes make them a great value! Plus on bodies with a crop sensor (all but full frames) you get a larger focal length. A 50 mm is more like a 75, which is great for portraits and general shallow depth of field shots.

 

Do you guys bother putting UV filters on your lenses anymore? I used to do that when I shot film, and out of habit I was planning on buying UV filters for my new Canon setup. I searched the Canon forum to doublecheck on the right sizes, and came across a lot of threads in which it was advised that UV filters are unnecessary now because digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV light like film is, so all you're really doing is just adding one more glass element to possibly degrade the image.

Thoughts?

 

The primary reason people put UV filters on their lenses these days is to provide a layer of protection. My problem with them is most of them decrease contrast and degrade the image noticeably, especially when light sources are in the shot. I have filters on my lenses, but often remove them when shooting due to their affect on quality.

 

I still use UV filters (because I have them) but Im only using them as skyight filters to protect the lens.
So just buy skylight filters.

 

I do. I had both strap hooks on my backpack break and my 100-400L fell 4ft to the floor of the train. Fortunately it landed on the ring of the UV filter and destroyed it- not my lens. Protect your glass.

You mentioned canon's entry level lenses- the 50 1.8 prime is awesome and I also think the 18-55 IS kit lens is great as long as you stay out of the extremes. This is coming from someone who has owned several L lenses. The entry level lenses are great because they're light weight and small.

 

I want to get a real set of gradiented ND filters. but I have a UV filter on all my lens just to protect...

maybe ill ask for somethign like this for xmas:
then i can shot more cats in natural landscapes.