chezzyr Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I am just getting you back for calling me a 'purist'. I will never forget that ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tess32 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I mostly use that lens too and is sharp, but not really really sharp. They look like normal pics to me out of that lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) I would test it at different focal length AND aperture/iso combos using a stationary prop and maybe have the camera on a table/tripod with IS off. It can be boring and time consuming but can help you know what is best for a particular lens. Oh and try shooting something at 250mm or 290mm instead of 300mm and see if you notice difference in the clarity? Edited November 10, 2008 by chezzyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 I am just getting you back for calling me a 'purist'.I will never forget that It wasn't an insult!!! I long for the day when I don't need to edit my pics to make them look half-way decent! I mostly use that lens too and is sharp, but not really really sharp. They look like normal pics to me out of that lens. Pooh ;) I wish I'd done more research before I bought it :p I would test it at different focal length AND aperture/iso combos using a stationary propand maybe have the camera on a table/tripod with IS off. It can be boring and time consuming but can help you know what is best for a particular lens. Oh and try shooting something at 250mm or 290mm instead of 300mm and see if you notice difference in the clarity? Sounds incredibly boring, but I'll do it this weekend hopefully. Why do you say stationary prop when it's action pics that I'm trying to learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) If you have a production line boring shoot with a stationary object you can atleast find out the best focal length/settings for the lens and try to apply them/some of them for future photography ie "I better not shoot at 5.6, 300mm, 1600 iso because the pictures look worse at those kinds of settings" (example only, may not apply to you). Hope this is not goobly gook - I need coffee and food! p.s just some things that might help you get more out of the lens rather than tossing it in the bin or something. Some people give up pretty quickly ;) Edited November 10, 2008 by chezzyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 No, that makes sense to me, thanks ;) I wonder if there's a checklist of different settings combinations that I can download and tick off as I go ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke W Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) ISO Mode 1 is OK as long as you're not panning. Edited November 10, 2008 by Luke W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Your pictures look ok to me. I think there was an issue with some of these lenses, when some were being held vertically....hmmm But certainly try some of the things mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) Everyone is different, this is what I do so just some suggestions: Check your histogram on the back of your camera after you take a shot - this will give you a good indication of how your exposure is. Lighting plays a huge part in how a photograph will look. I (almost!) always use a filter to protect my lens. Especially if I was on a beach where sand can scratch the front of an expensive lens if the wind was to whip up a few grains. I have a good quality UV protection filter (I think it's good quality, was almost $100?). The only time my filter comes off is if I'm adding a polariser or ND filter. I took shots with my 70-200 with UV filter and without and I honestly couldn't tell the difference but OH calls my 70-200 lens my "f_ off" lens as he said that is what it looks like - men! I haven't noticed any softness at the 200mm end of my lens but I'd be peeved if I did, considering what it is. I tend to shoot dogs running in TV mode and then check the exposure. If I'm not happy, then I start fiddling with apertures and adjusting ISO, but I hardly ever go above ISO 400. I shoot in RAW as it's easier (and a RAW file you can slightly adjust the exposure if you stuff it up) and I never have to then bother to go into PS. I hate image editing. edited to clarify something and I think my filter is Hoya too. I also have a polarising filter, but I took it off cause I didn't know how to use it and it was ruining my pics. Yes, it was, not me Polarisers are fantastic for saturating colour and cutting through glare but they will slow down your shutter speed as you lose 2 stops of light. I only use polarisers for some landscape photos or waterfall shots Edited November 10, 2008 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) Here is a review of your 70-300 IS lens (linky below). I was considering the lens you have as my Canon 70-200 doesn't have IS and I also need a bit more reach, but I'm probably going to buy a Sigma 150-400mm with IS instead. Just so I can photograph the wittle birdies I see on hikes. 200mm is not close enough to photograph a shy gang gang (saw one last weekend on a walk). http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showpro...t=27&page=3 It gets very good reviews for its price. Maybe we can meet up when we aren't busy and I can loan you my "f_ off" lens (as OH calls it) and you can practise with that as it doesn't have IS. Edited November 10, 2008 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 Sounds good Let me do my homework first though so I can get a better understanding of my lens's capabilities and limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Read the review of it on FredandMiranda on that linky. Lots of people are waxing poetically about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 I did, over lunch, and a few other reviews. I haven't written it off, yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) oh - one last thing - Vickies post-processing skills are pretty (very!) good. Ummmm, thank you...I think . The focus doesn't look too bad to me Ruth, although it's hard to tell from that size. I see the biggest issue with them as mostly a lighting one, as someone said, you were taking them in the wrong spot in relation to the sun. Another this you might want to play around with is getting lower to the ground yourself, so that you are not standing up over your subjects. This has been an interesting thread. I'm going to take my cheap UV filter off & see what the difference is. Edited November 10, 2008 by Vickie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) This has been an interesting thread. I'm going to take my cheap UV filter off & see what the difference is. Just to add to this that I don't use a UV filter. My course instructor has said that the good ones ($100+) are worth it, but otherwise it will ruin your photos. As I am using a lens that costs $250, then doesn't bother me too much... however, if I get permission for the $2000 70-200mm f/2.8, then a $150 UV filter will definitely go on! Edited November 10, 2008 by Aubrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted November 10, 2008 Author Share Posted November 10, 2008 Another this you might want to play around with is getting lower to the ground yourself, so that you are not standing up over your subjects. Get low down in the water with no filter Are you lot trying to sabotage me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Get low down in the water with no filter Are you lot trying to sabotage me? sure sounds that way doesn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugerfly Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I have a filter on my 80-400 and it was somewhere around 150-160 bucks. The smaller lens's I dont though. It might have somthing to do with the cost of the big lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Rome and all that...Rome Rome Rome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocco Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Ruthless I dont see a problem with your images except maybe a light issue, otherwise nice. At least they are not a blurry mess. I've thrown the towel in on action shots. Could someone point us idiots in the right direction for a good filter? What to look for beside $150 price. I just bought a Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 UV purely for lens protection as I thought scratching a filter would be cheaper to replace then my lens. Never thought it could effect quality. Now I can blame my sh!t photography on my filter. Also......Happy Birthday to Chopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now