The "other" hobby [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The "other" hobby


Lone Wolf8634
07-12-2008, 16:46
Now that I'm getting close to having my gunsafe full of my various "Gotta haves" I thought I'd turn to the other hobby I've always been interested in.
So last year I bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT. It came with a EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lense. I played around with this for a while then bought a EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM. Now that I've played with it for a year or so I seem to have gotten bit by another bug.

So, as some of you know, I'm a truck driver and I travel around the country a lot, which should afford me the chance at some good pics. Not to mention I am "allowed" to have my camera's on the truck with me. Something I cant do with the other hobby.

So my question to you is: What lenses/other equipment would you recomend for an amatuer to purchase if I'm interested in the following:

Landscapes
Wildlife
portrait
Extreme close up (Macro?)

I'm already looking into taking a photography class, but with my line of work that may be a problem, so it will probly be a "learn as you go" type of experience. Which means I'll be bothering you guys!

For the most part, the professional lenses are out of my economic reach but I can save for just about anything else that would help me out.

Thanks.

Glkster19
07-13-2008, 08:25
I recently purchased a Sigma 18-125. Got it just in time for a trip to the UP. Was very happy with the pictures it took. It has image stabilization for us amateur photographers.

The Canon 70-200 lens' always take great pics, but you mentioned a limited budget I think. The cheapest in that line with IS is going to run you about $1k.

For portrait pics, find yourself a Canon 50mm 1.4, under $400 brand new and used around $300. Great lens for the money.

I'm sure others will chime in here shortly that know way more than I.

hwyhobo
07-13-2008, 09:20
Get a cushioned rig for your camera and a wireless remote, so you can mount it in your truck and take pictures safely while you're driving. A light and bright fixed-focus wide lens would be nice. Then experiment with shutter speed and set it manually to eliminate shake. Let the camera set aperture.

Hokie
07-13-2008, 09:29
For the most part, the professional lenses are out of my economic reach but I can save for just about anything else that would help me out.

Thanks.

It is worth it to save up for great glass. Unlike a body that is discontinued and replaced with a new model every 2 or so years you will use a great lens forever and will not become obsolete like the body. If for some reason you do sell it will hold its resale value unlike lower quality lenses. Get the best you can afford to get.

bigzebra
07-13-2008, 13:06
You may want to look into the Canon EFS 10-22mm, which is the only true wide angle lens for the crop bodies. It really allows for some spectacular shots. It runs about $699, give or take about forty bucks. It is really worth it!

Shop around on B&H or Amazon.

As an added bonus, the 10-22mm is reportedly on par with an L lens- Cannon's top of the line professional lenses.

MrsKitty
07-13-2008, 13:40
How much of a budget do you have now or forsee?

You are going to discover that you will basically need a different lens for each of these subjects: landscapes, wildlife, portraits and macro. One thing worth noting is that a lot of macro lenses will also double as a great portrait lens if they aren't too sharp for your taste--a lot of people find them to be because of wanting to minimize flaws but just as many love them so it is a matter of taste.

For wildlife you are going to need something long. I have had my 70-200 around six weeks and I love it. That and a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter will get you more than enough reach for most skittish animals. I went with the f/4 IS version because I wanted the extra speed IS would give me but the 2.8 was too heavy. For me, it was an awesome compromise. You may not care for IS, or for the 2.8 version. For the non IS f/4, you can get it for around $600 new, with IS it goes up to $1100 which is about the same as the 2.8. If you are interested in any of the four models of the 70-200 you won't go wrong with either of them. :)

When I was looking at the a shorter prime, somebody suggested the Sigma 24-60 2.8 and I looked around and jumped on it. I got the lens and a good UV filter for about $250 from Cameta by going thru amazon.com and I am very pleased with it. Since I found this bargain (it's been discontinued so once the sellers who still have it sell out, you are looking at $1K and up for other lenses that perform like this in this range!) I have sung it's praises to anybody who would listen. Since I saved so much on this one I could then spring for the 70-200 f/4 IS (I also got a nice bonus I wasn't expecting that made it possible. Yeah, I know all about buying lenses on a budget :) )

For macro, if you stick to the 50mm choices you may can use it for portraits. I have heard of some wedding photogs using the 60mm EF-S macro just for bridal portraits. I have a 50mm 2.8 Sigma macro that I love.

I will throw out the Canon 50 1.8 as an awesome little lens. It is an excellent lens due to cost, speed and quality. Mine is a sharp little booger and if I had it to do over again, I would have bought it first instead of the kit lens---I learned so much using this lens. I have no plans to sell my kit but I believe I would have learned a lot faster with the nifty fifty when I knew absolutely nothing.

