Flowers in Rosetta McLean Park


I think the title pretty much tells all there is to tell. I guess I could complain about the lens on my camera not being fast enough to get the shallow depth of field I wanted. The best the lens can do is f/2.8. To get really shallow depth of field shots (that’s where one part of the subject is in focus while everything behind it — or in front of it — is out of focus) you need lens with a really wide aperture, like something in the range of f/2.0 to f/1.4. The smaller the number the larger the aperture. Large aperture lenses are also necessary for low-light and night shots. Most compact point & shoots are lucky to achieve f/2.8. A couple of advanced compacts, such as the Panasonic LX3 and Canon’s new S90 are f/2.0. I think Ricoh has one that’s f/1.7, which is pretty amazing for a compact camera. The downside is these cameras usually don’t have much zoom. If you own a dSLR, then you can buy a lens for this purpose. A 50mm prime at f/1.8 is pretty cheap (good for portrait photography), but if you want something that zooms, or a wide angle lens, then expect to slap down many hundreds of buckaroos. Wow, considering my opening statement, I sure blathered on, didn’t I?

This entry was posted in Rosetta Mclean Park and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Flowers in Rosetta McLean Park

  1. Jan Smith says:

    I just attended a new photoclub meeting this past Tuesday and I was asking the leader what is the best cheapest lens that a person should buy. He mentioned the 50mm which is about $96..I think I can afford that maybe for my upcoming birthday. 🙂 I’m reading “Learning to See Creatively” by Bryan Peterson and his suggestion is a 35 to 70 F2.8 but they’re really too expensive for me right now. I like this photo…I think it’s ok without the depth of field because the angle and composition are good. (in my opinion but what do I know?) 🙂

  2. davecandoit says:

    Yeah, those 50mm fast lenses seem to be really popular. For me, it’s not wide enough, when you take the crop factor into consideration. A 50mm lens on entry-level to mid-range dSLRs equates to 75mm to 80mm in 35mm film format. I think a prime lens in the 20 to 30mm range would be a nice compromise. If I had a Nikon D90 I’d couple it to a 16mm-80mm Nikkor lens. That’s 25mm-128mm in 35mm film format. A kit like that runs around $1,800 here in Toronto.

    Thanks for the compliment, by the way. And based on your own photos I’d say you know lots. 😉

  3. I like the bees’ eye view–and all that lush green–oh that’s delicious.

    • davecandoit says:

      Thanks. I’m going to add you to my blogroll so others can enjoy your amazing historical artifacts.

      • davecandoit, lol–you’re very kind to help along with the historical artifacts exposure–they’re not mine though–all from the National Archives in KCMO, Record Group 75, Cheyenne River Reservation–and available for anyone to read in person.
        You know, there’s nothing ‘lazy’ about you or your photos…lol. grins

  4. kseverny says:

    i like the trees in the back, its good. dont know much about cameras though. lol

    • davecandoit says:

      Thanks. To be honest, I don’t either. But I’m really trying to get up to speed. There’s a college course starting in November I’d like to take, but I need to buy a dSLR before then.

  5. davecandoit says:

    47 White Buffalo:

    Yeah, I guess you can say my handle is sort of ironic. Thanks for enlightening me on your blog. Very interesting. I hope others take the time to give it a looksee.

    Okay, turning computer off now! G’night! 🙂

Comments are closed.