The cheapest thing I could find that would entertain me just long enough was the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens. When I say cheap, I mean disposable cheap. However, this lens packs a lot of punch for what you pay!

With such a large aperture and, subsequently, a shallow depth of field it makes for some very interesting shots. The large aperture also allows you to take more hand-held photos in lower light situations. Also, a 50mm on my 1.6 crop body camera would equate to 80mm – a great focal length for portrait photography!

I’m still trying to figure out this lens – taking shots in different light, manual focus, auto focus, aperture etc.

Here are some shots that were taken in my living room:

I used a tripod for all these photos except for the one with the batteries. I also did some minor adjustments in Aperture.

So far I’m quite impressed with the quality that this lens is producing! I’m also loving the tight depth of field and background blurring!

I’ll post more photos in the near future!

~Rabee

• These things are much cheaper in the US
• You can pay a lot more based on the brand, for what seems like the same thing
• And finally, that you can get them at a fraction of the cost from eBay

I just placed an order on eBay for a 43″/5 in 1 Collapsible Light Reflecting Disc for a whopping $24, shipping included! The same type of contraption form my local camera store was selling for $169!

I’ll update this post once I receive the reflector and test it out!

[Update 2009/01/26] I received the reflector about a week or so ago, however I haven’t really had a chance to test it out. Check back for some pictures and overall thoughts regarding quality etc…

~Rabee

http://www.robert-barrett.com/photo/exposure_calculator.html

If you haven’t read the book, I would definitely recommend it. I did a bit of reading on the web to understand the meaning of “Stopping-Down”, “Exposure Bracketing”, and a whole slew of other photography terms and techniques before reading this book. With that in mind, I think this book is still very useful for someone that’s just wondering “Hey, how’d they get that shot!?“.

My equipment line-up includes:

• Canon Digital Rebel XTi
• Canon 18 – 55 mm f/3.5 – 5.6 USM
• Canon 55 – 200 mm f/4.5 – 5.6 II USM
• Canon 75 – 300 mm f/4 – 5.6 III USM

So back to the original topic of this post. I am looking at replacing my 18 – 55 lens with a better one – and am also looking at expanding the range of this lens if possible. Keeping that in mind, I have narrowed it down to one of two lenses from Canon:

• Canon EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS USM, or the
• Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L USM

So far I’ve read countless reviews about, and comparisons between, these two lenses. What it basically boils down to is this:

1. They are both great lenses
2. I have to choose one based on the purpose it will serve

I find that when I’m shooting (on vacation or just at a function of some sort), I always end up using the stock lens that came with my Digital Rebel (18 – 55). That focal length gives me the range I need to cover a large percentage of my shooting needs. My other lens, 55 – 200, almost never gets used.

My initial reasoning for looking at the “L” series lenses was the fact that they supported the full-frame sensors in the “Pro” line-up of cameras. I said to myself, if I’m going to get a good lens and spend a nice chunk of money on it, then I should be able to use that lens now, and in the years to come – without having to re-invest. Capital cost vs Operating Cost.

The other thing that led me to the “L” series was that they were the only types of non-prime lenses that could offer a fixed maximum aperture at all focal lengths.

So the debate sounds like this: 24 – 105 gives me more focal length range than my current stock Rebel lens – tack on the IS feature, and it sounds like a great lens. The only downer is the aperture of f/4 when compared to the 24 – 70. On the other hand, the 24 – 70 offers an aperture of f/2.8, but has a shorter focal length which is comparable to that in my stock Rebel lens (18 – 55).

Do I:

1. Go with a slower lens, IS, a larger focal length, and risk not having the speed I need when taking lower light shots – raising the need for a flash/higher ISO, or
2. Go with a faster lens, a smaller focal length which won’t give me the range that I would want (could have), produce less spectacular portraits, yet reduce the need for a flash/higher ISO?

As I wrote this post, the answer seemed to get  clearer  to me. However, the more I think about it, the more difficult this decision gets.

Please share your thoughts/suggestions in the comments section!

[Update 2009/01/27] Fixed some minor errors in the lens specs.

~ Rabee