Its direct harsh flash that makes the foto look plasticy.. if you use (hot shoe mounted) bounced flash intelligently, at times it can be impossible to even tell by looking at the foto that a flash was even used

only good for stationery objects... how about when you have to shoot some exotic dancer in a dark night club and need a high shutter speed to freeze the action




bigger av, say like 1.8 on the 50mm again creates a different compromise, say if you want to take a group foto of 4people... at 1.8, the DOF would be so thin that it would be very difficult to get all of their faces in sharp focus

so, there's actually no total substitute for a good flash... not IS, not the tripod, not high ISO and not even a large aperture

I have two now, the 18-50 2.8 EX and the 18-200 OS, the best thing about the Sigma's is their superb build quality. Also, i simply love everything about mu 18-50. Its sharp, great IQ, excellent AF ability, even in low light, great AF accuracy, the only slight drawbach could be the focus speed.. thats because its a non-HSM version. However Sigma makes 18-50 2.8 in HSM version for the Nikon mount which is both faster & quiter during AF. I would happily recommend this for your D40

Its biggest drawback is its inaccurate AF... and i dont find it too sharp either... not saying that you can't get great fotos out of it, I've got couple of excellent shots from it too, however, somehow, its never really grown on me..

I have to admit this, using flash is my weak point, might be also bcoz I dont have a speedlite.
So @experts time for u guys to share some gyan about using flashes, considering us (precisely me) as a complete amateur when it comes to flashes!..

Fill!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes, the idiocy of my mind missed out on one of the more important purposes - Fill.

and also, the external speedlights can be used properly with diffusers and bounce for avoiding the direct flash look. Will make sure to get a decent speedlight with my SLR rig.

BTW, went to Akihabara today. HUUUUUGEEE camera stores there....
the 50D and the 18-200 EF-S canon are in stock. (18-200 costs 79.8K yen with a 10% bonus points)

and there are second hand cameras too available. there was a pretty decent deal of a 20D + 17-85 EF-S for 60K yen - the EF-S lens made me hesitate for a bit coz i wanted to get a EF lens so that it can be used on the full-frames also. When I went back to the new camera stores and saw that the lens cost 78k yen, I decided to buy it, but when I went back it was already sold, with some other fellow trying it out. Maybe some other day...

BTW, the lenses are available at quite a higher cost here in Japan than the US or maybe Singapore / Malaysia, but still are definetly cheaper than in India (the authorise shops... gray market is cheaper but dunno sure about the authenticity of those). The 70 - 200 2.8 IS costs like 233K yen, with 10% points that you can redeem point to yen for other stuff. I dream of getting this, the 24-70 2.8, a 5D Mark II, a 50 1.4 and a speedlight
(another 1.6x crop body and a 100-400 IS for the reach would be ideal, kinda the reason why I was looking for that 20D in the day, but lets not get carried away way toooooo much shall we....)

Did u went to laox? I got my first digicam from there only .. its a duty free , with a passport u'll get more discount..

Among Canon zoom lenses, which one would you guys suggest? The choices are the following:

1. 70-200mm f2.8L USM
2. 100-400mm f4.5 - 5.6L IS USM

I know that it depends on the usability, as the 70-200mm f2.8 would be a very good lens (because of the f2.8 aperture) in low light and perhaps the quality of the pictures would be better than the 100-400 as also the bokeh would be way better than the f4.5-5.6 100-400mm, but then the only thing which strikes me with the 100-400mm is the sheer reach of the latter, which, coupled with the 1.6x crop-factor (of Canon APS-C D-SLRs) is a massive 160-640mm!!

But, then again it would be pretty useless in low light because of the aperture..Pretty confusing, this.. I am not going to get it in a day or two; it will take a little time, but a fair bit of research and discussion never hurts, I believe.

Canon Digital Photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin

Ah, the eternal debate between the fast and the long.....

The statement about the f2.8 making "better quality pictures" is not so true. The wide open (max aperture) sharpness is slightly better on the 100-400 (sometimes corners, sometimes centre), and stopped down there is perhaps no difference between these lenses. Ofcourse this I am talking about resolution charts, you'd perhaps go blind pixel peeping in real world pics. Bokeh yeah would be better on the 70-200 in comparable focal length range, but the 400mm setting of the 100-400 does give awesome bokeh too.

Also, the statement about the 100-400 being "pretty useless in low light" is something that I'd strongly disagree. If the prime purpose of your photography is freezing action, the ofcourse get the fastest tele lens that ya can get on the planet (the 200mm f2 prime rocks for that, and costs a cool 748K yen). However, if the bulk of your photography is done in the day, or with relatively slow moving or still subjects, then the 100-400 will be so much more usable because of the massive 160-640 on the 1.6crop. And jack the ISO to 1600, or on the 50D, to 12800 - agree 12800 will be a soup of noise, but still 3200 - 4000 should be pretty darn usable)

Then there is the IS. On still subjects, there will be a benefit of maybe 2 to 3 stops with IS on, and that means that the 2 stop disadvantage of the 100-400 will melt away, unless ofcourse ya go for the 70-200 2.8 IS.....

so it all boils down to this perhaps...
1. low light action freezing shots -> f2.8
2. other purposes (birding / candids@640mm / wildlife / still objects / big birding (aircraft) and the lot -> 100-400

@Psycho: Thanks for that insight. I understand perfectly what you say, but, say I want to shoot some relatively low light shots (like something under the evening sky) which would require a fast lens (comparatively), then won't the 4.5 - 5.6 aperture of the 100-400 be a deterrant?

But what the heck, I have always been biased somehow towards the 100-400. Anyways, when the time comes, I will decide (perhaps in favor of the 100-400.. )

Thanks again Psycho!

aryan..imagine..640mm+raynox+again cropping that you can do

Yup! I know man, and that range (640mm 'default' minus raynox or cropping) would be just phenomenal!

you will need something at 640mm to focus that close..raynox has a large amount of DOF.even at F16 still get beautiful bokeh.

@Aryan:
Something under the evening skies would for sure be easier to shoot on a faster lens. However, the reach advantage of the 100-400 is not to be trifled with. to go any faster than 5.6 at that focal length, one has to go for the super expensive Canon Super Telephoto primes, and then again they lack the benefit of the flexibility of the zoom. They are more suited to specific tasks like boundary-lining the cricket field, rather than for a variety of tasks that can be accomplished with the zoom.

I would once again say that the hands on experience card can help here. If ya can get the same lens from someone for trials, or also a similar aperture and focal length lens (say the 70-300 ones) for actual use in the field in a multitude of conditions, that would do a lot of good of making you understand the usability and the pitfalls. Should make the expensive decision a lot easier.

@anvancy
does raynox make the 150 and 250 for the 77mm filter threads of the canon 100-400 and the like??? coz on their site they are shown for a much smaller filter thread, and also the adapter does not reach that wide.

the snap on adapter supports from 52mm to 67mm.but there are methods that people have devised to attach raynox to that big thread.mostly on net one can get a step down adapter or something.or one can also use oil seals as a DIY method.

aryan:i forgot to write one thing.

640mm(taking the crop factor)+a total of 3.75x magnification(considering the 150 and 250 together) at that mm.+again 1:1 crop.that will be just too much.

You bugger!