... show me your best pics.

You can make as many watermarks in your pics as you want but i want to see why you spend so much money. I want to know if you have this equipment because you are a good photographer or because your parents are rich or you just want to brag.

I know already 2 people who have spend more than 2000€ for there equipment and they can`t take decend pic. One have rich parents, the other one want something to brag.

So let`s see if you only can talk about expensive equipment or if you know how top use it.

I spend quite a bit of money on photography... I'm not sure what 2000€ is equivalent to in dollars but I'd imagine I'm pretty close.

I would never say that I'm in the top tier of the photography world... but I'd like to think that I have some decent photos that make all the time and money spent worth it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/milwaukeemark

My gear altogether is in that range, but no individual piece of it would be worth more than 500€, and most pieces are under 250.

Does that count?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/milwaukeemark

the photos are beautiful:cheers:

Photography is undoubtedly an expensive 'field' to take up. Equipment can be very expensive depending on its use. The various add-ons to the equipment papparazi often use is thanks to the money (into the thousands) each shot of a 'celebrity' gets.

I and others can tell you that professional photography is not cheap. If one is wanting to get into such a pursuit, it requires money investment. What can be very expensive however is the pricing of professional courses to refine photography skills. A fully comprehensive, three year course, followed up by regular seminars and mastery courses (if desired) can bring costs including equipment to 20-25000 euros if not more, it just depends on what is one's objective.

If someone, who feels rich, decides to splash out on something like that it is a pity that it is not used for what it is intended, a tool to take some of the most beautiful photos in the world.

Tom, I'll try my best to explain this. Of cause, an excellent artist can make fantastic photos from a cheap camera. But there is types of photography that demand something that lowend camera's cannot produce.

A proper DSLR will take photos of far higher "technical" quality than a cheap camera. Better glass and higher quality sensors will yield sharper photos and lower noise. These are vital for professional shooting.

Professional camera's also offer faster response, more manual control and more reliable results. The focus on a Canon 1Ds mark II is far superior to any lower end compact.

When professionals need a tool, a high quality one can be the difference between making the money shot, or walking away with a great but technically unsellable photo.

And it works in so many different aspects. I've been a pro for a couple of years now, and last week I just spent 900€ on a new tripod. €900 may sound too much when you can buy a good one of €50. But they simply are not good enough for what I need. The other night I was out shooting the lightning we had in Frankfurt. I took a number of great shots, some of which I have sold already, but my best shot, an amazing strike over the skyscrapers was ruined by slight blur. The tripod simply wasn't sturdy enough, and with the heavy lens and wind a slight vibration ruined my best shot. That photo alone could have paid for the tripod within a year or less.

So, spending €900 on some steel (actually carbon fiber as carrying all the weight around can get tiring after a few hours) is well worth it.

The new tripod by the way is far more reliable. It's taller, weighs less and more stable. There is less chance now that I will miss the money shots.

It's examples like this that show how important spending money is. If you're serious about photography, and have the money then why not.

But then again, I know what you mean. I was in my local camera shop the other week and in front of me talking to the sales guy was a rich middle aged lady with big plastered blue hair holding the famed €6000 Canon 1Ds II. He was showing her the features but she was babbling on about only wanting to take snap shots of her poodle in auto mode - but insisted on having the best camera. Yes, that is a waste.

I look at it this way, if you can sell photos taken from a point-and-shoot with little to no post processing and do so on a regular basis...you can justify the expense of a DSLR if the time comes about.

I spent about 2600$ back in March on my Nikon D200 with a few extras and already have seen my income from the photos produced go up...how do I keep myself sharp? keep learning and shooting, I'll take anything from a Fashion show to a wedding to allow myself to build up the funds to buy more equipment (I currently have an order pending for 820$)

I'm hardly spoiled but I don't flash my money with other material items that I don't really want...I enjoy shooting and I invest in it.

:cheers:

But then again, I know what you mean. I was in my local camera shop the other week and in front of me talking to the sales guy was a rich middle aged lady with big plastered blue hair holding the famed €6000 Canon 1Ds II. He was showing her the features but she was babbling on about only wanting to take snap shots of her poodle in auto mode - but insisted on having the best camera. Yes, that is a waste.

The worst types of photographers are arrogant people. I hate them the most.

