Good Lense/Bad Lense

[jrg]

First post here, but I've been lurking around for awhile... I'm pretty new to photography, and I picked up a D Rebel about a month ago so I'm trying to learn as much as I can. I was suckered into getting the D Rebel with a Sigma 28-80 f3.5-5.6 Asph. Macro lense that the guy told me was waaaayyy better than the kit lens. Not sure how I feel about that since just about every picture I've taken with it (500) has been kinda dark and bland looking while a friend has taken some great photos with the kit lens. What is the general consensus on the Sigma?

Also, as far as replacement I'm considering the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM and the Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM. Any opinions on which will give sharper more vibrant color? I'm in desperate need of advice here, please help.

Thanks,
JRG

[Jon]

Are you basing your evaluations on how the pictures look on the camera's LCD? Have you checked to make sure your pictures are properly exposed? do you have a couple of examples you could post here? Were you and your friend using the same in-camera processing and post-processing settings? You might try going out together, taking a couple of test shots under exactly the same conditions and comparing these.

[Lesmac]

Most images from DSLR's have images that seem flat and lifeless straight from camera (even the 1DS MKII), therefore usually need some kind of post processing to bring the images to life.
You don;t say what you use to post process but PS does an excellent job.
For a first 'real' lens, the 28-135 IS USM is a good starting point, and for a wide angle, 17-40F4 L.
Regards

Les
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[Citizensmith]

If you were persuaded to get a sigma 28-80 instead of the Canon 18-55 I'd recommend never going back to that store as they are either incompetant or liars. The 18-55 is much better than the Sigma.

As for replacements, the 24-85 and 17-85 are optically about equal. The 17-85 has the greater range, additions of IS, and greater cost. If you can afford the 17-85 go for it, you won't regret it.

Oh yeah, and its Lens, or lenses. There's no e on the singular. :)

[jrg]

Thanks for the spell check man. Like I said, I can use all the help I can get. Trying to pst a couple of images now so Jon can see what I'm talking about and make some suggestions...

Thanks,
JRG

[Andy_T]

JRG,

welome to the forum!

Take a look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI. It is an awesome lens ...

- reasonably sharp (definitely better than kit lens!) wide open
- extremely sharp (similar to 24-70/2.8 L) stepped down to 3.5 or 4.0
- constant 2.8 aperture (will spoil you forever for slow lenses)
- smallest and lightest constant 2.8 normal lens
- ok build quality
- and yours for 300$ (new) including lens hood!

Also, get the Canon 50/1.8 prime lens for about 70$, and look for a used 18-55 kit lens, if you want to take wide angle shots.

Best regards,
Andy

[Ikinaa]

...

Also, get the Canon 50/1.8 prime lens for about 70$, and look for a used 18-55 kit lens, if you want to take wide angle shots.

Best regards,
Andy

Andy...

I'd be interested where you can get the 50/1.8 for 70$ here in Europe?
The cheapest I've seen around is about 100 Euro.
Ordering it in the USA will add postage and packaging so that's it's not interesting anymore...

[Redbird_xo]

A friend of mine who lives in Paris had paid around $150 more when he bought his G5 there. I can't speak for everything, but with my past few visits to Paris and other European cities, I know exactly what you mean, Ikinaa. With strong Euro, people holding USD are suffering more (about 20% more expensive comparing to the period when Euro was weak).

[Andy_T]

Andy...

I'd be interested where you can get the 50/1.8 for 70$ here in Europe?


Oops ... I assumed that the poster would be in the US (he didn't state where he's from), and the prices *I've heard* about in the US are around 70$.

You could get one from eBay in Europe for around 80 EUR, I suppose. I'm only following auctions on the metal mount MKi, and this normally goes for around EUR 125 used.

Best regards,
Andy

[jrg]

Here are a few photos I took over the weekend at Portland Head Light in Portland, ME. Please feel free to critique exposure, etc...

http://img1.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc117&image=693_PortlandHead_020rs.jpg

http://img3.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc158&image=f47_PortlandHead_046rs.jpg

http://img1.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc119&image=e97_PortlandHead_058rs.jpg

Thanks.
JRG

[Jon]

The first thing that comes to mind is that with all that snow, your meter's going to be thrown off. It's calibrated to expose so that the pictures will all average out to a middle (18%) grey. When there's a large area that's significantly lighter (like snow) or darker (like shadows in the woods), it's going to be thrown off. In the case of snow, you have to open up a couple of stops to compensate. If the scene's got a lot of dark, you stop down a tad.
One way to tell if you're shooting right is to set up so your LCD display and review show the image's histogram. If you've got white areas in the subject, the histogram should reach over to the right hand side. If the histogram's all bunched up at one side or the other, you should use some exposure compensation. Ideally, it'll span the entire range of the chart, so you'll have good whites and good blacks, and everything in between, but not all subjects have that range.

Next time you go out, set the camera for AEB (Autometic Exposure Bracketing). It'll take 3 pictures each time, at different exposures (up to 1 stop apart, depending on what you set). See which one looks best, and you can get an idea if your exposure needs attention.