-=Rebel T1i / 500D Users Stand UP!

drocpsu wrote in post #12994149
Here's 2 I took with the nifty fifty last week (also posted in the "post your flower shots" thread):

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/drocpsu/6060597​561/
Sunflowers by drocpsu, on Flickr

...what a beautiful day to be outside, i like the colors

meeko031 wrote in post #12994166
...what a beautiful day to be outside, i like the colors

thanks. it was a gorgeous day to be in a field of sunflowers.

This is where I was:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/drocpsu/6060595​759/

^^^i can feel my summer allergies kicking in. great capture!

Tonight. Kit lens and BULB mode with 2$ remote from e-bay. It works

great shots meeko and kf095

IMAGE LINK: http://phlotography.sm​ugmug.com …F#1384203507_hm​8z49M-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://phlotography.sm​ugmug.com …F#1386727109_nf​hVqgs-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://phlotography.sm​ugmug.com …F#1388515852_m8​KsXxc-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://phlotography.sm​ugmug.com …F#1386727596_bs​HLkSH-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://phlotography.sm​ugmug.com …F#1386727568_vv​WWpBP-A-LB

meeko031 wrote in post #12992153
60mm, I had a hard time tracking these little guys

Great capture and processing. The colors on that bee are great!

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #12993537
he camera's metering chose great colors for those two pics (first one looks slightly dull though, typical for the sort of scene those background clouds suggest), though the biplane is much more vivid in the second picture (not really caring for the transition between the treeline and the sky in that one, though aside from that the deeper colors may have been the camera's doing - for my liking they are an overly-strong counterpoint to the biplane, but I wasn't there and I wouldn't have processed the photos to artificial perfection either.) I think more dynamic range in the camera would have helped those shots somewhat.

Anyway, enough grousing from me...lovely pictures all!

Metering wont effect the colours. Mettering effects the exposure. However exposure can sometimes cause certain colours to be clipped. Colour can be affected by lens but more often than not its the light on the scene that affects colour.

This is assuming you shoot RAW of course. In camera process does of course effect colour but with how cheap HDD space is these days and the efficiency of DPP that comes free with your camera there is very little reason to shoot jpeg these days.

Light source issues such as harsh, reflected, multiple light sources are WAY more likely the cause of colour issues. This is of course not including white balance which is often the largest cause of incorrect colour.

In images such as the very saturated orange on the plane, i would say the most likely issues was one of the colour channels got clipped and then processing (either in camera or software) of the saturation just made the issue worse.

oh i guess i better post some pics as well. 2 of my friends just had a baby the other week.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

First time with 17-40 F4L on Rebel.
I'm still under opinion it is waste of money to get it if you don't have FF camera.

why? if you use it on a crop your using nothing but the sweet spot of the lens.

True but there are other lenses out there with a bigger range and the same image quality overall for the same or less $$$, such as the tamron 17-50, or canon 15-85 is usm

Genome wrote in post #12997367
why? if you use it on a crop your using nothing but the sweet spot of the lens.

I'm agree with Luke. If you have only APS-C camera 17-40 has too limited range, it is too slow (F4) and too expensive, compare to 17-50 2.8 zooms for EF-S.
Even kit lens, not as sharp, but makes much more sence.

I agree with that. I didn't mean there wernt better options but it's quality is just as good (poss better as you don't get the weaker edges).

The 17-40 is good as an ultra wide on ff but yes there are better options for that range on APS-C. I just thought you meant in regards to IQ

I have to disagree, I had the the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and while a great deal for the $, it is by no means = or even close to the Canon 17-55 2.8 or the 17-40......mine hunted for focus, and front focused, was soft at 2.8 which led to far fewer keepers than I would have thought possible. So I snagged a 17-40L for outdoor/landscapes/int​erior architecture and am fixing to pick up a Sigma 30 1.4 for when the sun goes down paired up with a 60mm 2.8 macro.

I knew one photographer who takes pictures almost exclusively with Tamron 17-50 2.8
I have seen them in large prints. Good IQ, for reasonable money.
http://www.kateskrylev​a.com/albums/

Every new lens I have (few) I compare it with kit lens I started with 500D.
Nifty-Fifty was sharp, but dool. 70-200 F4 - I was - WOW. It was like totally different camera with this lens.
Everything - sharpness, colors, contrast are WOW.
Tamron 28-75 - wow, not WOW. But it is sharp on 2.8 from 28 to 75. And colors good as well.

But 17-40F4, which I get to replace dirt cheap UWA lens for 5Dc...
Fast AF? Well, kit lens is also fast to focus. I never miss anything with kit lens, jumping kids or drugster with jet engine on track.

But the rest for eight times price difference compare to kit lens, not something to write home about it. Slightly sharper, slightly better colors compare Rebel kit lens in real world pictures I took yesterday.
Not a "WOW" like 70-200 F4 L, not even "wow" like Tamron.
It is just very convenient lens, with no extending, no rotating elements, could be weather sealed, small, but build to lasts for long time. I like it on 5Dc, it has better colors and contrasts compare to cheap UWA I have before, but it is not as sharp as this Vivitar was.

17-40 at F4 with 500D