I though my last self portrait was a little plain. So I thought I'd get creative and try something new. This was the 27th attempt at this type of photo. Keep in mind this is one frame, I did not use Photoshop to create this image. This is an 18 second exposure with two pops of my 430 ex ii.
Reflecting on this shot I hope I don't appear creepy. The low angle of the pop on the left combined with the gaze on the right could send mixed messages and ultimately a rejected feeling by the viewer. I really had no idea what to do for the first pop so I sat there, the second pop I wanted to look into the camera, but my eyes were still adjusting so my biggest challenge was to find the right side of the lens so I didn't occupy the same part of the frame for both pops.
This photo is more about control of light than it is anything else and that is why I'm proud of the shot. Maybe next time I'll get creative and make it look like I'm having fun at the same time.
I thought it would be a good exercise to create a self portrait, so I gathered a couple of Speedlites and my 7D and went to work. I admit the photo could be more creative, but I wanted a no frills image with more time spent on lighting than anything else.
I thought it would also be a good idea to record a short video on my setup for the photo.
If you haven't visited 500px.com by now you should. I've come across the most amazing photos on this site, like the one by Anja Pixel- Passion. I decided to include this photo in my post because of the composition and creativity expressed throughout the frame. I've tried to shoot silhouettes but they never came out this good. I took a look at the camera data provided on 500px.com and saw the photographer used a reasonably big aperture, faster shutter speed, and wide angle to get the shot. I never would have thought an aperture like f/5 would give you enough depth of field to get the girl and the birds in focus, but I guess it doesn't matter much when shooting at a focal length of 28mm.
The Canon lens is on the left
and the Tamron is on the right.
One of the big questions of many photo enthusiasts who want a standard range zoom lens is which one to purchase, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8? Is the Canon worth approximately 3 times more than the Tamron? Let me help you decide.
My friend was kind enough to loan me his Canon 17-55mm to help me with the comparison to my Tamron competitor. Initially I was surprised at the size of the Canon lens, it's quite a bit larger than the Tamron. Combined with the lens hood you'd think this was a telephoto lens.
The Canon 17-55mm f2.8
The build quality of the lenses are comparable, tough plastic with a metal mount. To be honest this doesn't bother me, in fact I prefer the plastic housing if it makes the lens lighter. One edge I'll give the Canon lens is the manual focus ring and the ability to override the auto focus. This is not a feature on the Tamron lens, in fact I broke an old Tamron lens by manually focusing while in auto focus mode.
Sharpness is comparable for both lenses, in fact I could make a decision on which one was sharper. I didn't conduct any lab experiments or anything technical, just a little pixel peeping in Lightroom. Both lenses were sharp even at slow shutter speeds with the image stabailzation switched on. I was able to get acceptable shots at 1/20 sec while at 50mm for each lens.
The auto focus is one area where I did see a significant difference in performance. The Tamron had trouble in low light a couple of time and had to hunt around to find the right focus point. During the hunting phase you can hear the loud motor winding the barrel of the lens while I waited for the lens to focus. The Canon on the other hand quietly found its focus point, even if it had to hunt a little you'd hardly notice the quiet motor quickly spinning the barrel of the lens. While Canon wins this round, I know Tamron already released a 70-300mm lens with a comparable auto focus motor comparable to Canon Ultrasonic Motor. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Tamron lends this technology to the rest of its lens lineup and eventually to the 17-50mm.
So what is the answer to the question? Canon or Tamron? If I had the money I would buy the Canon lens because there is nothing not to like other than the size and weight. I imagine it can get a little tiring having to carry the lens around for an entire day. But if you're on a budget and are looking to get the biggest bang for your buck, I'd go with the Tamron time after time.
The Good: This lens is one of my favorite lenses. The 1.4 maximum aperture is incredible, giving me the ability to use the lens with very little light. Couple this with a 430 EX II and you have a system that will give you incredible images in any situation.
The sharpness is outstanding, although I did have some front focusing issues and had to use the Canon 7D menu feature to make adjustments. I do notice a big difference in sharpness when I stop down to F/4 or higher (smaller aperture). I generally like to shoot with this aperture because of the increased sharpness and the depth of field. I know many like to have a shallower DOF but I find it harder to keep my subject in focus with the bigger apertures, using a smaller aperture gives me a larger margin of error when shooting. I'd rather have the photo with more in focus than not have the photo at all.
The build quality is good, not great. Many people complain about a lens when it's not made from metal, but I actually like the lighter plastics, they are easier to carry and hold in place for longer periods of time. For me lighter is better.
The focusing is fast and quiet with no hunting regardless of light quality. This is a sharp contrast with my Tamron lens that will spend some time hunting for the right focus while annoying me with the loud motor turning the focus ring. It seems the USM motor that Canon produces on their lenses is reliable throughout as I also have a 10-22mm with the same motor and same quick and quiet auto focus.
I notice a big difference in chromatic aberration when I stop down the lens, I have no idea if this has any scientific merit, but this is my finding.
The Bad: The lens doesn't come with a lens hood. I'd recommend not purchasing the official hood from Canon, instead pick up a third party hood from B&H.
This is a prime lens which means your feet are the zoom. I realize this the big reason why many purchase this lens in the first place, knowing the compromise with having better sharpness and chromatic aberration control is the inability to zoom from the barrel of the lens. My problem though is using the lens with my Canon 7D crop sensor, sometimes I find myself indoors and I have no room to move back to get my entire subject in the frame. I think for this reason you will need to also purchase a 17-50mm zoom lens. Canon and Tamron both make excellent versions of the 17-50mm zooms, but I'll have to save that for another review.
The Big Question:
I think the big question for most consumers is which 50mm lens to buy, the 1.8, 1.4, or 1.2? I have both the 1.8 and the 1.4 and they are both wonderful. I have the 1.8 for my old Rebel and the 1.4 for my 7D. The 1.8 is a very poor build quality, but it produces wonderful images, a perfect complement to to Rebel. The 1.2 is the godfather of all primes and would enhance anyone's ability to take a great photo, but it's hard to justify the $1500 for the lens. I think the 1.4 is the perfect lens for the enthusiast who is ready to take their photography to the next level and begin experimenting with the classic 50mm focal length, even if it may be on crop sensor.
