First timer here, comments welcome!

DemonAstroth · Dec 2, 2008

Hello all,

Just a few months ago I bought my first real digital camera. My family has been in photography business many times, but other than developing some pictures at a studio (about 16 years ago), and a brief stint with an AE-1 program (about 10 years ago), I've had no experience with cameras.

Well, my modest equipment consists of a Rebel XT with a 28-135mm USM IS, and a 50mm f 1.4 (didn't want the 1.8 for the mark II is too cheap and the mark I overly wanted).

I am trying to decide what my next lens will be. It's either the 70-200 f4 L IS, or the 70-300 IS DO USM. The latter is much more smaller, black so it won't cause much attention, and has more range. But the 200 is professional grade optics and the ultimate goal is to take the best pictures possible no? HOwever, it's big, has less range, and it's more expensive (though not by that much).

Once I get that lens I will trade the 28-135 for a 24-105 IS L (but that's waaay out there in the future)

Opinions?

Last, any comments on a few of my pictures would be really appreciated. Everytime I take a picture I feel there's something I could have done better, and I'm rarely satisfied.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1&5 taken with the 1.4, the others with the 28-135.

Thanks!

KhronoS · Dec 2, 2008

I like the second and the forth.
Maybe on the forth picture try cropping out the leafs. I find them distracting.

DRoberts · Dec 2, 2008

I like the 1st and 3rd most. All are good though.

About the lenses, I would strongly suggest (if money's not the driving issue) that you get the 70-200 over the 70-300. The 70-300 has it's place. I usually use it when I'm in bad weather and don't want to use my 70-200. But the picture quality is so much better with the 200 its not even funny. The 70-300 would seem to have more range, but the problem is that the quality at the longer ranges is so poor compared to the 70-200 that you are not actually gaining that distance. I feel if you have the chance to get the 70-200 you will not regret it, but if you settle for the 70-300 you will be disapointed with the final outcome.

AlfromLA · Dec 2, 2008

Yeah, I am liking 1 & 3. Good shooting.

Dionysus · Dec 2, 2008

1 and 2 are my favorites.

jong · Dec 2, 2008

for some reason i like #2 specially the folds on the cloth on her head

Flower Child · Dec 2, 2008

i really enjoyed looking at these. 2 is my favorite

DemonAstroth · Dec 3, 2008

Thanks for the kind comments. I actually thought I'd be getting more criticism... so far only a cropping suggestion came up. I do wish those leaves had been slightly more out of focus.

Anyway, when it comes to glass, I rather save up for a few months and get the better lens than end up with something I'd be disappointed with. However, I am still unsure whether I'd really be disappointed with it. I heard a few things like that when it came to the 28-135 and so far I have been able to get nice pictures (though not perfect)

Well.... now, is there any advice as to how to get the focus right for the 1.4? I have noticed a lot of my pictures end up too soft, out of focus (where I intended). Lately I have been shooting aperture dependent, and I set it a few stops higher... but I"m not great at holding the camera steady, so I end up bumping the ISO.... Is there a better way?

I took about 300 pictures 2 weekends ago, and disposed of 150 pictures right away due to non in focus issues... These were mostly static subjects (people playing chess), so I feel I should develop a better technique.

Photos here:
http://dastaroth.smugmug.com/gallery/6677945_nJLMg#426291693_Pq475

Thanks again.

jong · Dec 3, 2008

at f1.4, dof is very shallow up close, unless your subject is flat or almost flat, i would step back a bit to get some depth to play with.
here is a DOF calculator, hope this help you a bit
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

DemonAstroth · Dec 4, 2008

Thanks, that does help

However, with a 50mm lens, I can't really go too far back, or my portraits would turn to busy landscapes with a person in the middle.

DemonAstroth · Dec 4, 2008

OK.. one more thing

I've been reading the forums and have seen a few things I don't understand:

CC? PP? HDR?

OK.. so CC is like give me feedback; pp? I changed my images? HDR? No idea, perhaps a program?

SOrry if it sounds stupid, but would like to get it straight.

Jklersy · Dec 5, 2008

Well, CC is Constructive Criticism. PP is Post Processing. But I dont know what HDR stands for. I know it is an image with mutliple exposure settings on the different parts of the pic. Like you use one exposure for the sky and one for the mountains/dark building getting them both clear in the shot. At least I think thats what it is.

DRoberts · Dec 5, 2008

HDR = High Density Resolution
HDR = High Dynamic Range
HDR = Hungry Damn Rats

Ron Evers · Dec 5, 2008

I like #2 the best but think it would have been better if the subject was on the right side of the frame with her shoulders looking into it instead of out of the frame.