The Canon Thread - Page 141

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomscy2000 

 

Ah okay, I've been thinking about trying to shoot something with a slider synchronized to the rising and setting of the sun, but I can't get my hands on a slider...

I mostly want to get one to change perspective. I feel like that separates the really great time-lapse from the amateur; a subtle change in perspective. I worked on a few clay-mation videos a few years ago, and we actually used a manual system to move the camera consistently between captures. Home built rig made out of a large threaded rod, piping, and skateboard wheels. Shame I don't have the patience or time to manually crank something like that for these...

I also hear that some telescope bases can do this stuff very well.

some pics I took with the Rokinon fisheye (fully manual)

pics with the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron

  This last one could have been better, but I feel fortunate enough to have caught this. 

Just got back from a Portland Timbers soccer game....the 18-200 was perfect!!!!!  will post some pics soon.  I don't think I can get rid of it now....  in fact, I may just get the 30mm f/1.4 prime, sell the 17-50mm f/2.8, and keep the fisheye and 18-200mm.  I think I'll have pretty much all my bases covered--what do you think....get rid of the 17-50 2.8? 

wow, THE jude :D  Thanks for the pics--they look great.  I'm more encouraged to get the 30mm Sigma lens and also keep the 18-200mm now after finding so much use for it today. 

the pics look a little hazy from the screen window I was shooting through at an angle I think. 

I'll post a couple from today's soccer game.  pretty pleased with the results.  Used my tripod as a monopod on my lap or propped against my belt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyogen 

 

Your dollface Persian is adorable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyogen 

  This last one could have been better, but I feel fortunate enough to have caught this. 

 

Just got back from a Portland Timbers soccer game....the 18-200 was perfect!!!!!  will post some pics soon.  I don't think I can get rid of it now....  in fact, I may just get the 30mm f/1.4 prime, sell the 17-50mm f/2.8, and keep the fisheye and 18-200mm.  I think I'll have pretty much all my bases covered--what do you think....get rid of the 17-50 2.8? 

This shot is so awesome despite being lacking in the technical sense. Great capture!

In my opinion, I do not think it would be a good idea to lose the 17-50/2.8. The 18-200 may be great in good light, but I'm not sure if you will be happy with it replacing the 17-50 in less-than-optimal lighting conditions that you've been using the 17-50 in.

A new 30/1.4 may do better in low light, but I think the 17-50 is just too versatile to get rid of.

I was too distracted by your kitty and didn't notice this line --- no way!

haha, ok I'm going to keep the 17-50.  It was actually kind of nice to have the 18-200 range at the soccer game because I could take shots of my wife and I handheld without having to change lenses.  

The bokeh I can get with the 17-50 f/2.8 is quite nice especially when zoomed in (probably to around 30-50mm.....so I guess the 30mm f/1.4 lens will be for shots where I can stand a little further from my subject and take portraits (like that of the little boy) and have a nice blurry background?   And indoor shots when I can stand back far enough..  otherwise, taking pics of stuff like headphones -- that should probably be the least of my worries since the 17-50 2.8 does bokeh pretty well at around 30-50mm.  It's labeled as a "MACRO" lens.....as is the 18-200mm..  the 18-200mm is not really ideal for macro I've found--you have to be too far from the object and need a tripod.  

Thanks for the cat compliments--will be sure to not let her hear them.  This is my first cat ever and I'm quite unhappy that she hisses at me pretty much everyday when I pick her up and hold her with her lying on her back.  She's used to be super sweet all the time.  We take her for walks and in the car a lot--she's used to it.  I guess my plans of raising her like a dog won't pan out forever.  FYI, she is a Persian Chinchilla (non-extreme...the extreme ones have really scrunched up faces).  We might be looking for a stud actually so we can have one litter of kittens.  

Back to lenses, here are shots from yesterday taken with the 18-200mm Tamron.  I downloaded from facebook, so they aren't as sharp as the originals..I also normally take pics at I think 4-5MP.  Some but not all were taken at around 1/500 at either 3200 or 1600ISO.  Again, used the tripod as a monopod on my lap / hip when standing up.  

