The Photo Snob Thread

[0psi]

Speaking of glass.

I've just picked up a D7100 body and was going to grab a 35mm 1.8 to go with it. Any suggestions for another cheap zoom lens to use for general happy snaps, something in the 18-50ish range.

I'm looking to get a Tamron 11-16 and a Nikon 17-55 at some point but as I'm about to buy a stupidly expensive bike I can't afford those just yet and need something to get me by for a bit. Any suggestions?

 

[alexx23]

 

[24alpha]

[**snip**]

Alex, whoa! How about resizing those, they are a little overwhelming.
The model looks stoned, other than that I like the processing. VSCO?

 

[alexx23]

Yeah sorry, didn't realise they were that big..

I personally don't see how the model looks stoned, I don't take smiley girl photos, take enough of those at weddings... Yeah VSCO, erryday.

 

[Unlearn]

I don't know about the stoned thing, but for me she has less than no expression at all, which doesnt tell me anything about anything. Usually the non-smiley look that you mentioned will speak in other ways, I mean, she'll look bold, or sharp or some have some other sense of purposeful look, and obviuosly i'm not just blambing the model for not achieving that, as you would have had to pose her, light her, and ultimately shoot her. It's almost a little bit awkward here. Sorry mate, I don't mean to be harsh at all, just my thoughts.


Gluey, I'd love to see you re-shoot this photo, because I think it has real potential, it's a photo that can strike peoples curiousity and wonder. When I look at it at the moment it really leaves me wanting more from it, and I think you can push things a little harder here. You'll probably find you can go another stop or so brighter and still recover it later, so you might be able to get a little more detail into some mid-tones to give everything a little more context.

 

[brycethebomb]

to buy new or used?

 

[vtwiz]

Speaking of glass.

I've just picked up a D7100 body and was going to grab a 35mm 1.8 to go with it. Any suggestions for another cheap zoom lens to use for general happy snaps, something in the 18-50ish range.

I'm looking to get a Tamron 11-16 and a Nikon 17-55 at some point but as I'm about to buy a stupidly expensive bike I can't afford those just yet and need something to get me by for a bit. Any suggestions?

Not quite the range your looking for but the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is an amazing lens. No IS but great build quality and prime rivalling sharpness throughout the range. It's a constant f1.8 throughout the range too! At around $700-$750 its great value.

 

[Callan.]

it's all about glass. how many people rock cheap lenses on a 1D? no-one. plenty of people will use L glass on a cheap crop sensor body and get great results (i did before i stepped up to full frame)

Plenty of people. Myself included. Some of the BEST photographers I have seen shoot with a Sigma 50mm (about $400) and get incredible results. I've literally shot whole weddings/shoots on just a 5D2 and a 50mm 1.4.

I also didn't realise how cheap the 6D was now. I thought it was over $2000, with the mk3 around $2800. Seeing as though the mk3 is nearly double the price of the 6D, it's a tricky question.

At the end of the day, how long will it take you to save $X? Do some calculations, projections etc and see what you come up with.

What lenses were you looking at?

 

[24alpha]

I personally don't see how the model looks stoned,

Sorry mate, I should have added a bit more. I think Andrew covered most of what I was thinking but to sum it all up, when I look at her face I see the lights are on but nobodies home and I think that brings down an otherswise great image.

 

[mitchy_]

Plenty of people. Myself included. Some of the BEST photographers I have seen shoot with a Sigma 50mm (about $400) and get incredible results. I've literally shot whole weddings/shoots on just a 5D2 and a 50mm 1.4.

I also didn't realise how cheap the 6D was now. I thought it was over $2000, with the mk3 around $2800. Seeing as though the mk3 is nearly double the price of the 6D, it's a tricky question.

At the end of the day, how long will it take you to save $X? Do some calculations, projections etc and see what you come up with.

What lenses were you looking at?

i'm referring to low end glass.