I saw many of them in Frankfurt during the skyscraper festival bragging and showing of there white L lenses.
The guy i met during a meeting from the page where i took party pics was the worst. Owning a 350D with a flash, a f2.8 lens the extra battery. The camera had to look big. He was bragging with his camera. He used the flash in bright daylight just to show of. When he talked with other people about photography he made everyboddy else looking dumb. I couldn`t stand that so i started to talk about photography with him. I knew more so he walked away. I don`t have a problem talking about absolute simple stuff with bloody beginners. I don`t look down on them.

Here is my favorite photographer. I met him in Dubai. He was a guy from Australia. He owns a Hasselblad with 39MP. Hìs equipment included 4 lenses. So he was walking with around 50.000€. He was extreme nice, friendly and he even gave me his camera. He didn`t looked down on me and my small EOS 350D. He also gave me some tips. That`s how a photographer should be.

'Way back in the 1960s I was a student on campus at Bloomington, Indiana. I was just beginning to nurture a serious interest in photography, and used to hang out at a little camera shop on Kirkwood Avenue where I could learn a lot about the technical stuff from the proprietor.

A local woman would show up every now and then. Her Cadillac would pull up outside, and her driver would open the door for her and then wait beside the car while she brought her Leica into the store.

The owner would load a roll of Kodachrome, look outside to see what the light was like that day, and make aperture and shutter speed settings for her, using a small-enough aperture that she didn't have to worry about critical focus. She'd go out and shoot up the roll of film, and then come back so that he could rewind and remove the film and send it in for processing. He said it was about a monthly occurrence, depending upon the weather.

I never saw her photos, but I'll bet they were all of her dog(s) or cat(s) or something like that.

I haven't invested yet in a DSLR becouse I'm to lazy to experiment with the manual settings, however my point-and-shoot camera is a good one and with exellent optical zoom Leica lenses (DMC-FZ5), handy for skyscrapers and urban landscape shooting.

I would never buy products just for status. If anything, a white lens will draws unwanted attention (both from people that go "oeh a big lens" as well as criminals). Thing is, I do buy expensive gear because it allows me to do things I wouldn't have been able to do otherwise (aperture, focal length).

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/48/583048/1/65997615.avHcU5Y6._MG_7155.jpg
I really needed 10mm for this shot. Simple as that.

He used the flash in bright daylight just to show of.Fill flash in daylight isn't just for showing off. It's really useful for removing harsh shadows in outdoor portraiture - photojournos and wedding photogs use it all the time.

Fill flash shooting into a sunset:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/403282150_0270d5bae4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mugley/403282150/)

If you play your cards right, the photos are worth a lot more than the gear.

Fill flash in daylight isn't just for showing off. It's really useful for removing harsh shadows in outdoor portraiture - photojournos and wedding photogs use it all the time.

Fill flash shooting into a sunset:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/403282150_0270d5bae4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mugley/403282150/)

Doesn`t look like bright daylight ;)

Maybe i forgot to write that the flash was absolutly unnecessary in the situations he used the it.

Doesn`t look like bright daylight ;)The light facing into the sun is pretty bright. :)

Mine was an extreme example (shooting into a sunset usually means a silhouetted foreground or blown background), there's an example of a more typical application here (http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=67406&cat=500&size=big&ppuser=75191).

Maybe i forgot to write that the flash was absolutly unnecessary in the situations he used the pics.Yeah, if he was shooting a landscape or a skyline with no close foreground elements, there'd be no use in firing a flash. Like all those people I see firing the flash on their point 'n shoots out of hotel windows or in sports stadiums. :gaah:

I think the flash can also destroy the mood, like taking pics around a fire.
We have been sitting around the fire and he took pics with a flash. There was a other photographer with a Nikon. He never used the flash there.

Agreed, I'd rather shoot big aperture + high ISO in low light.

In very bright sunlight however, fill flash or a reflector is often necessary if you don't want nasty high contrast and unpleasant shadows in portraiture.

If you play your cards right, the photos are worth a lot more than the gear.

I think this just about sums it up.

thank you for the simple explanation. :)

Me: I buy quality over quantity. I have dome some paid commercial photoshoot which would just pay off my equipments. I also got multimedia laptop so i can post-process on the go.

There is no way i can work with cheap equipment in low light situations. Absolutely no way. I am just about to invest in a new 14mm f/2.8 lens.

There is no way i can work with cheap equipment in low light situations. Absolutely no way. I am just about to invest in a new 14mm f/2.8 lens.You've got a problem then.

