More news from Canon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Daniel Kasaj, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. Daniel Kasaj

    Daniel Kasaj Guest

    Daniel Kasaj, Feb 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Daniel Kasaj

    Celcius Guest

    Very interesting, Daniel. Thanks for sharing.

    I took note of the lens (18-55 1: 3.5-5.6 ?)
    Comparing it with the 17-85 1: 4-5.6 IS USM, what exactly is to be
    Is the difference of .5 between the 2 appreciable?
    The "Kit lens" appears to be II. What does it mean? I couldn't find
    this in the text...
    As for the rest, It looks very good.

    Celcius, Feb 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Daniel Kasaj

    piperut Guest

    Hi Marcel,

    I don't see the 17-85mm F4-5.6 Canon Lens on the link that was listed
    prior in this thread.
    However, I have a Tamron F2.8 28-75mm Lens in addition to the Canon Kit
    Lens of F3.5-5.6 18-55mm. What is gained by going to a slightly longer
    focal distance is being able to use it for portraits.
    The F2.8 lets me shoot in a little bit lower light, but that was not
    the reason for purchasing the lens.
    I really wanted it for portraits, it turns out that I can get shots in
    teatres without a flash fairly okay on 1600 ISO with a Canon Digital
    Rebel. They come out a bit noisy, but they look okay. is one I shot on on
    F2.8, using the theatre stage lights. It is at a slower shutter speed
    (I don't recall what I shot it at 1/200 or 1/160 ... something around
    there, I would have to look at the file on my computer to make sure),
    on a ship. I was seated towards the rear of the theatre on a cruise
    ship. The webmaster has cut the file down for the webpage from the
    orginal file. There are other photos on the review of the cruise I
    shot with this lens, most of the theatre photos were shot with this
    lens, but not all.

    The pool deck photos was shot with a Peleng 8mm lens (Fisheye Lens).
    That lens has to be used in an all manual mode. It is exposed for the
    sky, and the edges of the photo are a bit dark. I am not sure I like
    the effect. I could lighten the photo up, but you would lose the
    effect of the sky over the pool deck. I was really just attempting to
    show people what the pool looked like.

    The photos on the island, and a few others were taken with a real
    inexpensive Polaroid Digital Camera. Mainly because I didn't want to
    take an expensive Digital SLR out on the beach in the sand.

    All of the photos are cut way down from the orginals. They are even
    cut way down from the size of files I sent to the webmaster.

    piperut, Feb 21, 2006
  4. Daniel Kasaj

    Skip M Guest

    "Celcius" <> wrote in message
    > Very interesting, Daniel. Thanks for sharing.
    > I took note of the lens (18-55 1: 3.5-5.6 ?)
    > Comparing it with the 17-85 1: 4-5.6 IS USM, what exactly is to be
    > gained?

    Actually, according to DPReview, that's a 17-55 f2.8 IS, which is
    interesting, it's the first fast EF-S lens that Canon has produced. Works
    on the (disappointing?) 30D like the 28-70 f2.8L does on the 5D, but with IS
    added. Could be an good addition. I wonder what it costs...

    Skip Middleton
    Skip M, Feb 21, 2006
  5. Daniel Kasaj

    Celcius Guest

    Celcius, Feb 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. LnkWizard
    Laura A. Robinson
    Sep 22, 2004
  2. Kenny

    Good news, bad news!

    Kenny, Jul 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Jul 2, 2004
  3. Replies:
  4. KevenGaston
    Nov 8, 2007
  5. floffy
    Sep 20, 2009