50 F1.4 isn't a cheap lens in the scheme of things when the 1.8 is a third of the price.

 

[wombat]

to buy new or used?

Used. If you can find what you want, definitely used, unless you're buying for work and want something like CPS.

Aside from little things like filters and triggers, I haven't bought anything new since my first camera.


Edit: and my 70-200 actually, but in hindsight I wish I got that used too, probably could have got the is version that way.

 

[Callan.]

i'm referring to low end glass.

50 F1.4 isn't a cheap lens in the scheme of things when the 1.8 is a third of the price.

From a professional point of view, I wouldn't even be considering the 1.8. In the scheme of things, $400 is cheap when most L/professional lenses are $900-$2000+

 

[Callan.]

Sorry mate, I should have added a bit more. I think Andrew covered most of what I was thinking but to sum it all up, when I look at her face I see the lights are on but nobodies home and I think that brings down an otherswise great image.

I think her eyelashes are a bit heavy?

 

[mitchy_]

From a professional point of view, I wouldn't even be considering the 1.8. In the scheme of things, $400 is cheap when most L/professional lenses are $900-$2000+

again, you're reading it wrong. the 50 1.8 and 1.4 are both extremely good lenses for the price, however you're really comparing the exception to the rule, as you say most other decent glass is $1000+.

with a set limit i'd rather spend more on glass than the body.

 

[Callan.]

again, you're reading it wrong. the 50 1.8 and 1.4 are both extremely good lenses for the price, however you're really comparing the exception to the rule, as you say most other decent glass is $1000+.

with a set limit i'd rather spend more on glass than the body.

I do agree with what you are saying, but why bother getting a camera that's almost as good when ultimately you're going to replace it anyway?

The 6D doesn't have the same build quality/size/durability of the mk3 either. Whilst it (truly) is an incredible camera, it's not a professional camera. It's a prosumer camera. I know I'd be having second thoughts if I hired a photographer and he turned up without a professional body. Photography is an incredibly shallow industry - image (no pun intended) plays such a big role.

I'd even be considering the 5D2 if you can find one. You won't notice a difference between the photos that come out of there (same with the mk3, I have both a mk2 and a mk3). The main difference is the AF. You hear a lot of people ragging on the AF system, but really, it's fine. Unless you're shooting fast paced sports in stupidly low-light you won't have any issues. I've used my mk2 in candle-lit situations and it's more than useable.

This is just my opinion. Ultimately it's up to you what you want to buy.

I started with a 5D1 and a 24-105. I soon sold the 24-105 for a 24-70 and a 70-200. I soon sold them for a 17-40,35,50 and 100mm. This is over the space of only a few years. With the exception of the 35, all of these lenses are considerably less than $1000 and are up with the best of them. Sigma has a 35 now that is allegedly superior to the 35L and nearly half the price.

If I was in your position, I'd be going for a 5D2 (or a 3 if you can find the $) and a Sigma 35,50 and a canon 85 1.8. All of this can be had for the price of a 5D3.

 

[vtwiz]

Great camera bodies come and go but great glass will last you a lifetime.

I'd say to go for the 6D if that's all your budget allows for and spend a bit extra on better glass. Camera bodies also fall in price over time whereas glass generally holds it's value if kept in good nick.

I saw a comparison video comparing a 1D with cheap zoom lens and a 60D with 24-70L. It's really nothing we don't already know but the 60D/24-70L blew the 1D/cheapie zoom away. Now you could say that a 5D 'looks more professional' but if I was hiring a photographer, I would feel better about him turning up with a 6D and a lens with a red ring around it (L series) than a 5DIII and a cheap Canon, Sigma or Tamron zoom. Primes are the exception, there are plenty of fantastic but cheap primes.

 

[Callan.]

Now you could say that a 5D 'looks more professional' but if I was hiring a photographer, I would feel better about him turning up with a 6D and a lens with a red ring around it (L series) than a 5DIII and a cheap Canon, Sigma or Tamron zoom. Primes are the exception, there are plenty of fantastic but cheap primes.