A cheap 50mm f/1.8 is going to kill your expensive 14mm f/2.8 in low light. (Unless you're shooting on a tripod, in which case even a slow zoom will do the job).

I saw many of them in Frankfurt during the skyscraper festival bragging and showing of there white L lenses.
The guy i met during a meeting from the page where i took party pics was the worst. Owning a 350D with a flash, a f2.8 lens the extra battery. The camera had to look big. He was bragging with his camera. He used the flash in bright daylight just to show of. When he talked with other people about photography he made everyboddy else looking dumb. I couldn`t stand that so i started to talk about photography with him. I knew more so he walked away. I don`t have a problem talking about absolute simple stuff with bloody beginners. I don`t look down on them.

I get the 2nd part, obviously when you spoke with this guy you saw he was a tosser, but not the first part. I own some white L lenses. Not to brag, but simply because professional Canon Telephoto lenses simply come in white and have a L associated with their name. I also use a battery grip, not to make my camera look big but because the grip improves my handling and results in sharper pictures, longer battery life and the fact you can turn it 90° to shoot portrait and still have a perfectly placed shutter button. And as for shooting in daylight, I also do that on occasions as "fill in flash", it can really make all the difference.

The type of equipment one uses can also make differences in people's reactions. People notice my white lens when I have it on, and so it's useless for candid shots close by (though good for distant ones). So if I'm shooting in the city trying to pull out candids, my battery grip goes off and a small 50mm goes on. The smaller the camera, the least noticable it is. In fact, a point and shoot works even better here because people never think your a pro. Problem is, more chance to take a good candid, but the quality of the photo is not as good.

But year, if he talked like an arsehole, then he probably was one.


Here is my favorite photographer. I met him in Dubai. He was a guy from Australia. He owns a Hasselblad with 39MP. Hìs equipment included 4 lenses. So he was walking with around 50.000€. He was extreme nice, friendly and he even gave me his camera. He didn`t looked down on me and my small EOS 350D. He also gave me some tips. That`s how a photographer should be.

If he was a professional that would explain it. Pro's don't brag about their equipment as it's just a tool - besides, there will always be another pro with something more expensive ;O)

And many pro's still use point & shoots on some occasions, whatever is needed for the job.

You've got a problem then.

A cheap 50mm f/1.8 is going to kill your expensive 14mm f/2.8 in low light. (Unless you're shooting on a tripod, in which case even a slow zoom will do the job).


I don't get this at all?

For a start they are completely different lenses. The 14mm is a wide angle lens and for different compositions than a 50mm. How can the 50mm "kill" it?

2nd, a 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 is shocking. It is a complete blur bucket. Now, the same lens at f/9 is as sharp as a tack, but that is why it is such a cheap lens. At the sweetspot it is great, but at either extremes it is almost useless (unless you are just posting 800x600 images on flickr).

The problem here is that people buy the f/1.8 for the wide aperture and low light abilities, and it is here where it performs at it's worse.

Now, if you invested in the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 it is extremely sharp at f/1.8 and then you have even a bit more leverage.

That's why sometimes it's good to invest in the more expensive kit.

But I will add one thing. If you can't budge for the f/1.4, the f/1.8 at f9 - f11 makes great sharp pictures and is a very light lens. This makes it great when hiking around and weight is an issue.

I don't get this at all?

For a start they are completely different lenses. The 14mm is a wide angle lens and for different compositions than a 50mm. How can the 50mm "kill" it?Read the previous posts.

MILIUX was specifically talking about low light situations. If you seriously believe an f/2.8 lens can give you better shots than an f/1.8 in low light (unless on a tripod, but I already covered this), then there's no point in continuing this conversation.

It doesn't matter how wide your angle is, if you can't get the shot in the first place it's no good (again, I'm referring to low light).

2nd, a 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 is shocking. It is a complete blur bucket. Now, the same lens at f/9 is as sharp as a tackI think you'll find most 50mm f/1.8 lenses peak around f/5.6, not f/9.

This is from a 50mm f/1.8 wide open @ ISO 1600:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/289138060_2c7770c06a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mugley/289138060/)

If such a lens is a "complete blur bucket" for you, you've either got a bad sample or awful technique.

The problem here is that people buy the f/1.8 for the wide aperture and low light abilities, and it is here where it performs at it's worseSo which lens of comparable price would perform better in low (available) light?

