[xBhp Universal Thread]: Photography and Critique

[TheRedPill]

@amvj: Glad you liked it . Thanks for the suggestion I'll keep this in mind next time I capture such shots.

[ankitmohan]

lovely pics there JAYAN....!!

Originally Posted by amvj

Great photos jayan

some from my end. All taken with panasonic ls85 (hand-held)

loved each and every pic...!!!

[anvancy]

Anvancy

[anirudh]

Ok its been ages since i have posted on xbhp coz of being without a bike for quite a while now. I got a reason now coz i need help on some lens suggestions for my canon. I got my 450D about 6 months back and I am pretty bored using the kit lens(18-55 IS). I would like to get some nice additions to my kit. I was recently looking at a few lenses and shortlisted the following based on suggestions
Canon EF-S 55-250 IS
Sigma 70-300 APO DG macro
Tamron 70-300

Even though the IS in the canon is a major plus among these lenses, i saw some pretty awesome pics taken by a friend of mine on the sigma. I know the non-is factor gives the sigma and the tamron a big backfoot. But here is what i will be using it for. I will be shooting some nature and wildlife shots on roadtrips and a few portraits..ok make that many( girls cant get enough of the 450D).. i hate taking portraits but its atleast better than listening to girls complaining .... and last and most important i will be taking shots of bikes( soon on the track). so based on this which one of the three is the best?

I know a telephoto at 200mm plus without a tripod can have lots of blur in the image but i have seen pics that my friend took handheld of some birds with the sigma and i couldnt believe how sharp they were.


@anvancy
I have been a great fan of your pics for quite a long time. I wish i could be half as good. I have seen some of your shots with the raynox converters. I saw some pretty slick converters both telephoto and macro.... I will surely be getting a macro filter for my dslr soon. I was wondering how good the telephoto converters were. Do you think using these would be better than buying a telephoto without IS?( This is only taking budget into consideration).... is it better if i get a raynox telephoto converter now and then go for a better telephoto lens with IS later? Please suggest.

[Praful]

^^ The choice of your glass also depends a lot on your budget. I believe the Canon lens is the most expensive of the lot. Photography guru's correct me if I'm wrong, but the Canon lenses do tend to be better than its Sigma/Tamron counterparts as the glass used in Canon tends to be better. I find the reach of the 55-250 pretty accurate and even at full 250 you can take handheld shots without the IS too, its quite subjective to the amount of lighting you have.

Eg: Check this out....



This is taken at 250mm handheld. So even with a 300mm you can go handheld without the need of a tripod, but its highly subjective to lighting.

Hope this helps!

@Anvay: Showing off raynox chacha

Here's my entry for today....

Click for larger version....



EXIF:
Camera: Canon EOS Kiss X2
Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture: f/8.0
Focal Length: 18 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

Taken a few meters above the road for Khardung La pass.

[jayan]

Originally Posted by amvj

Great photos jayan

some from my end. All taken with panasonic ls85 (hand-held)

Awesome pics bro....surprised to see such a nice pics taken by panasonic ls85

[anvancy]

Originally Posted by anirudh

@anvancy
I have been a great fan of your pics for quite a long time. I wish i could be half as good. I have seen some of your shots with the raynox converters. I saw some pretty slick converters both telephoto and macro.... I will surely be getting a macro filter for my dslr soon. I was wondering how good the telephoto converters were. Do you think using these would be better than buying a telephoto without IS?( This is only taking budget into consideration).... is it better if i get a raynox telephoto converter now and then go for a better telephoto lens with IS later? Please suggest.

thanks.i m glad that u liked them.

considering converters..a proper Tele is anytime better than a converter.better optics minimal loss of light..etc..relate to better photos.but do not consider that teleconverters are crap.bird photographers do shoot with a 400mm+2x converter.the proper "HIGH DEFINITION" ones converters are i think costly.cheap ones then have loss of light.if u do not have a single Tele..ill advise save and buy a Tele with IS preferably.sometimes then IS does come in Handy.

u are confusing with converter and IS..converter increases ur FOCAL LENGTH.IS stands for image stabilisation.reducing blur pics etc.converters make a 400mm lens a 2x advantage.

so buy a Tele first then a converter.

my 2 p.

@praful:yup..time to improvise on my skill.

anvancy

[varun_r15]

Originally Posted by amvj

Great photos jayan

some from my end. All taken with panasonic ls85 (hand-held)

great set of pics there..
nice details..

[chicane1879]

@amvj

Those are some stunning images i have ever come across which are shot from an inexpensive P&S cam. Never heard of this Nikon model before.How much did it cost?

[anirudh]

@ praful-
Agreed on the budget part.. But the ones i posted all are more or less the same price.... difference of 10 to 20 bucks.. plus i am getting these on a deal... and the the canon 55-250 has softened images at the telephoto end.... the sigma however produces pretty sharp pics even 250-300 mm not to mention the extra reach....and i am just talking about static subjects here...when it comes to dynamic shots i think the canon wins hands down.. and the optics in all these lenses are almost the same since we are talking of all low end lens here.... go any higher and the canon would win anyday.. but these are just entry level lenses... hence the confusion.

@anvancy.
Agree with what you say. But i think you misunderstood me. I wasnt asking if a telephoto could be replaced by a teleconverter. I saw a converter from raynox that increases the reach of a 18-55 lens upto 193 mm.. and it costs only a fraction of the 55-250 IS. So if i am not going to be using a telephoto all the time.. isnt the converter a more sensible buy? And this has nothing to with IS/ Non IS. Lets say the telephoto is non is... then?