One Pic: Still Learning.

[Philo]

Thanks for all the good words of advice.

I've been contemplating a new lens, but i'm having trouble justifying it with my current set of "low skills." I have never been one to believe that buying a new lens will fix the fact that I am not correctly taking the photograph. Kind of like not having a fast track time, so instead of becoming a better driver, you buy better parts for your car - It doesn't make sense.

Either way, what are your opinions on Canon Lenses? I really like wide angle, so 10-22mm would be "where it's at", but i'm not sure if it is entirely practical.

Practical end, while still getting what I want, would be the 17-40mm.

Thoughts? Both are around the same price for me. ~ $650

[daniel]

Either way, what are your opinions on Canon Lenses? I really like wide angle, so 10-22mm would be "where it's at", but i'm not sure if it is entirely practical.

Practical end, while still getting what I want, would be the 17-40mm.

Thoughts? Both are around the same price for me. ~ $650

wide angle lenses make for some great shots, especially of landscapes, but for cars their application is limited.

i think you should get the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 if you want a kit lens replacement. cheaper than the canon lens, yet comparable in image quality.

in terms of just canon lenses, the 50mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens, especially for $100. it would be useful primarily for portraits, but at 50mm it is sort of the tail end of your kit lens, except able to produce much much sharper images. and it's cheap!

with that said, i shoot with a nikon, but the same lenses and recommendations of lenses apply.

[speedminded]

Thanks for all the good words of advice.

I've been contemplating a new lens, but i'm having trouble justifying it with my current set of "low skills." I have never been one to believe that buying a new lens will fix the fact that I am not correctly taking the photograph. Kind of like not having a fast track time, so instead of becoming a better driver, you buy better parts for your car - It doesn't make sense.

Either way, what are your opinions on Canon Lenses? I really like wide angle, so 10-22mm would be "where it's at", but i'm not sure if it is entirely practical.

Practical end, while still getting what I want, would be the 17-40mm.

Thoughts? Both are around the same price for me. ~ $650

Your logic on it is spot on. The best lens and body in the world won't fix composition or user error.

I shot a national ad campaign photo for a wheel manufacturer that was published in over 5 million issues between 3 different major magazines...with the XTI non-IS kit lens lol! As motorsports photographer John Thawley said to me, "It's not the lens but the lensman". http://www.johnthawley.com/

Personally I would avoid the ultra-wide angle lens for automotive, anything less than 17mm is going to make round wheels easter egg shaped. In my opinion it looks completely ridiculous but some like the hardcore in your face up close wide angle distorted look. It all depends on the look and style you're aiming for and the audience you're targeting. Something in the range of 24-70 is the IDEAL lens for automotive shots.

[daniel]

Something in the range of 24-70 is the IDEAL lens for automotive shots.

on a full frame camera...

and 17-50ish on crop sensors, yes?

[Stephen]

i wouldnt buy a new lens yet. Just practice :)

I use my kit lens a ton. Eventually ill pick up a new one

[speedminded]

on a full frame camera...

and 17-50ish on crop sensors, yes?

It all depends on the look you're going for. I've been using a 50mm & 300mm prime on a 1.6 crop body for static car shots for nearly 3 years lol! To me the 24-70 and 70-200 is the perfect range to cover all angles.

[daniel]

It all depends on the look you're going for. I've been using a 50mm & 300mm prime on a 1.6 crop body for static car shots for nearly 3 years lol! To me the 24-70 and 70-200 is the perfect range to cover all angles.

good to know. i just know that the 24-70 lenses are made with full frame in mind, while the 18-xx lenses are made with crop bodies in mind.

i want the 70-200 f/2.8 so badly.

[ubernasty]

I'd say try to make the focus more on the car and less of the environment. If it were a more interesting background that might not be necessarily true, but for this i think it definitely helps.





Burn, crop, lasso, sharpen, luminosity, saturation... all together sparingly, took 2 minutes.
If you do the editing while the file is still raw large format, then do the resizing, you'll have much better results though.

[ubernasty]

I mean the background isn't that bad at all, it's just the big white wall on the right taking up 1/5 of the pic and the plain sky that kills it.

[speedminded]

[ubernasty]

The yellow tone could look alright if you still kept the whites. ^