Now, if you invested in the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 it is extremely sharp at f/1.8 and then you have even a bit more leverageI have two 50mm f/1.4 lenses. Both those and my 50mm f/1.8 will slaughter any f/2.8 lens of any focal length in low light.

I'm looking to get a f/1.8 50mm lens within the month...after doing mucho research I have found almost no complaints about the lens...I'm anxious to see the f/1.8 and see what it can do at low light.

Also, the battery grip...this is not intended for a visual "kicker" but like Mugley said its used for many reasons like stablility, extra power and it also allows you to release the shutter when shooting portrait with its own release.

Anyone know anything about the SB-800 Speed light by Nikon? looking to pick one of those up this summer as well (got a wedding and several other projects in the works)

Anyone know anything about the SB-800 Speed light by Nikon? looking to pick one of those up this summer as well (got a wedding and several other projects in the works)Just Buy It :)

I've got the SB-600 and love it to death; the SB-800 is more powerful and works as a commander if you ever find yourself using one of the low-end DSLRs. I doubt you'll find any complaints about it.

Grab a diffuser of some sort too - if you don't want to shell out for a LumiQuest or Fong unit, a Tupperware-style container will do the trick...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/403258178_87ded212a0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mugley/403258178/)

You've got a problem then.

A cheap 50mm f/1.8 is going to kill your expensive 14mm f/2.8 in low light. (Unless you're shooting on a tripod, in which case even a slow zoom will do the job).

f/2.8 with Speedlite is good enough in low light photography. I tested low light with 24-105L f/4 and it just scrapes the type of low light environment i'm used to. f/2.8 will do fine and 14mm is a bonus.

I don't want to overburst Speedlite with harsh exposure so f/2.8 can compensate it and lower the harshness of artificial light. :)

Sorry, but find me a ultra wide angle low light prime lens on the market. 50mm is not what i call a wide angle lens.

You also have to take into account the ISO difference. I used Nikon D70 before (my first system back 2004) and it didn't go well in high ISO system. Which is why i opted for Canon system and eventually go into 5D. Which is another reason why i don't go for EF-S 50mm.

^^ If you're blasting stuff with a flash, it's no longer low light photography. Low light for me == available light. And if you can get by at f/4, it might as well be midday :)

f/2.8 is good when you've got enough light to get away with it. That's 2 stops down from 1.4 and just entering the sharp zone of your average affordable fast lens.

There is a soft blast Speedlite and hard blast Speedlite. I'm only going to use the speedlite to reduce the strong contrasting shadow and get more detail.

f/4 IS is fine in low light most of the time. I used it without a tripod with TonyP few weeks ago and it managed well. My ISO was around 640-800...which is still pretty good. TonyP was using 1600 but look at his photos...still great.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=481146

f/4 IS is fine in low light most of the time.Yeah, we've all done it.

f/4 is really, seriously not low light though. People wouldn't lust over Noct-Nikkors and wacky Leica stuff if f/4 was enough.

The great low-light photographers (http://flickr.com/search/?q=%22shoot%20wide%20open%22&w=86222119%40N00) of this world wouldn't dream of stopping at f/4, otherwise they'd just have kit lenses and magic flash guns :)

I think you'll find most 50mm f/1.8 lenses peak around f/5.6, not f/9.

I think not. Mine has a sweatspot at between f/9 and f/11. Maybe yours is different, and that then demonstrates the wide differences in low end lenses.


This is from a 50mm f/1.8 wide open @ ISO 1600:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/289138060_2c7770c06a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mugley/289138060/)

If such a lens is a "complete blur bucket" for you, you've either got a bad sample or awful technique.

No need to question my technique since you have not seen anything from me. But what am I supposed to see from that photo? Of cause you are not going to see how sharp a picture is at that resolution. Show a full frame image at ISO100 and then we can judge.

I did say at it's sweatspot the f1.8 was extremely sharp, as sharp as many L telephoto lenses, but that is normal for most primes. But at f/1.8 this 50mm is far from sharp, and will not produce photos that I am satisfied with. And this is my third such lens.

However, my 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.8 is much sharper.


So which lens of comparable price would perform better in low (available) light?

You are right here, there is no comparable lens of similar price that would out perform the 50mm f/1.8 - simply because this is one of the cheapest lenses Canon makes. However there are more expensive lenses that can out perform the f/1.8. But that's the same for anything when talking price catagory.


