Frage von seTTi:
Hi,
I must send in advance I'm in this whole Objektivgeschichte not at all in there and a lot confused me at the moment!
What can I say very clearly is that the 550D Lens Kit (18-55mm)
could not convince me in terms of focus.
Since I see too little difference, hope you understand what I mean ... I want to clear things stand out and what is not sharp should not only blurred, but noticeably blurrier be.
I will use the Camera for Shooting and haupstächlich need synonymous not really powerful but more wide-angle zoom, I will actually get priced reluctant than 200 ¬ (I know that this is not very much)
Can someone help me there?
Antwort von Mantas:
if a zoom of 2.8 is f, you will get it much better.
you need a large objective the top diaphragm (small number) have.
but you once inside you should prefer the dof sache.
Antwort von jwd96:
Look at the times of (is recommended to many of):
Canon http://www.amazon.de/ -EF-50mm-Lens-II/dp/B00005K47X I myself can tell you this not because I have no SLR.
Antwort von Dr. Walter Gesierich:
Is already clear what you want, you want to - almost - all the scenic film: HOT tip of the nose to the ear, the rest blurred beautiful.
You're against "normal" video ever powerful advantage, because you have a much larger chip area, which has, by virtue of the laws of optics at the same angle of your camera ever a much smaller depth of field.
If you like this is not enough yet, then there's the following solutions to the Getting Around You, however, not because of physics:
- Maximum optical aperture of the lens. If you can you afford a hochlichtstarkes Lens, then pay at least the fact that your exposure settings are (shutter, ISO, illumination, neutral density) that your lens is forced to open the aperture fully
- High Focal (tele) = shallow depth of field. If you Anglebevorzugst Wide (why always synonymous), then you're quite simply the problem that in principle, then the next depth ranges. And next dramatic. So you can - with the same image - achieving a tighter depth of field if you next go away from the object and also magnify the focal
- Tighter shot. If you have to speak as in an interior room but not next path can then try it once to choose a smaller image, and "pars pro toto", the whole thing's for cutting. By mapping laws for auto's Near You get less depth of field.
By the way, because I still can not afford HD video camera, I've accustomed myself to film more concise image details. "Does" significantly sharper for the inexperienced observer, and sometimes even design a profit.
- Larger chip. From here it gets expensive. The larger the surface to which must represent a Lens, the smaller the depth of field at the same angle. Would mean in your case CANON 5 D, because the first has a larger chip as your camera (full frame). But has the great advantage that this depth reduction applies to any lens that you davorschnallst. Always talk to a camera with a smaller Chip and the same angle.
Well then I wish you much "blur", greeting Walter
Antwort von schlaflos011:
Look at our BLOG at times. We have a Canon 50mm 1.8 and Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and are very happy.
http://www.k-media.at/blog
Antwort von Mink:
I always enjoy recommended by ... this (Pentax 50mm 1.4): http://tinyurl.com/38ypyrb and to the adapter: http://tinyurl.com/cfep3u .... and then try around other Lenses ... the previously mentioned Canon synonymous but met his end ....
Antwort von seTTi:
yet I must in any case! Attention that the objective has an image stabilizer or not? wants more time to film from the hand ... sport recordings, similar to skateboarding ...
After a little research with the help of your comments I imagine there firmly with my ¬ 200 for objectively because I come out rather not what? : D
Antwort von jwd96:
With 200 ¬ you come out already, just as with the 50mm of Canon
Antwort von seTTi:
but it has no image stabilizer?
already makes much I think of ne?
Antwort von Mink:
With image stabilizer will not get priced out .... also is the ambivalent ne thing .... those things just do not like camcorder image stabilizer ... replace in any case not the steady hand or tripod ....
Antwort von pailes:
The 50mm wide angle is anything but synonymous with APS-C.
Antwort von B.DeKid:
Wide Angle
Samyang use 8mm (very good but only sometimes as synonymous Multi Purpose Lens)
or
Tokina 11 - 16mm (I would particularly recommend for skating)
Otherwise, an M42 to recommend 24 / 50 / 135 mm that are synonymous are the conveniently located just skating often obstructive.
Bar is at (U) VV (ultra-wide angle) required only limited upside, not synonymous but not urgent.
To get to (U) WW image s.der 550D you have a long way to go in because you've got a 20mm Crop Cam (x1, 6) - ie to the image of a KB (full size) Cam You need to get all focal lengths indicating 1.6 times expected.
MfG
B. DeKid
Antwort von seTTi:
a well-known has the http://www.fotomundus24.de/shop/canon-1785mm456-deutsch-p-7259.html
s.einer 7D and I was really quite pleased with the depth of field, but this thing has yet ne "larger number" front?
what can I do now? is the diaphragm vll. not everything?
edit: stop stop but he has only the "standard kit" objectively 15-85 ... but it is different from that of the 550D? where exactly is the difference?
Antwort von Mantas:
a well-known has the http://www.fotomundus24.de/shop/canon-1785mm456-deutsch-p-7259.html
s.einer 7D and I was really quite pleased with the depth of field, but this thing has yet ne "larger number" front?
what can I do now? is the diaphragm vll. not everything?
edit: stop stop but he has only the "standard kit" objectively 15-85 ... but it is different from that of the 550D? where exactly is the difference? so shalt thou times inside the dof topic ...
if you have something in front of the objective 10cm, you have your beautiful blur.
Antwort von soan:
Wide Angle
Samyang use 8mm (very good but only sometimes as synonymous Multi Purpose Lens)
or
Tokina 11 - 16mm (I would particularly recommend for skating)
By definition, the 8mm fisheye and the Tokina one an ultra-wide angle.
The search for a Wide Threaderöffner Anglemit the desired "DOF" Effect. C. Wide Anglean the APS would be a 20-28mm Lens, 28mm 1.8 is the Canon of good, used but cost upward ¬ s.300. It is for highlighting (ie, "DOF" look to make really great) is very well suited in spite of the small focal.
The Tokina 11-16 mm for APS-C sensors an excellent choice, even to very bright. Nothing more is spite of this fact: ultra wide-angle and minimum sharpness level is nothing, but speak the laws of physics. Of course you can do with the 11-16 synonymous with Aperture 2.8 videos, though the desired "DOF" means-effect only in an absolute sense the proximity of the lens used. Must 'for a great blur look very very close ran s.dein motive, then it'll synonymous with NEM UWW.
It is noticed: the art is not to offer to viewers with a single blurry background mush because of low sharpness level, the art is the combination of camera work, scenery, lighting, motive, etc. Just "make blurred" is nothing.
For your action-sports photography is the Tokina suitable super, p. 370 ¬ up costs needed (as approximate).
Antwort von B.DeKid:
@ Soan
;-) Thank you I know that this is the TO broughtest closer ;-)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
@ SETTI
http://www.g-st.ch/privat/foto/doku/peleng8.html
Page explains some very good especially the differences between UWW and WW based on Peleng 8mm and the 16mm Zenitar
MfG
B. DeKid
