What lens would you get in the circumstance?
I am finding our church bright enough to get good shots with my 28-70 f3.5-4.5 Mk I lens. But, just as I expected there are times when I want something close to a 28mm equivalent on my D60 (the D60 was purchased used a few months ago). One of the things that I would take shots of with my Sony D770 at the 28 equivalent end of the build in lens is this display case (this is direct from the Sony D770 just downsized for posting here).
The case is built in and there is a wall that keeps me from zooming with my feet to take a shot from directly in front of it. One of the things to consider is all the straight lines involved in this case. I am sure there are other instances where something wider would be useful as well. I don’t have the budget for a high end wide angle. I have thought of a modified, or some may refer to it as converted, kit lens but that is not the only thing I would consider.
The case is built in and there is a wall that keeps me from zooming with my feet to take a shot from directly in front of it. One of the things to consider is all the straight lines involved in this case. I am sure there are other instances where something wider would be useful as well. I don’t have the budget for a high end wide angle. I have thought of a modified, or some may refer to it as converted, kit lens but that is not the only thing I would consider.
0
Comments
Jane
Jane. if the images are uploaded from your computer, they're always going to show up on the bottom of your post. only way to not have it do that, is to link the photo from a web site or gallery online.
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
How about using the widest lens you have, put your camera in vertical format on a tripod, and shoot three of four frames, moving the camera ever so slightly to the right and left, and then merge them as a panoramic???
Cheaper than a new lens and will let you move your camera forward towards the display.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Yes, that... and make sure you correct for barrel distortion first as I see you have a lot of it above.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I can't find it at this point but I did try the pano bit at one point with the Sony. It means doing it other than when I am there for a service as it is in a hallway right outside the sanctuary. I do remember finding it quite time consuming to keep the tripod in line as I moved it over to take the shots. This would still be the case with the Canon D60 as well.
I am wanting a wider lens! Do any of you have suggestions of one with the least distortion without getting into the more expensive lens? How does the kit lens fit into the picture when compared to other of the less expensive lenses of this width? This is just one example of possible uses of one.
Jane
give us your idea of "expensive" and we'll be able to help you more... i'm saving up for a 17-40 as my wide angle lense
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com
After seeing what some have posted from the "Kit" lens I have been wondering about getting one of those and having it modified for the older body. But, am trying to also find out how much more, if any, I would have to go to get something better by any mfg. with a Canon EOS mount.
Also, keep in mind that the shot posted that shows the distortion is from the Sony D770 NOT the Canon D60.
Jane
The thing is that I am going to be taking a big hit on it, and it is a very good lens. Actually one of my two favorites. At this point I don't have a fast lens, so I am replacing it, at Andy's suggestion, with the much more expensive 16-35L lens. All of these lenses are Canons.
New, at B&H, the 17-40 is $670.00. I was going to ask 570.00, but I don't think I can do that.
Since it is one of my two favorite lenses, it is always on the camera, often swinging from my neck, so it is not, as people say, in mint condition. One can see, if one looks, worn places. Also I do not have a lens cap. Glory to glory, I did find the lens box that it came in.
Because it is not "mint" as far as cosmetics are concerned, I am going to ask 500.00. If there is some way I would not have to take paypal I would appreciate it. This is an excellent price for this lens. The operative word being "lens", I have the back cap which is always on the lens which is in my Crumpler bag when not being used, and I have always had a filter on the front of the lens. It is not beaten up, it has just been "actively loved". Smile.
The lens is in great shape as far as operation is concerned. I have posted many photos in the last week that were taken with that lens.
As a matter of just so one knows, I expect to also be selling my 70-200 f4L lens. I am planning to move up to a 70-200 f 2.8. That lens (the f4) new is 579.00.
I have not used it as often as the 17-40, and I thought, honestly, that it was pristine, but there are a few scratches, or something. As with the other lens it is also in great shape. I just looked again, and I couldn't see the scratches, but someone else could find them, I am sure. I can't, as of yet, find the box it came in. As with the other one, I have the back thing for the lens, I do not have the lens cover. My dogs eat them (someone asked me once what happened to them. I take them off to take a photo, and they become "meals".)
These would be good deals for someone. They are more than 10 - 20 off retail. I have not settled on a price for the 70-200 yet, but it will be reasonable.
I just thought I would let you wide angle hunters know this ahead of time.
I can't take payments or trades as I need the money to get the other lenses on my list. But these are excellent lenses with a few cosmetic blemishes that can be picked up cheaper than often happens anywhere.
ginger
When I post it, I will post a photo.