Lone Wolf8634
07-13-2008, 17:33
Lotsa Info here folks!! I just spent the last 4 hours cruisin around the internets researching your recomendations. I can think of worse ways to spend the day:supergrin:

So far what I've decided is to go with:
A 70-200 f/4 L IS USM. With a 2x extender it should take care of my long shots. (Thanks Misskitty5077)

An 50 mm f/1.4 USM. For portrait and macro. If I dont like it for the macro I can always get a 60 mm.(Glkster19 & misskitty5077:wavey:)

And as recomended a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for wide angle.(Bigzebra:cool:)

It'll be a while before I can get them all since this wishlist is upwards of $2300. Boy is my wife gonna be :steamed:

Another question is , what do i gain by buying the lower f/# compared to higher? Ex. 70-200mm f/2.8 compared to 70-200mm f/4? Other than making my wallet $500 lighter?

Hwyhobo: I dont think I would want to put my camera thru that kind of shaking!!! I cant think of any way to pad it enough to take some of the bouncing in this truck. When a truck driver says his truck rides like a dream, thats relative!!:rofl: While I'm rolling it stays in its nice padded case on the nice soft airseat.

Thanks for the info!! Any input as to my choices here would be appreciated also.

Now I need to figure out what I need for filters/flashes.

hwyhobo
07-13-2008, 17:53
Hwyhobo: I dont think I would want to put my camera thru that kind of shaking!!! I cant think of any way to pad it enough to take some of the bouncing in this truck.
And yet you do carry it inside the cabin, don't you?

MrsKitty
07-13-2008, 22:05
An 50 mm f/1.4 USM. For portrait and macro. If I dont like it for the macro I can always get a 60 mm.(Glkster19 & misskitty5077:wavey:)


Another question is , what do i gain by buying the lower f/# compared to higher? Ex. 70-200mm f/2.8 compared to 70-200mm f/4? Other than making my wallet $500 lighter?


The 50 1.4 isn't a macro, if you are looking at the one I think. It can be used as a macro with extension tubes. Make sure the 50 you buy is the right one for you. Canon does make a 50 macro but it is 1:2 unless you buy the life-size converter thingee which boosts it to 1:1 (1:1 is life size, 1:2 is half life size--I think I got that right...). Something else with macro to consider, what are you going to be shooting? Bugs can be skittish so you will need a lens with a longer focusing distance. Also, get good at manual focusing because you cannot AF macro.

The lower the f/number (faster), the bigger the maximum aperture is. That means you don't need as much light to properly expose. Depending on what you are shooting, it can also mean a really, really small DOF. When you take the 70-200 f/4 and add IS, you gain a few more stops so it works similar to the 2.8 in low light.

Lone Wolf8634
07-14-2008, 09:26
And yet you do carry it inside the cabin, don't you?

Yup, But as I said, it stays in its padded case which is strapped to an airseat. thats where it will get the least vibration and most protection. If I was to set it on some kind of tripod while I was rolling it would be subject to an awful lot of vibration, even on a good road. On a bad road things in the cab can actually become airborn if they arent stowed properly. Thats the main reason I wear a seatbelt in a truck, if I hit a bad enough bump I could be trying to steer the truck from the floor!

Lone Wolf8634
07-14-2008, 09:41
The 50 1.4 isn't a macro, if you are looking at the one I think. It can be used as a macro with extension tubes. Make sure the 50 you buy is the right one for you. Canon does make a 50 macro but it is 1:2 unless you buy the life-size converter thingee which boosts it to 1:1 (1:1 is life size, 1:2 is half life size--I think I got that right...). Something else with macro to consider, what are you going to be shooting? Bugs can be skittish so you will need a lens with a longer focusing distance. Also, get good at manual focusing because you cannot AF macro.

The lower the f/number (faster), the bigger the maximum aperture is. That means you don't need as much light to properly expose. Depending on what you are shooting, it can also mean a really, really small DOF. When you take the 70-200 f/4 and add IS, you gain a few more stops so it works similar to the 2.8 in low light.


I did find a life size converter for $256.60 on amazon and a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro lens for $370. Would I be better off getting both the 50mm and the 60mm or would the 50mm with the converter do the same thing? There's only $120 difference between the 2 choices.

Thanks for the info on the f/#, I think the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM will do what I want. I think I'm gonna need the IS on my tele lens. My 75-300mm has already taught me that I apparently shake like I'm being electrocuted while taking a pic.

hwyhobo
07-14-2008, 10:17
Yup, But as I said, it stays in its padded case which is strapped to an airseat. thats where it will get the least vibration and most protection. If I was to set it on some kind of tripod while I was rolling it would be subject to an awful lot of vibration, even on a good road. On a bad road things in the cab can actually become airborn if they arent stowed properly.
I would never suggest a tripod. I suggested a padded rig, a mount. If padded properly, it could be just as safe as your bag. You could strap it to the seat next to you.

