New Zoom Lens for the Canon

[tbui1178]

Ultra Wide Angle

Figured that out after I reread his post. ;P

[soymilk]

20+ feet away and bounced is pretty hard on the flash. If you're having color issues with the flash and ambient light in the room, you have to use color gels on the flash to match the light in the room. Example: If the room has a lot of tungsten lighting, then you'd have to use a few orange gels over the flash to match the color.

as for the sample, i can't really tell because the forum downsized the picture to .3 megapixels. The thing about that lens is its a swiss army knive of lenses. It can do a lot but it doesn't really do them all as well as other lenses. But there's really no other lens that can do wide at 18mm and tele at 270mm. Looking at charts about that lens, image quality drops off after around 200mm. Not to mention defraction starts getting bad at f11. Sweet spot is f9 on that lens.

But thats the goto lens for vactions. It makes things a lot easier for most people that don't wanna keep changing lenses. I wasted A LOT of time switching back from a 35mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm on my trip to san antonio. So its a trade off, image quality vs simplicity.

[tbui1178]

20+ feet away and bounced is pretty hard on the flash. If you're having color issues with the flash and ambient light in the room, you have to use color gels on the flash to match the light in the room. Example: If the room has a lot of tungsten lighting, then you'd have to use a few orange gels over the flash to match the color.

as for the sample, i can't really tell because the forum downsized the picture to .3 megapixels. The thing about that lens is its a swiss army knive of lenses. It can do a lot but it doesn't really do them all as well as other lenses. But there's really no other lens that can do wide at 18mm and tele at 270mm. Looking at charts about that lens, image quality drops off after around 200mm. Not to mention defraction starts getting bad at f11. Sweet spot is f9 on that lens.

But thats the goto lens for vactions. It makes things a lot easier for most people that don't wanna keep changing lenses. I wasted A LOT of time switching back from a 35mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm on my trip to san antonio. So its a trade off, image quality vs simplicity.

I'll PM you with a link to my pictures I took in Seaworld.

[soymilk]

I see what you mean now, it has a hazy look. Looks like diffraction to me. Also the lens doesn't do so well at the long zoom side of the lens. 200mm+

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/3

if you got time, play with that widget. Set the Focal length to 200 or 270 and the fstop to f11 or higher. The line on top represents how sharp the lens is. Notice how the line goes down the as you go from 70 to 270, also when you go past f8 it goes down more. So if you want sharp pics with that lens i'd stay around f5.6-f9 and from 35mm-100mm.

[tbui1178]

I took out my 50mm... I forgot how much I liked this lens. The problem is it's not wide enough most of the time.

I'm going to mess with Jim's 35mm lens when I see him this weekend - going to see if that's wide enough.

[soymilk]

Exposure 1/125
Aperature f/14
Focal Length 238mm

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10788[/ATTACH]

pixel peepin' is never a good idea, but theres a whole lotta stuff going on here. purple fringing, lens softness and or diffraction.

[soymilk]

I took out my 50mm... I forgot how much I liked this lens. The problem is it's not wide enough most of the time.

I'm going to mess with Jim's 35mm lens when I see him this weekend - going to see if that's wide enough.

set your 24-70mm to 35mm and run around the house without changing the focal length. That'll give you a good sense of what a 35mm prime would look like.