I have two 50mm f/1.4 lenses. Both those and my 50mm f/1.8 will slaughter any f/2.8 lens of any focal length in low light.
[/quote]
Well, it's pretty obvious that if you need to go down to f/1.4 or f/1.8 you will have a faster shutter speed in low light than a 14mm f/2.8. But it is equally obvious that if you are in a small dim room and need a wide angle lens, then the 50mm may not suite you either despite it's wider aperture.

Apologies to Justme and MILIUX for my tone in the previous posts, I was argumentative and not thinking clearly about what you two were posting.

I think not. Mine has a sweatspot at between f/9 and f/11. Maybe yours is different, and that then demonstrates the wide differences in low end lenses.Yeah, mine's a Nikkor so it's kind of apples and oranges. But I think we're probably also shooting them differently. None of my fast lenses are good shooting to infinity wide open in low light; for that stuff I tend to stop down to around f/8 the same as you.

No need to question my technique since you have not seen anything from me.Apologies again.

But what am I supposed to see from that photo? Of cause you are not going to see how sharp a picture is at that resolution. Show a full frame image at ISO100 and then we can judge.I think that size is sufficient to show the difference between usable and no good. I picked an ISO 1600 shot because I was trying to demonstrate a low light example.

I did say at it's sweatspot the f1.8 was extremely sharp, as sharp as many L telephoto lenses, but that is normal for most primes. But at f/1.8 this 50mm is far from sharp, and will not produce photos that I am satisfied with. And this is my third such lens.Yeah, I suspect you've got more exacting uses than I. I was thinking in terms of close-up portraiture in the sort of light where slower lenses can't get a shot at all. For anything requiring decent DoF or shooting at a distance in low light, I wouldn't recommend a 50mm f/1.8 either.

However there are more expensive lenses that can out perform the f/1.8. But that's the same for anything when talking price catagory.Yeah, I've been lusting over the 85mm f/1.2L lately, and I don't even shoot Canon :)

Well, it's pretty obvious that if you need to go down to f/1.4 or f/1.8 you will have a faster shutter speed in low light than a 14mm f/2.8. But it is equally obvious that if you are in a small dim room and need a wide angle lens, then the 50mm may not suite you either despite it's wider aperture.Yeah, that's just me ranting due to having chosen a slow wide lens over a fast normal in the past, and being unhappy with the results.

I wouldn't mind getting hold of something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and experimenting with a bit of stitching to try to find a good width/speed compromise.

No worries Mugley, and please accept my apology if I appeared too harsh in my posts as well. I will say something here, I don't have a terrible amount of experience in hand held low light photography. I am far more experienced in low light tripod mounted photography, in which shooting around the sweatspot is not an issue.

It also seems that the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 maybe sharper wide open than the equivalent Canon (though it is a tad more expensive from memory). There may also be a vast difference in quality between the improvements of sharpness with Canon and Nikon when moving up to the f/1.4. But I am only guessing here, only having Canon experience - where the f/1.4 is vastly sharper wide open than the f/1.8

As for your mention of Sigma. Sigma pro lenses are excellent, and I certainly recommend you try them out. The consumer range does have sharpness issues, but some of the pro lenses can compete excellently to the Canon or Nikon equivalents, especially sharpness. But what you loose out by paying less is usually a heavier lens and slower focusing.

I didn' have so many money.
I only spend about 300USD

The 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 can be very sharp. Infact thats the reason I bought the damn thing in the first place. To shoot wide open at f/1.8 or f/2.0. I dont use it for anything else (well, I hardy even use it as I shoot with a wide angle and I shoot at f/8 99% of the time) and Im very happy with sharpness of the photos printed at A3 size.

No worries Mugley, and please accept my apology if I appeared too harsh in my posts as well.No need for apologies, 'twas me being the dick :)

It also seems that the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 maybe sharper wide open than the equivalent Canon (though it is a tad more expensive from memory). There may also be a vast difference in quality between the improvements of sharpness with Canon and Nikon when moving up to the f/1.4. But I am only guessing here, only having Canon experience - where the f/1.4 is vastly sharper wide open than the f/1.8I don't notice a lot of wide-open sharpness difference between the f/1.4 and 1.8 Nikkors - I suppose the shallower DoF and higher shutter speeds probably make the comparison harder (and that's what test charts are for!). The f/1.4 definitely has better bokeh and a more attractive "look" to its images.

