Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 1-20 (of 72 found) [Search antonipildid.net]

Page 1 of 4

Event - "Sekspeditsioon" ("Sexpedition") at club "Illusion". This used to be a sex expo of some sort a few years back, then it lay dormant for a while and has now been resurrected as club event... of some sort. The ad promised that "nothing will remain hidden" - well, I've seen wet T-shirt competitions wilder than this one. Highlights of the evening - women going wild over male strippers (didn't know my next-door neighbour had it in her:) and skinny stripper girl with slender neck, cutesy face and wild hair.

Photography - I'll be selling the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and getting a new Canon kit lens. Call me crazy, but I miss my old kit lens. The kit lens was small, light, portable and I had absolutely no problems with the image quality. The Tamron is clunky, big and heavy in comparison, it extends when zooming (the kit does not), people prefer less threatening-looking lenses pointed at them and frankly in real-world pictures I haven't noticed any difference in image quality. I loved to keep the kit glued to the camera and use my Sigma 30mm F1.4 and Canon 50mm F1.8 primes only in those obvious situations where the kit couldn't cut it. On the other hand, I've found that I prefer to keep one of my primes or even the Tokina 12-24 F4 glued to the camera instead of the Tamron, because whereas the Tamron loses the careless portability advantages of the "does-it-all" kit, it is unable to sufficiently make up for it in its optical qualities, especially compared to other lenses. Want wide angle? Use the Tokina. Want small size and ultra-wide aperture? Use Sigma 30mm F1.4 prime. Want even smaller size, a wide aperture and zoom setting? Use Canon 50mm F1.8. At no point does the Tamron's 17mm wide and 50mm zoom setting or constant F2.8 become something that can't be done BETTER by another (usually smaller, lighter and cheaper) lens. Ok, but how about being able to get blur-free wide angle (17mm) pictures with F2.8? My widest prime is 30mm, but now let's consider that the new kit lens has image stabilization and even at F3.5-5.6 that is far superior to having F2.8 without IS. The difference between F2.8 and F3.5 is only half a stop, whereas the IS in the kit lens adds a gain of up to four stops (and users are reporting a consistent three stop gain). That means that using the same ISO, I could get a similarly exposed SHARP image either on the Tamron at F2.8, or on the kit lens at F8.0 (or even F11). Similarly I'd be getting less blur with the kit when zooming to 55mm, where it closes down to F5.6, since with IS that is still superior to F2.8 without IS. Additionally, because of the shallow depth of field of F2.8, sharp in Tamron's case would only be the item I focused at, whereas at F11 with IS sharp means more or less the whole scene. Narrowing down the aperture on the Tamron would be the kiss of death though, since without IS it simply can't handle it.

So basically, if I want wide aperture / narrow DOF pictures, I go for the primes, and if I want narrow aperture / wide DOF pictures, an IS lens is far superior to a F2.8 lens without it. Hence, I'll be selling my Tamron and getting back to my first and biggest love - the Canon kit lens.