This is where we were sitting.  It's the front section I think Row K.  I might buy tickets for the LA Galaxy Game (worse seats and more expensive--but Beckham and Donovan will be playing........)   #12 was a korean player named Lee Young Pyo (Y.P.Lee), who my wife recognized as being one of the top players in Korea back in the day...played in the World Cup(s) and on Korea's national team for many years.  She was quite surprised to see him playing for the Vancouver (BC) Whitecaps. He is 35 now apparently  This is the Timbers' 2nd season on the MLS.  We have a couple of pretty good players.  If you follow soccer you might have seen a clip of Nagbe's famous goal where he juggles the ball (once) and then kicks it into the goal while still in mid-air.   Goooooal.  Someone's hand got in my shot :P          

After last night, I am lusting even more for the 7D for the much higher FPS.  I used to have a Casio Exilim point and shoot that took 40 full sized pictures in one second (10pics with strobe flash).  It was one of their high-speed models---always was really fun to take pics and shoot videos with.  (EX-FH20 I believe)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyogen 
The bokeh I can get with the 17-50 f/2.8 is quite nice especially when zoomed in (probably to around 30-50mm.....so I guess the 30mm f/1.4 lens will be for shots where I can stand a little further from my subject and take portraits (like that of the little boy) and have a nice blurry background?   And indoor shots when I can stand back far enough..  otherwise, taking pics of stuff like headphones -- that should probably be the least of my worries since the 17-50 2.8 does bokeh pretty well at around 30-50mm.  It's labeled as a "MACRO" lens.....as is the 18-200mm..  the 18-200mm is not really ideal for macro I've found--you have to be too far from the object and need a tripod. 

For the sake of the forum format and keeping it very simple: depth of field (depth-of-field is the portion of your photograph that is in focus--that which is out of focus we'll call bokeh or blur) is determined by several things.  The most crucial of those things are focal length, aperture, and distance to subject.

The first thing to remember is that you have a certain distance in focus.  Your depth of field will surround this area in focus and everything inside that field will appear in focus as well.  For any given depth of field, roughly 1/3 of it is in front of the focus distance and 2/3 behind the focus distance.  So, you will have twice as much in focus behind your subject than in front.  So, if you focus distance is set at 10-feet and your focal length, and aperture combine such that you have depth of field 6 feet deep, roughly everything from 8 feet to 14 feet will appear in focus.

Now we look at focal length and aperture.  If you divide the focal length by the maximum f-stop, you will get an indication of how much bokeh you can get (i.e. how much will be out of focus).  A 35mm f/2 lens - 17.5.  An 85mm f/1.2 lens ~71.  A 600 f/4 lens ~150.  The higher that number, the more blur you can get.  So, inherently, wide angle lenses physically cannot deliver as much bokeh as a telephoto.  Yes, you can still get blur but not as much.  FWIW, the quotient in these calculations actually means something but it's too much detail for this discussion.

Now, finally, lets look at distance to subject.  Let's say, for example, that your focus distance is set to 10 feet.  So something that is 5 feet behind it is 50% farther away than the focus distance.  Now lets say your focus distance is 50 ft: something that is 5 feet farther away is only 10% farther than the focus distance.  To get the same 50% farther away than the focus distance, you're talking 75-feet.  So, the farther that something is from the camera, the more around it will be in focus.

Ultimately, if you want Bokeh, you're talking telephoto lenses, big aperatures, and close distances (or very large difference in distance between in-focus subject and background).  Wide angle lenses, even fast ones, just can't get the same job done.

A couple of examples:

I don't remember the exact settings but this was shot at a large aperture so there should be a pretty narrow depth-of-field but the focus distance is pretty far and it's a pretty wide lens so both of those minimize bokeh and pretty much everything is in focus:

This was shot with a 100mm Macro at f/2.8 so large aperture, somewhat long lens, and very close focus distance (this is about 90% of the original image.  I did a slight crop to fix the composition and straighten it a bit).

You can see the OMEGA on the right is in focus but parts of the gear train and mainspring only millimeters farther away are already out of focus.

So, similar apertures on the two above, but different focus distances and focal lengths lead to very different depths of field..  I don't have it in my Photobucket account but I could show you an image shot at 300mm @ f/5.6 that has the creamiest, smoothest bokeh you'll ever see.  Long lens, focus distance very close, and a background quite far away.