Not that I am really trying to convince you to do it, just giving ideas.

blueiron
07-14-2008, 13:31
It is worth it to save up for great glass. Unlike a body that is discontinued and replaced with a new model every 2 or so years you will use a great lens forever and will not become obsolete like the body. If for some reason you do sell it will hold its resale value unlike lower quality lenses. Get the best you can afford to get.


Best advice!

Buying a high dollar body and discount lenses is the same as buying an Anschutz match rifle and putting a Nylon 66 barrel on it to shoot in competition.

The lenses will last a very long time and will outlast many generations of digital bodies.

MrsKitty
07-14-2008, 18:18
I did find a life size converter for $256.60 on amazon and a EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro lens for $370. Would I be better off getting both the 50mm and the 60mm or would the 50mm with the converter do the same thing? There's only $120 difference between the 2 choices.

Thanks for the info on the f/#, I think the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM will do what I want. I think I'm gonna need the IS on my tele lens. My 75-300mm has already taught me that I apparently shake like I'm being electrocuted while taking a pic.

Between those choices, I would go with the 50 and converter. The 50 by itself is nice for portraits and it's fast. It is rare that you hear of anybody who don't love their 50, but I don't mean that people don't like the 60, just that the 50 is a great choice all the way around.

Yeah, I thought I was having a seizure during an earthquake the first time I used a long lens. I love IS. :supergrin:

Oh, IS sucks your batteries pretty quickly. Check to see what the prices are for them, the Canon and compare that to SterlingTech (sp?). I'm not sure what your body needs but I got 2 of the Sterlings for less than $35 shipped. Could have been less than $30 but I can't remember now. The crowd over at POTN raves about them and I can see why. :)

Oh, you have discovered POTN, haven't you? I lurk there tons. Occasionally I post but I mostly just quietly move around being a sponge sucking up all the stuff I can. :supergrin:

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2008, 23:34
Ok, I'll give the 50 and a converter a try first. I already bought 2 new battery's at Wal-Mart. At close to $50 each:crying:. Noooowwww. you tell me:supergrin:.

I'll have to find POTN and lurk around there for a while. I always ask my questions on this board since theres a forum for just about everything I'm interested in, besides, GT is the only one I've ever joined! Gonna have to give Eric some money, I'm starting to feel guilty!

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2008, 23:37
I would never suggest a tripod. I suggested a padded rig, a mount. If padded properly, it could be just as safe as your bag. You could strap it to the seat next to you.

Not that I am really trying to convince you to do it, just giving ideas.

I might try that, I'm always seeing wildlife and such on the side of the road. Should've seen the herd of bull elk I saw on top of Flagstaff last year.

Lone Wolf8634
07-15-2008, 23:43
Best advice!

Buying a high dollar body and discount lenses is the same as buying an Anschutz match rifle and putting a Nylon 66 barrel on it to shoot in competition.

The lenses will last a very long time and will outlast many generations of digital bodies.

I had thought of that before I posted this but I didnt know if the higher end glass would actually be worth the investment for a hobby. The 75-300mm I have takes pretty nice pics. And it only cost $179 at Wally world. But I'm convinced now.

I really wish that I was interested in something cheap tho, collecting toothpicks maybe.

MrsKitty
07-16-2008, 16:57
Oh yeah. This was definitely not a cheap hobby. :rofl:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

POTN is the GT of Canons. Incredible place. :)

nipperwolf
07-16-2008, 19:03
So far what I've decided is to go with:
A 70-200 f/4 L IS USM. With a 2x extender it should take care of my long shots.

You need to do some more research. It's no secret that zooms, and converters, produce lower IQ, in most cases. While some get good results with top quality glass and 1.4 FACTORY converters, and fewer get decent results with a FACTORY 1.7, don't expect good results from using a 2.0 converter on a zoom.

Hokie
07-17-2008, 18:25
You also lose 2 stops using the 2x and one stop using the 1.4x. your F4 lens is now slow as molasses in January

Lone Wolf8634
07-18-2008, 01:30
It never fails to amaze me. How little I know.

More research coming up. Glad I dont have the money burning a hole in my pocket right now!

IQ? remember your talking to a dummy.

nipperwolf
07-18-2008, 03:39
Image quality.

MrsKitty
07-18-2008, 13:07
What is going to come down to in the end is what are you willing to sacrifice: money, IQ or speed? You can have two of them but not all three.

I love primes but they aren't as versatile as zooms. If I had the money and could physically lug all the primes I want around with me, I wouldn't have a single zoom.

