Cindy's Castle w/new canon XT

[JR6ooo4]

Hello All,
I only found this forum a few days ago and have been wanting to share some photos. My first trip to WDW (2001 honeymoon) was with a $100 film camera. Second trip last year was with our SOny 717 and only a one day visit. Last month I had our XT and 5 days!

http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/photos/62904619-L-1.jpg
Canon 28-135 IS lens
Aperture: f/4.0
ISO: 1600
Focal Length: 47mm (guess: 79mm in 35mm)
Exposure Time: 1/13
Exposure Bias: -0.67
Handheld and converted from RAW.

Comments and critiques appreciated.
Mikeeee

 

[barrie]

Very nice!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

really good. is it possible for me to have a look see of the full high-res file. Since you're taking it at 47mm and I'm contemplating in buying 18/55 f/2.8 IS. I'd like to know how much handheld-shake the IS can supress at that focal length.


thanks.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Anything I can do to help. Without getting off the couch, that is. hehehehee
http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/gallery/****07

I opened it and was shocked at all the noise in the dark sky, until I remembered it was ISO 1600!!!! It looks comparable to ISO400 on the old 717.
Mikeeee

 

[JR6ooo4]

18/55 f/2.8 IS

Is that an L lens? to get down to f2.8?

 

[JR6ooo4]

Anything I can do to help. Without getting off the couch, that is. hehehehee
http://mnmstudios.smugmug.com/gallery/****07

I opened it and was shocked at all the noise in the dark sky, until I remembered it was ISO 1600!!!! It looks comparable to ISO400 on the old 717.
Mikeeee

I am having trouble posting links and pics. Until this evening, any URL, link or pic embed would be rejected. Now I can post a link to my pics. But the pics are not embedded.
now it is editing the URL when I post it, and adding ****!
Mikeeee

 

[boBQuincy]

Canon's 18-55 will not be an L series lens. It may qualify as one from it's optical performance but apparently no -S series lenses are being sold as L series.
Maybe it would be too many letters.


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

LOL.

Too bad none of the L series lens have that (approximate) range with a constant f/2.8 with IS with that little vignetting. Even the 17-40 f/4L at 24 f/4 has far more vignetting than the 18-55 f/2.8 IS at 24 f/2.8.

The only problem now is the crazy price of the 18-55 f/2.8 IS. At that price it should be an L lens.

 

[boBQuincy]

According to the Photozone.de tests the 18-55 f2.8 exhibited considerably more vignetting than the 17-40 f4. I too am interested in these lenses but am concerned about vignetting. Did you find the data on another lens test site? I am interested in reading more about these before I decide which one to get.

Our tax refund came in and I just *know* I will want a wider lens for our Yosemite trip! It's not like I am greedy, I will share it with my wife (occasionally).


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

really? I must've read it wrong then. I have to go there a re-read it again

 

[Kelly Grannell]

it seems like my dreams of owning the 18-55 f/2.8 IS have been crushed. What's the point of having f/2.8 if I can't use f/2.8 (due to severe vignetting). I might as well get the 17-40 f/4L. I think it's cheaper, no?

 

[boBQuincy]

I wonder if Photozone got a bad sample?
I just can't see Canon releasing a lens built specifically for APS-C cameras with vignetting that pronounced, at that price. The market for this lens would likely be people that read reviews and do tests, and they probably won't be happy with that kind of performance.

We have a group here at work dedicated to keeping Canon's stock prices up. One of us has a 17-40 and it looks nicely made, real L quality. I would miss the IS though, I have gotten used to it from my 24-105. Maybe the answer is a 5D...


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I have a 5D, but there is no way I'm bringing that as my walkaround camera (because there is no built-in flash and I don't want to carry a separate flash as a walkaround)

I already have the cash sitting for that lens, but if the vignetting is really that bad, there is no way I'm paying that much for a plastic EF-S lens. US$800 a definite maybe, US$600 sold, but anything beyond US$1,000 is a definite no.

 

[Tinkerbellmom33]

gorgeous!!! great picture

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

Great pic JR6ooo4. I tend to agree with Kelly. $1000 plus for an EFS lens seems high when you could save a few hundred more and get the excellent 17-35 2.8L, I dream of this lens every night

 

[Kelly Grannell]

but then again I'll have to change my lens so very often it's not funny (if I use the 17-35 2.8L)

 

[JR6ooo4]

gorgeous!!! great picture

Can you tell that Walt's legs from the knees down and all of Mickey's legs were reconstructed? I cloned out the heads and hats that I could not hold the camera above.

Thanks again for the comments.
Mikeeee

 

[disneyfreakjackie]

That picture is ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS!!! Thanks for sharing it!!!

 

[JR6ooo4]

Thanks disneyfreakjackie!

I love comments.

Mikeeee

 

[lmok]

Can you tell that Walt's legs from the knees down and all of Mickey's legs were reconstructed? I cloned out the heads and hats that I could not hold the camera above.

Thanks again for the comments.
Mikeeee

Was it hard to learn how to use the camera and do the settings? I will be coming from a Sony Cybershot. I don't understand any of the lingo you guys are talking about. I just want the best pictures I can get and don't mind spending extra on a good camera. We go on the Disney Cruise as well as WDW and I need a better camera.