Long story short, remember that focal length, focus distance, and aperture all have an effect on bokeh.

EDIT:

Here's another example:

This was taken with the same 100 Macro @ f/2.8 but you can see that the focus distance is much farther away (but still quite close).  Here you can see the depth of field getting larger, probably a 1-2 inches deep instead of millimeters even with the same lens and aperture.  Again, farther focus distance, more depth of field.

ah that makes a lot of sense.  Thank you.  I actually joined a Canon photography forum--haha....yet another addiction to conquer.  I've been realizing that more this past weekend.  I guess that's why people use like an 85mm for portraits and not a wider lens.  With a f/1.4 aperture I tend to think I'm gonna get so much bokeh, but that'll really only be for when I'm really close to the subject.  Whereas, a long focal length lens I can use at a farther distance and still get a lot of bokeh...the only limitation is that I have to get far enough away from the subject to fit them in my frame of view.  And this is why I feel like I want way more bokeh when taking pictures/portraits outdoors using my 17-50mm 2.8.

so...........in that case... what lens should I get?  Now that I'm pretty sure that I'm keeping this quite useful 18-200mm (3.5-6.3) lens?  Another thing I realized was how much of a difference 3.5 and 4.5 apertures are.  I'm surprised at how much better this 18-200 performs than my previous 75-300 4.5+ lens.  I'm sure it has to do with the quality of the glass as well. 

Lastly, I'm also finding that f/2.8 is slightly lacking for me indoors in some cases...wish it were faster for actions shots in lower light indoors.  So that might still point me to the 30mm 1.4

Talking full frame, 85, 135, and, even, 200mm are classic "head and shoulder" portrait lenses because they allow the photographer to stand far away from the subject and still fill the frame with the head and shoulders.  If you wanted to do the same with 35mm or 50mm, you'd have to stand very close to the subject and you'll get a very weird looking subject because of the perspective.  You'll end up with big noses, foreheads, chins, etc..  A little like the dog you photographed while sitting above.  His muzzle looks very long because of the short focal length and short distance to subject.  35mm or 50mm make good full body portrait lenses, though.

Remember crop factor, though, so a 50mm lens on a crop body is a pretty good head and shoulders portrait lens.

Sorry if I'm monopolizing this thread: slow day at work today!

Bottom line, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 will make an excellent indoors lens because it is fast and it is a good length for full body portraits; it's probably a little short for head and shoulder portraits.

FWIW, the Scott Kelby books are generally good and easy to digest if you want to buy a reference for the "rules and guidelines" of photography.

i gotta leave for class..will read above post soon more thoroughly. 

in other news.....my 18-200mm lens just sold on amazon........lol.  so I guess i have even more options now...........  i sold for a little more than $50 profit....bought on craigslist....

so if my budget is now more like 550-650.............is there any one or two lenses you'd recommend for me?   I'm open to buying the exact same 18-200 lens again on craigslist  :P   so maybe something that is more like a good quality 85-300 zoom?? 

keep in mind i have 17-50 2.8 still, fisheye.   please help me cover my bases...  i

30mm 1.4 still?  save a little more for a 35L lens........?      Remember I plan on upgrading to the crop 7D in a year or two.  I doubt i'll go fullframe for a long while.  

Here's the 300mm image I mentioned.  It's not a good photo but I was playing around with the lens and I was struck by the bokeh.  Subject flower was pretty close to minimum focus distance (~4 feet) and the background was about 10 feet farther away and you can see that the somewhat small aperture of f/5.6 still gets the job done because of the combination of focal length and subject distance.

Yeah, with long focal length, one can often get away with highish f/stop and still get some nice bokeh. Following is a 280mm shot (70-200 at 200mm+ 1.4x Kenko Teleconverter) at f/4.5. Unfortunately, to get even longer reach than 280mm with great IQ quickly ruins the pocketbook. Anybody have good experience with Canon 400mm f/5.6 (unfortunately won't AF with teleconverter and no IS) or third party lenses >=400mm?

I think the Kenko DG or DGX ("X" gives you correct Exif data in files)1.4x teleconverters are the best third party TC from what I've seen and read. I've seen comparison with Canon 1.4x MkII where Kenko was sharper. I took below photo yesterday at 280mm f/4.