As for your mention of Sigma. Sigma pro lenses are excellent, and I certainly recommend you try them out. The consumer range does have sharpness issues, but some of the pro lenses can compete excellently to the Canon or Nikon equivalents, especially sharpness. But what you loose out by paying less is usually a heavier lens and slower focusing.Definitely agree there. I've got a couple of old Sigma primes (24mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4) which are slow focusing but make a very good image, and a nasty 28-300mm superzoom that I bought when very green and can't imagine ever using again.

The current 70-200 f/2.8 EX impresses me a lot, and I definitely wouldn't mind getting hold of some of their macro lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 can be very sharp. Infact thats the reason I bought the damn thing in the first place. To shoot wide open at f/1.8 or f/2.0. I dont use it for anything else (well, I hardy even use it as I shoot with a wide angle and I shoot at f/8 99% of the time) and Im very happy with sharpness of the photos printed at A3 size.

It is possible that you have a very good f/1.8. Canon has a wide acceptance quality control level for it's consumer lenses, and they can range from very good, to very poor. On some occasions, people are lucky and end up with one of the lenses at the good end of the scale. This is where it differs with the L lenses, which has a tighter quality control and one of the reasons they cost more (amongst many others of cause)

But saying that, it really is pot luck, and I havn't had the luck with the f/1.8. And this is something people have to think about before buying them. If sharpness is not so important, then the risk is worth it.

On the other hand, my interpretation and desire for sharpness may be very different to yours. I sell to a lot to agencies as well as my own commissioned work, and agencies are fastidious about sharpness. There is no way in the world they would accept anything I shoot on my f/1.8, tripod mounted or not - it's just not up to scratch. This rolls over to my own commissions as I have adopted the same desire for sharp images. I do a lot of commission work for architecture companies, and my work has to be good enough to possibly end up on a bill board in front of a new construction, let alone coffee table books or promotional material. For the prices I charge, I can't hand over a blurry image.

The current 70-200 f/2.8 EX impresses me a lot, and I definitely wouldn't mind getting hold of some of their macro lenses.


The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX is also an excellent buy. Damn heavy, but tack sharp around the center and still excellent at either extremes. It works better on the Nikon ranges as well, as some lenses have problems focusing on some Canon DSLR's, but it's as sharp as the Canon 24-70 L and half the price.

It is possible that you have a very good f/1.8. Canon has a wide acceptance quality control level for it's consumer lenses, and they can range from very good, to very poor. On some occasions, people are lucky and end up with one of the lenses at the good end of the scale. This is where it differs with the L lenses, which has a tighter quality control and one of the reasons they cost more (amongst many others of cause)

But saying that, it really is pot luck, and I havn't had the luck with the f/1.8. And this is something people have to think about before buying them. If sharpness is not so important, then the risk is worth it.

On the other hand, my interpretation and desire for sharpness may be very different to yours. I sell to a lot to agencies as well as my own commissioned work, and agencies are fastidious about sharpness. There is no way in the world they would accept anything I shoot on my f/1.8, tripod mounted or not - it's just not up to scratch. This rolls over to my own commissions as I have adopted the same desire for sharp images. I do a lot of commission work for architecture companies, and my work has to be good enough to possibly end up on a bill board in front of a new construction, let alone coffee table books or promotional material. For the prices I charge, I can't hand over a blurry image.


Well, Ive won money in contests and have had work exhibited in galleries shot with my f/1.8 so I dont think we are really talking about much of a difference in desire and interpretation for what we desire in terms of sharpness. Ill be showing my portfolio to a Magnum/Nat Geo photographer who is coming to see me in Seoul in August. So I suppose if you are trying to say you are a pro Im just a rec shooter, I guess you might as well save it. Although one thing I dont really follow is this obsession with sharpness. I suppose in architectural photography it would be one of those important requirements, but I nevr shoot architecture and I never shoot with tripods. In documentary or street photography you can get away with less sharpness because its not really about that anyway, its more about telling a story with more leeway given to really what is not really that crucial (sharpness for one)

Well, Ive won money in contests and have had work exhibited in galleries shot with my f/1.8 so I dont think we are really talking about much of a difference in desire and interpretation for what we desire in terms of sharpness. Ill be showing my portfolio to a Magnum/Nat Geo photographer who is coming to see me in Seoul in August. So I suppose if you are trying to say you are a pro Im just a rec shooter, I guess you might as well save it. Although one thing I dont really follow is this obsession with sharpness. I suppose in architectural photography it would be one of those important requirements, but I nevr shoot architecture and I never shoot with tripods. In documentary or street photography you can get away with less sharpness because its not really about that anyway, its more about telling a story with more leeway given to really what is not really that crucial (sharpness for one)

Now take it easy mate. No need to get all uppity ;O) I was being critical of the Canon Lens, produced by a giant international conglomerate, and not in anyway your technique or skills.

