the first two shots are with a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 xr di-ii, the others are with a tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 atx dx pro. both are EXCELLENT lenses in terms of bang for the buck–VERY sharp and reasonably priced (much cheaper than “brand” lenses by canon and/or nikon).
the body is a canon 20d i picked up a year ago for ~$400. i shoot in raw mode exclusively and do all post processing in adobe lightroom, occasionally sending pics to photoshop as well for more specific processing.
I totally didn’t realize that I could put lenses on my canon that..well..weren’t canon. I READ something about it on NSoP, but I didn’t quite “get” it.
Is there an attachment that needs to go on there first?
deutlich: first off, i’m GLAD you’re asking questions here, since i can reply and answer them to everyone’s beneift. so keep asking.
can you put non-canon lenses on the camera? sure you can! in fact, i have an old (ie >40 year old) nikkor (which is what nikon used to call their lenses) that was my father’s that i mount to my camera with a simple metal adapter ring. this is an extreme case where the mount of the lens itself won’t directly fit and needs a mechanical adapter to work.
now, some time ago the “third party” lens manufacturers started making lenses with the proper physical mount, so that you don’t need to use an adapter… they just click right on. the big three out there are tamron, sigma, and tokina. when the lenses got computerized and starting becoming “smarter” with autofocus and auto-aperture and such, the 3rd parties reverse-engineered the canon/nikon chips to learn the control protocol and basically made their lenses work on the canon/nikon bodies.
the biggest single complaint about the 3rd party lenses is that their quality control wasn’t quite as good as canon/nikon… in other words, if you got a “good copy” the lens was sharp and crisp and focused properly, but if you got a “bad copy” the lens was shit. this is true of ANY manufacturer, but apparently the ratio of good to bad was better from canon/nikon. also, every once in a while, a new camera body would come out that the lenses wouldn’t “place nice” with because of a change or update in the control protocol to the embedded microchips, and you’d end up with an error or something. some folks even think that canon/nikon did this type of thing on purpose to deter people from buying 3rd party lenses.
as of late, in the past 5 years or so, probably coinciding with the digital SLR revolution, the 3rd party lens mfgs have started upping the ante. as of today they offer some lenses that canon/nikon can’t touch in terms of focal length, speed, sharpness, and price.
the two lenses i’ve mentioned are two that fit that description. canon DOES make an excellent 17-55 f/2.8, and it even has image stabilization (which can help you shoot with low shutter speeds), BUT it’s a g-note. similarly, canon also make an ultra wide angle lens, the 10-22, BUT it’s $700, and it’s “slower” than the tokina (max aperture f/3.5 vs. 2.8) and by all reports isn’t as sharp.
in terms of getting a fixed focal length lens, ie 50mm, it would be very rare to expect a direct replacement by a zoom lens. so even though you may have a zoom that covers the same range, the fixed focal length lens will generally be “better.” by better, i mean sharper, smaller, lighter, faster. the fixed FL lens does not have nearly the same number of elements (individual lenses inside) and will show less distortion… basically because any zoom lens is necessarily a compromise of optics to gain flexibility.
in canon’s case, an excellent 50mm f/1.8 lens exists that is a tremendous bang for the buck… like <$100. i would have one myself IF i didn't have my dad's old nikkor lens covering that same duty. the nikkor is SLIGHTLY faster at f/1.4, BUT it's manual focus and manual aperture, so it's more of a PITA to use. just because i have a 17-50 doesn't mean the nikkor doesn't get used.. generally in cases where light is an issue OR i want a very thin depth of field.
i know it's long-winded but that's just the way i roll.
Oh Ken. I didn’t follow a damn bit of that. I’m still looking for the right point and shoot for me. And the penis pictures have to stop. That’s all I see now! You’ve corrupted shadow pictures for me for the rest of my life.
And the look on Charlotte’s face on the lift? Wow. She’s SO excited she can hardly stand it. And I can SEE that.
All of these pics are awesome. That first one would be great even without the shadow, but the shadow makes it massive. I’m a little disappointed that I can’t find the penis in the picture. I mean, maybe a severe burn victim’s penis. Maybe a leper’s penis.
Anyways, I can’t believe you got the suspension bridge picture by obviously sticking the camera out of your car windo while driving. Incredible.
