are lens interchangeable between film and DSLR

Forums › Digital Imaging › are lens interchangeable between film and DSLR

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

275 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532590 12-Oct-2011 23:21

Hmm - prices I have range from about $160 odd to ~$200 for the 50mm f 1.8, and prices for other lenses jump up hugely.

"Dance among the moonbeams, feel the magic in the air".

Registered Linux user #386597 http://counter.li.org/

silverbirch

275 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532609 13-Oct-2011 00:49

timmmay:
silverbirch: I want to use the lens for flowers mainly, and other things like toadstools etc. I've read extensive reviews of the lens and looked at images created using the lens and it seems quite versatile, and value for money for a hobbyist. Though I have to say I didn't see too many pictures of flowers using it.

There's no point using the 50 F1.8 for that, use the kit lens. Close up at 50mm F1.8 the DOF is so thin you'll have virtually nothing in focus. You probably want to be at F8 for that, and lenses are all pretty similar at F8.

Thank you - will stick with what I've got then. Have been using tripod and notice significant difference. Partly because trying for HDR!

"Dance among the moonbeams, feel the magic in the air".

Registered Linux user #386597 http://counter.li.org/

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#532675 13-Oct-2011 09:12

Dynamike: A Macro/Portrait lens is far more versatile than a straight Portrait. It'll give you the shallow depth of field when required, plus the advantage of 1:1 close ups.

I'd go for the Tamron SP 90mm over the Canon EF 100mm. Optically the Tamron is as good as or even better than the Canon... and it's also much cheaper. Parallel imports sell for around $600. I've owned my Tamron SP90 for 14 years and it's excellent for both macro nature photography and portraits.

Macro lenses tend to be a bit slower to focus than other lenses, but accurate. The Canon 100mm was deadly accurate for me, even with all my Canon focus issues. I used a Tamron macro lens on a Nikon and wasn't impressed, really poor focus.

silverbirch: Hmm - prices I have range from about $160 odd to ~$200 for the 50mm f 1.8, and prices for other lenses jump up hugely.

I have three lenses worth more than $2500, and one worth $3000 or more. Good lenses cost money.

Jaxson

8042 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#532693 13-Oct-2011 09:54

silverbirch: Partly because trying for HDR!

Have you found the auto bracket setting yet?

You're aiming for 3 (or more if you are keen) photos with the same setting, just with the exposure varied across the 3. Typically you opt for -2.0 0 and + 2.0 exposure settings and then you'll get your spread of dark to light.

The 'auto bracket' setting takes care of this for you, so each time you press, or hold down permanently, it will take the 3 different exposure shots for you automatically, no hunting in menus/manually adjusting anything between shots etc.

Photomatix is a pretty well known product to assist with the final image creation (it's a bit more than merging layers). They have a demo from memory here:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/

The newer Photoshop versions do this too, and they are a bit easier to use as they hide a lot of the options that are available in Photomatix. Some say Photoshops results are a bit softer, but they are both pretty good.

silverbirch

275 posts

Ultimate Geek

#532699 13-Oct-2011 10:00

Yes have made a couple of HDR images, and quite pleased with one of an oak tree. I have another of toadstools but the light was crap, and I forgot to change the settings so have large depth of field! Doh! Finally there's some light in the sky today and I have the day off!

I found the bracketing thing okay and used Photoshop. Will check out that link thanks.

"Dance among the moonbeams, feel the magic in the air".

Registered Linux user #386597 http://counter.li.org/

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#532700 13-Oct-2011 10:00

Four stops dynamic range often isn't always enough for HDR. You often have to use manual mode and get eight stops, remembering to use a tripod and manual white balance.

Oloneo is good, and can do some quite cool pseudo HDR from one RAW file. Photoshop does a decent job.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#532702 13-Oct-2011 10:00

http://www.oloneo.com/

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

listudio

196 posts

Master Geek

#533432 14-Oct-2011 16:28

timmmay:
silverbirch: Hmm - prices I have range from about $160 odd to ~$200 for the 50mm f 1.8, and prices for other lenses jump up hugely.

I have three lenses worth more than $2500, and one worth $3000 or more. Good lenses cost money.

would you pls recommend some quality lenses range from 130 to 330? People here desperately need that information, thanks!

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533437 14-Oct-2011 16:36

130 to 330 dollars or mm?

There are no quality lenses for $330. There are some ok lenses that aren't too expensive, but i'd need to know what brand of camera, and what the lenses will be used for?

listudio

196 posts

Master Geek

#533442 14-Oct-2011 16:55

Yes I mean the lenses range in price from $130 to $330 for dslr like canon 550d ,to shoot domestic animals and city landscapes.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533452 14-Oct-2011 17:17

The 18-55 kit lens that comes with your camera is the best choice in that price range, for those subjects.

The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is a step up, mostly through getting F2.8, the kit lens isn't bad. It's about NZ$650. The Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS has image stabilisation, which is nice, that's about NZ$800. They're both standard zooms, neither very wide nor very long.

The only lens you can get for $330 is probably the Canon 50mm f1.8. It's about $200 here I guess. It's good for narrow depth of field portraits, no good for landscapes though, it's too long.

My main lenses are the 16-35 F4 VR, the 24-70 F2.8, and the 70-200 F2.8 II. I have a cheapy Nikon 50 F1.8 G as well, it's surprisingly good for the price.

listudio

196 posts

Master Geek

#533454 14-Oct-2011 17:25

timmmay: The 18-55 kit lens that comes with your camera is the best choice in that price range, for those subjects.

Yes, you are quite right. How about Canon EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS LENS? This one is very popular. Thanx!

listudio

196 posts

Master Geek

#533457 14-Oct-2011 17:41

My main lenses are the 16-35 F4 VR, the 24-70 F2.8, and the 70-200 F2.8 II. I have a cheapy Nikon 50 F1.8 G as well, it's surprisingly good for the price.

And you have a micro lens, right?

With all together, you can go to a war field like Iraq to be a war correspondent photographer. But 70-200 won't allow you get closer to the 'enemies'..

just a joke.

timmmay

20580 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#533467 14-Oct-2011 18:40

listudio: Yes, you are quite right. How about Canon EF-S 18-55 F3.5-5.6 IS LENS? This one is very popular. Thanx!

That's the 18-55 kit lens I was talking about . It's usually included with the camera, if not then it's $100-$200 on trademe.

listudio: And you have a micro lens, right?

With all together, you can go to a war field like Iraq to be a war correspondent photographer. But 70-200 won't allow you get closer to the 'enemies'.. just a joke.

You mean a macro lens? I use extension tubes, they're smaller and lighter, though not as effective or easy to use. I'll get a macro lens one day, but I sold all my Canon gear and spent a fair whack on Nikon gear and chose to go the extension tube route rather than buying a lens right way.

silverbirch

275 posts

Ultimate Geek

#533507 14-Oct-2011 21:17

timmmay:

The only lens you can get for $330 is probably the Canon 50mm f1.8. It's about $200 here I guess.

I just oredered one of these for $162 including postage and packing. Check pricespy.co.nz

I'd say which company but guess there's rules about that.

"Dance among the moonbeams, feel the magic in the air".

Registered Linux user #386597 http://counter.li.org/

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8