As a artistic or documentary photographer, sharpness is not of any real importance at all. Afterall, art is what you make it as. If you want it blurry, then it's blurry. If you want it pink, it's pink. It's art afterall isn't it. I also shoot artistic work, and sharpness is not so important even for me there. However, none of that stops the Canon 50mm f/1.8 from being a blurry lens wide open or closed down. There is a reason this is a $70 lens

But there are different types of photography out there, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that in advertising or architectural photography sharpness is paramount. And that works the same for the agencies. They have a standard and they won't budge from it.

If you remain in your field, and is satisfied with your 50mm lens then by all means don't flinch an eyelid. But if you want to move into different area's, there will be some where you are going to have to rethink your kit. You should also appreciate what others say in this regard instead of getting all upset.

By the way. I'll add one last thing, your photos are excellent and certainly worth the gallery exhibition.

I reckon sample variation may be a big factor with sharpness on the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Some people swear by it and some seem to get sharper photos with an 18-55 kit lens.

Looking at the MTF charts on photozone.de, the f/1.8 seems to have a slight edge on the f/1.4 at f/5.6 and smaller, but doesn't look so good at the wider apertures. It outrates the 24-70 f/2.8L @ 40mm for all shared apertures, but resolution drops noticeably when opened wider than f/2.8

Of course, MTF results are far from the definitive measurement of how good a lens is, but the results seem to indicate that a good sample (which might not be easy to find!) should be able to match a pro zoom with a similar focal range, resolution-wise.

I still say that the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the best lenses as far as the bang for the buck is concerned. If you luck out and get a good one, its great. The construction is crap. Cheap plastic. When I go to manual foacus and want to go back to AF it takes me a lot of time to get it to work. Its probably the worst built lens Ive ever seen...but the glass, atleast on my copy is easily worth the 90 bucks.

I've spent well over 2000 euros on my kit, but I dont get much time at the minute to take pics, but the way I see it is, I have pro glass and a semi pro body that arent going anywhere and will last me a few years yet so as soon as I get abit of time, I can go out with my camera!

I dont care if someone has a 4000 euro set up with no clue how to use it, and they have the dough then all the best to them.
spolit rich kids on the other hand :bash:

I directed a professional commercial shoot last Thursday and we charged the client over $12,000 for four shots. Equipment is cheap, talent is a lot more valuable.

I directed a professional commercial shoot last Thursday and we charged the client over $12,000 for four shots. Equipment is cheap, talent is a lot more valuable.

$3,000 each? so what kind of camera took the photo? my guess it wasn't a Kodak easyshare. :)

Still waiting for 5D replacement. Argh!

My 30D was not designed to be waiting that long.

so what kind of camera took the photo?
The price included eight models and hiring the photographer and his crew and a makeup artist. The photographer used a Mamiya 645 with a Phase One P-25 digital back. Don't remember which lenses were used. I was just the director. The client was a casino in Las Vegas and the price was considered a bargain.

I see Mamiya just released a 645 that comes stock with a 22 megapixal back for only $9,999.
http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281

nice,

I'm charging $100 for my first wedding in the next couple weeks. lol

anyone ever shoot a wedding?

Some of mine...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/440782418_bbd643c78c.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/396544855_2ba287d81f.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/471353789_0ce5bb4d92.jpg


and of course, the stuff I used to take pictures...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/194/450697824_61cec722c1.jpg

nice,

I'm charging $100 for my first wedding in the next couple weeks. lol

anyone ever shoot a wedding?
Here's a rate sheet.