I will respectfully disagree with this one. 6D with a 24-70L to me screams: "I'm new and the internet told me the 24-70 is the best lens you can buy".

I'd have much more faith in a photographer with a 5D2/3 and a Sigma 50mm.

Just my opinion.


Edit.

What I'm saying is, one way or the other - you will end up with a 5D3 and good glass. Whatever you get first is going to be limiting without the other.

Just keep saving...

 

[vtwiz]

I will respectfully disagree with this one. 6D with a 24-70L to me screams: "I'm new and this is all I could afford".

I'd have much more faith in a photographer with a 5D2/3 and a Sigma 50mm.

Just my opinion.

Cant really compare Zooms to primes though and it depends on the type of photography your going to do. If you only had one lens and were shooting Weddings or event coverage, I'd rather the photographer turned up with a zoom for versatility. Portraits, headshots? Yep, the 50mm is perfect. You could cover a wedding with a 50mm but it would be hard and I prefer a variety of focal lengths in an album rather than all the same.

Saying that, depending on the budget, going for a 6D means you could get an L zoom and possibly a cheap 50mm prime as well.

Physically, there is not much in it between the 6D and 5DIII meaning the only way to tell the difference between the two is to go up to it and look for the badge. Most clients wont do that. My sister got married a few weeks back and the photographer was using what I assume was a 5DIII as it was the same physical shape as one but even I (who is into cameras) didn't bother looking for the MarkIII logo, it could have been a 6D. He was using a zoom for a lot of the day and I know for sure it was an L series. EDIT: Also, most photographers get work based on their shots. Usually, photographers post examples of their work on their website not the camera they are using. If you get booked for a job based on your shots, you are not going to get turned away on the day if you show up with a 6D instead of a MkII or III.

If the OP is wanting a zoom, I highly recommend spending the cash on an L.

All that being said, if the OP is more interested in buying an 'expensive bike' over camera gear, I don't think they are all that keen to go pro any time soon. The 6D will be fine.

 

[mitchy_]

I will respectfully disagree with this one. 6D with a 24-70L to me screams: "I'm new and the internet told me the 24-70 is the best lens you can buy".

I'd have much more faith in a photographer with a 5D2/3 and a Sigma 50mm.

Just my opinion.


Edit.

What I'm saying is, one way or the other - you will end up with a 5D3 and good glass. Whatever you get first is going to be limiting without the other.

Just keep saving...

you sound very elitist. nobody has mentioned professional photography either.

why will they "end up" with a 5D3?
i was waiting for the 5D3 but bought my 5D2 when the 5D3 was announced, as i personally couldn't see the added value in what was double the price at the time, and spent the money i saved on a few L lens. sure it's "better" but it's not something you "need" to take good photos. not sure what you gripe with the 24-70 is either, fantastic lens.

 

[Callan.]

you sound very elitist. nobody has mentioned professional photography either.

why will they "end up" with a 5D3?
i was waiting for the 5D3 but bought my 5D2 when the 5D3 was announced, as i personally couldn't see the added value in what was double the price at the time, and spent the money i saved on a few L lens. sure it's "better" but it's not something you "need" to take good photos. not sure what you gripe with the 24-70 is either, fantastic lens.

I've talked with Andrew outside of this forum, and as far as I can recall he wishes to work as a photographer (feel free to correct me on that, however! we talked a few months ago).

Call me whatever you want, I'm just putting out one opinion...

I owned the 24-70 for about 12 months. I've also used a few of them. Excluding the recently released 24-70 mk2, as I've not used one yet, every copy Ive seen has serious CA issues, is soft (compared with many other lenses - zooms included), is heavy and just boring to use. for the price of a 24-70 mk2 you could have several primes that would do the job better.

If you're a professional, why would you want anything less than the best?

If you're a hobbyist, by all means go for the 6D. It's a great camera.