-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (1) =-

here's a question for you IS and VC peeps. From a focal length of 17-50, what would you say is hand-holdable in terms of shutter speeds? Half focal length?

RafaPolit wrote in post #11984150
Sorry to hear about all the people sick, VillanuevaPhotography, Vectoria and Al. Special hugs to Vectoria and Al's kids, I don't know them in person but I feel they are kind of my distant nieces, you have my best wishes, may you all recuperate very soon.

Rafa.

Thanks I feel a little better today just lost my voice. I don't any kids yet but thanks for the concern. We are trying for a baby thou Your pictures are beautiful as always

Annie thanks for thinking about me while be sick And your pictures are also beautiful as always

wolfy317 wrote in post #11990217
here's a question for you IS and VC peeps. From a focal length of 17-50, what would you say is hand-holdable in terms of shutter speeds? Half focal length?

Do you mean with or without VC? I shoot half shutter speed without IS with pretty fair keeper rate. Practicing my technique (shooting my book case in low light), I was able to shoot stuff like .3 seconds and even higher with VC (although with lots of flubs, too).

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11990309
Do you mean with or without VC? I shoot half shutter speed without IS with pretty fair keeper rate. Practicing my technique (shooting my book case in low light), I was able to shoot stuff like .3 seconds and even higher with VC (although with lots of flubs, too).

Well I seem to be able to shoot at a little under focal length depending on the focal length of the lens, I might can do 1/40 or 1/30 at 50mm depending on the day , but my keeper rate might be %50. I was wondering how much more VC/IS might help with that.

The Tamron VC is advertised as 4 stops, I think. They always exaggerate on those, but should be 2+. So if you can usually do 1/50th at 50mm, you should definitely be able to go down to 1/12 or even better.

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11990362
The Tamron VC is advertised as 4 stops, I think. They always exaggerate on those, but should be 2+. So if you can usually do 1/50th at 50mm, you should definitely be able to go down to 1/12 or even better.

Sweet. I'll play with it tonight and see what I can do

Shaisgs wrote in post #11988034
So I took my fairly new T2i out for some night shooting. The pictures were taken in Jerusalem. I would like to remind you that I am new to DSLR photography so I was pretty happy with the results

What do you guys think?

looks good for being new at this Welcome everyone is very nice here and will help you out as much as possible

Yesterday I received a Tamron 70-300 SP with VC so I will give you the first test. Since Wolfy asked here is the a sample of a chart on the wall in my office at about 20 feet away. All hand held and picture on the left is with VC off and on the right VC on. Camera settings, ISO 1600, F10, 1/25 shutter speed, 300mm, no flash. All I can say is simply amazing.... For it's money I don't think you can beat this lens. Maybe I should add that I'm not a steady shooter but with the vc on, it is amazing to see the freeze looking into the viewfinder.

Woodzy

wolfy317 wrote in post #11990217
here's a question for you IS and VC peeps. From a focal length of 17-50, what would you say is hand-holdable in terms of shutter speeds? Half focal length?

well the only experience i have where i used IS in one instance and non vc in another...
i went to a neighbors band night in a dark place... the library restaurant....
VERY dark... well the 18-55 IS lens was used at first... and although was a tad dark and errrr ok .... month later borrowed a tammy 17-50 f2.8 non vc... now the video was brighter.... more vibrant... but the non vc made a shakey shoot after watching it over again.... now this is in video... im contemplating on buying this lens... really am... but only in vc.... to me seeing that... non vc vs vc and non IS vs IS.... I will always take VC or IS... but that is me.. i plan on doing more videos!!!!!!!!!!!

photo side.. im not sure but as woodzy shows.... 20' @ 300 hand held the VC does alot better.... now i tried my sigma 70-300 and it has no stabalization... for my kids soccer... and i felt IS would have helped.. so my new 55-250 should return great results (yes i understand IS does not do anything for the players.. but it will keep my shakey hands steadier and if i have my settings right on speed and the sort.. the players should look good!!!!!!

Thanks once more friends, your warm words on the pictures means a lot! Thanks Al, Peajunk, Villanueva, Ofwiah, Rivest, Annie, Wolfy, Mitch.A and Vectoria.

Welcome to the Forum and to the T2i section Creamsoda3 and Shaisgs.

Al, yeah, I agree that some of those would not have been as interesting with the kit lens, as I pushed the f2.8 hardly precisely to test the differences. The moss shot as well as the water pouring from the ceiling were both at f2.8 to provide minimum DoF. I like that option, as well as not having the aperture change on me upon zooming. Also, I have found that the manual focus is incredibly useful and given the f2.8 brightness, its actually achievable with the smaller viewfinder. I have to say that the combined extra weight with the 1-stop slower IS does make an issue while trying to take hand held images at 1/8th.

Peajunk, where are you originally from? I'd love to see pictures of greens from all over the place as they differ quite significantly from one corner of the earth to the next.

Ofwiah, LOL... I assumed she was your wife, but since you called her "the model" I just had to ask . Also, I have mistaken guys for girls and girls for guys here before since some nicknames leave almost no trace of gender and, not being a native English speaker, some subtleties that would probably make you know one way or the other are lost to me. Also, for us non-English speakers, those subtleties may even make us appear younger (since we use the language more rudimentary) or from the opposite sex, so, it could have been! LOL. At any rate, the picture is still very interesting. I haven't noticed that it has two different backgrounds on her left and right. Only upon second inspection did that became celarer, and I think it adds to the overall ambiance of the image.

Rivest, thanks, your input is always welcome.

Wolfy, yeah, I agree about spiders. This particular fellow is about 4 inches length from toe to toe, so its fairly big and was siting a bit further. When I stepped forward to shoot it jumped in my direction about 4 inches in a matter of a fraction of a second, I almost fell to the ground! Luckily, he (or she?) kept still until I was recovered and re-focused On a 100% crop her four eyes are clearly visible... interesting fellow.

Mitch, I love the old-looking park bench you posted, and the Umbrella against sunset works nicely for me, as otherwise it would have been a dead on flash or dead-black face! By the way, I cannot see the first image.

Annie, nice doves. What settings are you using to save the images? I see some JPG artifacts happening, so the images may benefit from a slightly higher quality? If using Photoshop, I use Save for web and devices and usually use between 80 and 100. Oh, and what are you waiting for from the non-downs carrier? Is it photographic equipment?? Let us know!

Spacer, I love airplane / helicopter cockpit shot! Did you tampered with the color or is it so void of any hue but those yellow stripes? I like the effect and the DoF adds to the image. The penguin shot is, as others have noted, epic!

Creamsoda3, its hard to take pictures of flies... the DoF at that level means that if the thing moves a millimeter, it will be out of focus, and if you use f8~11 to achieve more DoF you end up in shutter speeds that would render the thing blurry. I think you managed pretty well. Perhaps try using a slightly smaller aperture (higher f number) to have more of the shot within focus plane?

Shaisgs, I believe all your night shots have a great technique to them and the locations are rendered more interesting because of the night setting and the flowing lights. Another benefit of smaller apertures is the star effect you get on post ligths. What I am missing in your images is something to pop as the main subject of the image. It could be the sky, it could be the streaks of light, it could be the water, or a tree... but I think they are rendered a bit flat to me. I like the second one most precisely because the flowing lights delimit the circular fountain and the color of the water helps make it the center of attention. At any rate, great images, thanks for sharing.

Davidc, congrats on the new lens! Eagerly awaiting your review and findings as well as more pictures!

Vectoria, glad to know you are feeling better! I meant to wish for recovery to Al's Kids and to you, Vectoria. Not to Vectoria and Al's kids as I worded it... I knew you don't have children so my wishes were for your swift recovery. It appear my English was on the poor side yesterday as I had a remarkably funny misunderstanding through PMs here on POTN. Again, glad to know you are better, and trying for a baby!

Firends, Even though its been mostly my images that had cluttered the quoted text in the last pages, I have to agree that quoting entire messages with images is a bit annoying. I agree that quoting only the relevant part you are addressing or the one image you are talking about is usually the better choice.

Best regards,
Rafa.

I wanted to add to the third party grip discussion a question: there are reports that battery life is not properly reported to the camera and that trying to use the on-board flash with low batteries end up on Error 50 on the camera. Has anyone faced such issues? I know that the on-board flash is severely frowned upon, but for fill light on exteriors is not half bad.

I'd love to hear input on this issue as I may be going for a grip tonight on Amazon. Thanks in advanced.

Rafa.

Dirkkristen, I'm sorry I was not part of the lens choice discussion, its amazing how much info can be shared in such little time here. It's already too late, but I think you made the right choice with the 50mm f1.4. As posted here by Wolfy and others, and everywhere else, that lens is a formidable thing! About the other two, I'm not really that fond of waiting for new releases unless they are really imminent. We discussed this a while back with David, and the 24-70 mII has been rumored since late 2008 and there is no lens to be had yet, so... you may be waiting a long time for it! Of the two, and with your aims listed, I agree with most that 2.8 will probably be more important than reach and IS.

May I ask why you are set on the L lenses? I ask because for crop-factor cameras, its a general consensus that the 17ish-55ish range is a better option and you have f2.8 lenses on that category from Canon, Sigma and Tamron which are usually very well received. By going L you are sacrificing that part of the reach which is fantastic for walk-around things and tight indoor places (or large groups at parties, festivals, etc.). If you are set on Ls, the 16-35 mII f2.8 may be a good choice, but you are paying a lot more than the 17-55 f2.8 from Canon just for the L (and FF compatibility, of course!!!), and more than 4 times that of the Tamron and Sigma versions.

I also think that the full-prime option with a second body is an interesting choice. You could have a T3i and a 28mm f1.8, for instance which you could also dup as a video hardware. You could also go FF with a used 5Dc (worth the same as the 24-105) and use the 24-70 f2.8 where the focal length will shine perfect for weddings.

On the filters department I'm not sure I would have taken that route, I'm sorry to say. I'm a Hoya fan, and only use those, but if the filter is not of great quality (not necessarily expensive, but of great quality!), your pictures will degrade quickly.

A good Hoya UV HMC filter of 58mm is $20, an HMC Circular Polarizer is $49, and a multi-coated warming filter is worth $27, a pouch is another $10, so... I'm afraid that for the price you paid, you won't be receiving the multi-coated versions and therefore will be degrading the best possible quality of the image.

That's just my take though, not an absolute truth by any means! Hope you prove me wrong and have fun with your new filters.

Best regards,
Rafa.

Doin a little pixel peeping with the new lens.

A couple of 35mm comparisons. These are at f/4.0

Original

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

On the IS ~ VC issue... its hard to tell. When I know I don't depend on IS (for instance with the 70-200 f4), I am usually more careful and steady and can manage 1/60th shots perfectly still up to 200mm. On the wide lenses, its a bit more critical since its hard to tell at which point motion-blur will be added to camera-shake. For me, 1/8th is the limit at which I'm able to shoot, IS or non IS, at 17mm. The thing is, it is kept at 1/8th through the 55mm range if IS is on. If it is off, I concur with Wolfy on my personal stats: about 1/(half of the focal length) but with around 50%~60% keep rate at best.

If people are in the shot 0% keep rate bellow 1/30th unless the subject is clearly explained to be steady as an early 19th century portrait.

That's me though, I'm sure there are much steadier folks out there.

Rafa.

davidc502 wrote in post #11990639
Doin a little pixel peeping with the new lens.
A couple of 35mm comparisons. These are at f/4.0

David, have you applied sharpening to the Tamron crop? I see some red jaggedness on the letters and also some red CA on the white highlights in the bottle. Are both crops processed identically?

At any rate, I agree that the Tammy seems the much sharper lens, so I'm really happy you are happy with your purchase!

Best regards,
Rafa.