Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Multimedia > Photography
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-04-2010, 08:56 PM   #16
Kal
maxRealtor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Posts: 3,754
Send a message via MSN to Kal
Wow, that really sucks.

Its a pretty cool camera though.
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 09:39 PM   #17
Deep 3.2TL
6th Gear Member
 
Deep 3.2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Milton
Posts: 3,228
50MM is not wide angle.

The only benefit you have with the 50 over the kit lens is that at 50mm, the prime lens (non zoom one) has a larger opening, so you do not need as much light to take a picture. That's it. You got snookered by the best buy rep if he said it was wide angle. Wide angle would be from 10MM to 16MM.

Deep
Deep 3.2TL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 09:40 PM   #18
Deep 3.2TL
6th Gear Member
 
Deep 3.2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Milton
Posts: 3,228
Oh and NO - it is NOT inferior, it is better, for the right purposes.
Deep 3.2TL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 09:45 PM   #19
Kal
maxRealtor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Posts: 3,754
Send a message via MSN to Kal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deep 3.2TL View Post
50MM is not wide angle.

The only benefit you have with the 50 over the kit lens is that at 50mm, the prime lens (non zoom one) has a larger opening, so you do not need as much light to take a picture. That's it. You got snookered by the best buy rep if he said it was wide angle. Wide angle would be from 10MM to 16MM.

Deep
Yah I had a feeling that was happening when I noticed it was only $129.00 and talking to everyone on here it should be 5x more than what I paid.
Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010, 09:09 PM   #20
Axxe
Over 9 F**KING THOUSAND!!
 
Axxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,768
Your best bet for a UWA is a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. If you can find it in stock it goes for $600 USD. The "nifty fifty" (what you bought) is an excellent lens for the right purpose, like portraits without distracting backgrounds (5-blade aperture is harsh). The EF 50mm f/1.8 is what's called a "prime" lens, which means only one focal length, which leaves room for a larger (numerically smaller) aperture.

Your kit lens (great lens for what it is, IS really works great on it) and a tripod should take excellent pics inside, with the right composition.
__________________

S52|ZF|TRM Coilovers 670/895|Staggered 18" 5's

Last edited by Axxe; 02-06-2010 at 09:24 PM.
Axxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010, 09:12 PM   #21
Axxe
Over 9 F**KING THOUSAND!!
 
Axxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oakville
Posts: 9,768
Oh snap, saw you paid $580 + tax for the XS kit? Return it and the nifty fifty, drive to futureshop, and buy the XSi bundle (kit + bag, extra bat, filter). $50 more gets you the Dig1c 5 sensor and a much better body (not to mention live view).
__________________

S52|ZF|TRM Coilovers 670/895|Staggered 18" 5's
Axxe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 03:40 PM   #22
JPTN
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver/Ottawa/Toronto
Posts: 76
Glass will always be expensive. It's just physics. You can only bend light so much with mirrors and optics before distortion comes into play.

I used to work for a real estate photography company (and do some freelance stuff occasionally) and have a 12-24mm wide-angle zoom. Your cheapest bet would be a Tokina 12-24mm which used is approximately $400 CAD on private classifieds.

Pair that with a cheap body like a Nikon D40 <$300 and that's the easiest.
JPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 03:47 PM   #23
Deep 3.2TL
6th Gear Member
 
Deep 3.2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Milton
Posts: 3,228
Yea, but a cheap body will give you a cheap sensor, which will increase the need for light and/or a flash...
Deep 3.2TL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:02 PM   #24
JPTN
2nd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver/Ottawa/Toronto
Posts: 76
You should almost (never) need a flash for something stationary.
i.e. real estate, architecture

Most real estate photos aren't printed beyond 4x6 so 6.1MP is more than enough. Online, it's even less.

If the object is inanimate and not moving, you shouldn't use a flash. If you can't hand-hold due to the lack of light, get a tripod or a monopod. I picked up an excellent monopod from FactoryDirect for $20.

My real estate photography work was with www.advirtours.com
JPTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:19 PM   #25
T.Dot_E30
Classifieds Moderator
 
T.Dot_E30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: T.Dot
Posts: 9,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by jello_g View Post
This "ef50mm" is a redundant purchase, as you're just discovering.
Everyone should still have a 50mm 1.8f prime lens, they are great for portraits and they are cheap compared to most low f-number lenses.

It's a good lens, just not for his use. It is no where near wide angle.
As everyone mentioned, he needs a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens or a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. (Both of those lenses cost more than his XS body.
__________________
T.Dot_E30 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:29 PM   #26
Deep 3.2TL
6th Gear Member
 
Deep 3.2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Milton
Posts: 3,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPTN View Post
You should almost (never) need a flash for something stationary.
i.e. real estate, architecture

Most real estate photos aren't printed beyond 4x6 so 6.1MP is more than enough. Online, it's even less.

If the object is inanimate and not moving, you shouldn't use a flash. If you can't hand-hold due to the lack of light, get a tripod or a monopod. I picked up an excellent monopod from FactoryDirect for $20.

My real estate photography work was with www.advirtours.com
Yes, but for a real estate agent on the move, it might not be practical to have a tripod all the time.

Anyhoo - I wouldn't buy this just for my work, I'd end up using it personally, where the lowlight sensor would come in mighty handy.

Now to upgrade my D80....
Deep 3.2TL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:36 PM   #27
jello_g
4th Gear Member
 
jello_g's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.Dot_E30 View Post
Everyone should still have a 50mm 1.8f prime lens, they are great for portraits and they are cheap compared to most low f-number lenses.

It's a good lens, just not for his use. It is no where near wide angle....
Everyone does not include the OP. No disrespect to the OP, but if he couldn't recognize that 50mm isn't a wide angle, he likely won't take advantage of it as a portrait lens (with the larger aperture) any time soon while his kit lens will do just fine.

Return the lens for a refund if possible, and whenever you become ready to add a fixed-length lens, for portraiture or whatever your specific needs, then you'll be in a better position to make that purchasing decision at that time. The 50mm 1.8 is crap anyways!
__________________
1988 BMW Dinan M3 2.6 Stage II

Gerald Lau's Facebook profile
jello_g is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.