$2500.00
• Pre-Wedding
• Wedding
• In Church or Location Post Wedding
• Reception
4 Hrs. Maximum. 1 Photographer and 1 Assistant Present
80-100 Proofs in Proof Book
$250.00 towards enlargements and albums of couples choice



$3500.00
B/W Photojournalistic Style & Traditional Color Coverage
• Pre-Wedding
• Wedding
• In Church or Location Post Wedding
• Reception
6 Hrs. Maximum- 2 Photographers Present
100-160 Proofs in Proof Book
$400.00 towards enlargements and albums of couples choice



$4500.00
B/W Photojournalistic Style & Traditional Color Coverage
• Pre-Wedding
• Wedding
• In Church or Location Post Wedding
• Reception
8 Hrs. Maximum- 2 Photographers Present
160-220 Proofs in Proof Book
$600.00 towards enlargements and albums of couples choice



Terms
$500.00 Non-Refundable Deposit Due at Time of Booking.
50% Balance Due 30 Days Before Wedding.
Balance Due Day of Wedding.

wow, I think the issue is that the people here are cheap...there is some money but Inever EVER hear of anyone spending cash like this.

maybe upwards of $2000 but thats pushing it.

thanks for the rate sheet, I'll have to work on some stuff, build up my experience and maybe one day take myself to this level...if I wanna.

:)

Here's a rate sheet.

$2500.00
• Pre-Wedding
• Wedding
• In Church or Location Post Wedding
• Reception
4 Hrs. Maximum. 1 Photographer and 1 Assistant Present
80-100 Proofs in Proof Book
$250.00 towards enlargements and albums of couples choice



$3500.00
B/W Photojournalistic Style & Traditional Color Coverage
• Pre-Wedding
• Wedding
• In Church or Location Post Wedding
• Reception
6 Hrs. Maximum- 2 Photographers Present
100-160 Proofs in Proof Book
$400.00 towards enlargements and albums of couples choice



$4500.00
B/W Photojournalistic Style & Traditional Color Coverage
• Pre-Wedding
• Wedding
• In Church or Location Post Wedding
• Reception
8 Hrs. Maximum- 2 Photographers Present
160-220 Proofs in Proof Book
$600.00 towards enlargements and albums of couples choice



Terms
$500.00 Non-Refundable Deposit Due at Time of Booking.
50% Balance Due 30 Days Before Wedding.
Balance Due Day of Wedding.

I reckon sample variation may be a big factor with sharpness on the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Some people swear by it and some seem to get sharper photos with an 18-55 kit lens.

Looking at the MTF charts on photozone.de, the f/1.8 seems to have a slight edge on the f/1.4 at f/5.6 and smaller, but doesn't look so good at the wider apertures. It outrates the 24-70 f/2.8L @ 40mm for all shared apertures, but resolution drops noticeably when opened wider than f/2.8

Of course, MTF results are far from the definitive measurement of how good a lens is, but the results seem to indicate that a good sample (which might not be easy to find!) should be able to match a pro zoom with a similar focal range, resolution-wise.

This is certainly the case. The lens has a very wide quality specifications. Some lenses are very sharp, whilst many others are shocking wide open or closed down. The problem is, you don't know what you get when you buy. You can always take a laptop to the shop, shoot each lens they have in stock and then take away the best. But most shops would tell you to bugger off for such a cheap lens.

Basically, you pay your $70-$90 and take your chances. I have had three before I gave up and just accepted what I had in the end. And this is where it is different with L lenses (or other camera's pro end). The pass criteria is much tighter. Often, if they share glass with consumer lenses. The best glass will end up in the L range.

But as you pointed out, it still scores well with the 24-70mm L. But it should. Primes are always sharper then zooms, and it's one great reason to use primes.

Personally, I love primes. So much lighter, and usually brilliantly sharp. The limitation of not being able to zoom can be a bother sometimes, but it also forces me to concentrate on composition. And besides, in many cases I can always walk closer or further away from the subject.

I still say that the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the best lenses as far as the bang for the buck is concerned. If you luck out and get a good one, its great. The construction is crap. Cheap plastic. When I go to manual foacus and want to go back to AF it takes me a lot of time to get it to work. Its probably the worst built lens Ive ever seen...but the glass, atleast on my copy is easily worth the 90 bucks.

I will agree with you here. For the price, it is an excellent lens. If someone is on a budget, and want a prime, then go for this 50mm from Canon. It is particularly good on a full frame camera where the 50mm is a natural focal length. On a cropped DSLR it can be a tad long - but still worth getting.

Hell, if you spend $70 in a restaurant one night, then why think twice about this lens.

I still use mine when I want a really light kit to walk around with. It's probably the lightest lens in Canon's outfit. But that is I suppose all that evil flimsy plastic.

I can't think of any Canon lens being lighter. The kitlens (18-55) is also pretty light (and cheap, but similarly abled to take great shots).