I'll have to defer to Nip with the TC issue. I know nothing about them really, other than you do slow up the lens when you gain the length.

If I were you, I would buy ONE good lens now. Learn it and then see what direction you want to go in.

Lone Wolf8634
07-19-2008, 00:34
Ok, Next Dumb Question: What is considered a "prime" lense?

Yeah, I'm gonna do a lot more research and ask a lot more questions here before I go buy my zoom. I see a lot of stuff from a distance that I just cant get any closer to. A 70 foot truck really limits your ability to just turn off the road when you see something cool.

I was looking at a 2X converter because I have a 75-300 and I didnt think that one was bringing things in close enough. Maybe I just need to lower my sights a little. I didnt realize the zooms lower IQ.

I'm not going to make a career out of this, but I do want some good pics of my years out here on the road.

hwyhobo
07-19-2008, 01:26
Ok, Next Dumb Question: What is considered a "prime" lense?
"Prime" lens is a fixed focal length lens. For example, 50mm f/1.8 is a prime lens.

Lone Wolf8634
07-19-2008, 02:59
"Prime" lens is a fixed focal length lens. For example, 50mm f/1.8 is a prime lens.

Thanks:wavey:. I'll get the hang of all this lingo eventually!

Hokie
07-19-2008, 11:01
Zooms will not be as good as a prime lens but now a days a high quality zoom lens is not that far off.

Lone Wolf8634
07-19-2008, 17:35
Zooms will not be as good as a prime lens but now a days a high quality zoom lens is not that far off.

Thats good cuz I just looked at the price tag for a 400mm lens:wow::faint:

MrsKitty
07-19-2008, 17:45
Ok, Next Dumb Question: What is considered a "prime" lense?

Yeah, I'm gonna do a lot more research and ask a lot more questions here before I go buy my zoom. I see a lot of stuff from a distance that I just cant get any closer to. A 70 foot truck really limits your ability to just turn off the road when you see something cool.

I was looking at a 2X converter because I have a 75-300 and I didnt think that one was bringing things in close enough. Maybe I just need to lower my sights a little. I didnt realize the zooms lower IQ.

I'm not going to make a career out of this, but I do want some good pics of my years out here on the road.

I know all about moving huge loads and having no where to stop. I have worked escorting oversize loads before. I did a lot of mobile homes, a D-9 and once even two motorgraders that were driven. I would have given anything to have a photo of those two going across the old Low Water bridge. They warned me that they weren't going to start until I crossed. Then they brought the first one across; then the second. We were all doing a whole lot of praying but the state issued the permit saying use the bridge but...we weren't so sure it would support them... It was an amazing site to see. It wasn't long after that when the bridge was torn down.

If you want to use the tele with the 70-300 it will work. It will just cost you some speed and IQ. For now you may be perfectly happy with it. Some of us sell our work so we want it to be "perfect" and we don't want a lower IQ. For example, Nip does sports and parents want to see Little Johnny's eyelashes. That is what sells. You may not expect or want that kind of IQ. You just have to figure out *your* needs. We can tell you what has and hasn't worked for us.

Keep asking questions. We'll keep answering the ones we can. :wavey:

Keep comparing things. One day you will decide what will work best for you. :)

Glkster19
07-19-2008, 18:30
Thats good cuz I just looked at the price tag for a 400mm lens:wow::faint:


Think that's bad...........





Look at the new 800mm :wow::wow::wow:


Non-primes are wonderful for what I do, as least until I win the lottery.

Lone Wolf8634
07-19-2008, 19:06
Think that's bad...........





Look at the new 800mm :wow::wow::wow:


Non-primes are wonderful for what I do, as least until I win the lottery.

Isnt that the one $11,999.99? Yeah, zooms are gonna have to do it for me also, Wifey says so!

Glkster19
07-19-2008, 22:23
Yup, that's the 1. I don't even need the wifey to tell me no on that 1. Until I'm making 6 figures taking photos, I ain't even considering it.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

MrsKitty
07-19-2008, 22:28
A few months ago B&H had a used lens that was $999,999.99 and shipping was about $250 :faint:

Glkster19
07-20-2008, 14:18
A few months ago B&H had a used lens that was $999,999.99 and shipping was about $250 :faint:



It's for sale again. I'l take $575.00 and $50.00 for shipping. It's only a slight bit more used than before.




















































:rofl::supergrin::rofl::supergrin:

MrsKitty
07-20-2008, 16:22
Right after it sold my mom told me she had heard something on the news about somebody photographing satellites that he wasn't supposed to be able to see and publishing the photos. I said "I wonder if that is where *that* lens went?" :rofl: