Concker in August

[Ramsden]

Its far too early for Conckers - but that’s what happening.

EOS90D efs 18-135mm

[SignifDigits]

I had to look that one up - we don't have horse chestnuts over the pond.  And we certainly do NOT have a world championship concker tournament either!

[stevet1]

Ramsden,

What do you think of that 18-135 lens?

Pretty nice, isn't it?  I was lucky enough to have been gifted one, and it stays on my camera about 95% of the time.

Steve Thomas

[Ramsden]

Oh wow. You are missing so much fun. And the skill involved to be a champion is hard earned!

[Ramsden]

I'm the same. It's a great versatile lens that works well on my daily walks, with camera and often dog attached. Yesterday, I took the easy option of using the scn setting, because when I have to hold the dog at the same time I was struggling to get good settings. I think this is the kit lens for the EOS90D, so makes a great versatile combo.

It will be my lens for 2 weeks in Northern Scotland coming up. I used to take my 50mm on walks, partly for weight and versatility, plus I like macros. But the 18-135 is better all round.

Ramsden 

[Ramsden]

And just to show the versatility, this was about an hour later,  sat on a bench, with a touch of shade. Camera still on SCN but landscape. I like getting poles in my shots - don’t ask why, I just do!

[LeeP]

Back in the day when zoom lenses were (1) stupidly expensive and (2) soft in their focus, I had a bag of primes. The first zoom that was a game changer for me was my 35-105 Pentax zoom which I still have decades later. When I jumped to Canon around 1997-8 I bought the 28-135 IS zoom and I still use it today. I much prefer a zoom to an un-nifty 50.

[LeeP]

Poles are a natural way to do rule of thirds if the scene lends itself to that kind of deliberate inclusion, otherwise they can be distracting. A horizontal flip of this picture would be fun.

[Ramsden]

Thanks Lee, I always appreciate your feedback. I haven't done much horizontal work with my camera, in fact probably  none. So that's on the agenda.

Re: the 50, I don't have the technical knowledge to discuss the differences between 'macros' and zooms, but I was initially drawn to the sharpness of the 50mm.

As I understand it, the internal working of a zoom is clearly the differential operational factor. But how is the difference quantified in what we see?

Ramsden 

[LeeP]

These days the difference in sharpness between a zoom and a prime is often negligible.

Famously, Nikon introduced its 43-86mm zoom back in the long ago and it was notorious for unintentionally being a soft focus lens. All those years ago, lens designers didn't have computer design like today nor access to the breakthrough that plastic elements were that not only made zooms sharper, but lighter, and much more affordable.

I have two RF zooms: 15-30 (very sharp) and 75-300 (OK image quality). The latter is a super "el cheapo" that I bought to have telephoto "covered". I don't like telephoto perspective so I didn't spend big as a result.