Brand New and need advice on a lens...

[slthree]

My wife and I have never had a serious camera but we have been researching for quite some time and plan to buy the 350D Rebel XT today. We have held it and shot pictures with it at Best buy.

The lens that comes with it did not seem to be able to take close ups of our daughters. The sales girl (very bright. I was surprised how competent she was) pulled out a different lens, made a quick switch, and took a beautiful close up. We did not ask her how much the lens cost, but it seems like we may need one like it for close ups.

I have searched these forums until my eyes were as blurry as the pics from our old camera but cannot find an answer on one lens that would do it all for a resonable price. Please help.

1. Which lens should we buy? (shooting field trips, field days, bowling, vacations, etc.)

2. Is it possible to get a good close up with the included lens? I saw the picture of Mickey in Jeff's macro shot and it looked a lot closer than we were able to get at Best Buy.

Thanks,

[Warin]

I am sure that there will be many people that disagree, but I have found the 85mm mark to be very good for portraiture. Shorter lenses seem to distort facial features, making the nose and forehead look larger than they really are.

I would reccomend something like this:

60mm Macro Lens (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=785&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1)

It will give you ~90mm on the 350D, and in addition to being reasonably good for portraiture, its macro abilities make it a good multi-use lens. And at f/2.8 maximum aperature, it's a lot better in available light than most of the reasonably priced zoom lenses.

[D70FAN]

My wife and I have never had a serious camera but we have been researching for quite some time and plan to buy the 350D Rebel XT today. We have held it and shot pictures with it at Best buy.

The lens that comes with it did not seem to be able to take close ups of our daughters. The sales girl (very bright. I was surprised how competent she was) pulled out a different lens, made a quick switch, and took a beautiful close up. We did not ask her how much the lens cost, but it seems like we may need one like it for close ups.

I have searched these forums until my eyes were as blurry as the pics from our old camera but cannot find an answer on one lens that would do it all for a resonable price. Please help.

1. Which lens should we buy? (shooting field trips, field days, bowling, vacations, etc.)

2. Is it possible to get a good close up with the included lens? I saw the picture of Mickey in Jeff's macro shot and it looked a lot closer than we were able to get at Best Buy.

Thanks,

There was a time when I would recommend the Sigma 18-125 ($270) as a good all around lens. But the Canon mount version seems to have focus issues, as does the Sigma 18-200 ($400). But there have been a few successes, so maybe it's still worth a try. The Sigma 18-200 would give you even better utility without much loss in performance.

Most of the pictures in my gallery were taken with the 18-125 which you can check out here:

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

One Caveat...these were taken with a D70, but should be about the same on an XT.

P.S. Jeffs shot of Mickey was a psuedo-macro. The kit lens should have worked at Best Buy, but indoors, may have needed flash, or the ISO needed to be kicked up a stop or two. Maybe the sales-person did that with the "better" lens. Now, I'm not saying that the sales person may have done some flim-flaming, but I have seen it happen before.

This is not an endorsment of the Canon kit lens, but while it's not a great lens, it would not generally be the limiting factor for a portrait shot.

[timmciglobal]

When you say "close up" what do you mean?

The minimum focus distance of the kit lens is under a foot from the tip of the lens. There should be absolutly no way you couldn't fill a frame with a small portion of her.

If you mean "zoom in" without walking foward thats a completly different issue.

Tim

[Rex914]

I am sure that there will be many people that disagree, but I have found the 85mm mark to be very good for portraiture.

Are you sure? I thought it was a widely held notion that 85mm was the "ideal" portrait focal length.

[slthree]

When you say "close up" what do you mean?

The minimum focus distance of the kit lens is under a foot from the tip of the lens. There should be absolutly no way you couldn't fill a frame with a small portion of her.

If you mean "zoom in" without walking foward thats a completly different issue.

Tim
Thanks to everybody who's trying to help. I appreciate that.

Tim, yes, I meant "zoom in" without walking forward. I apologize for leaving that out. I'm still learning.

[timmciglobal]

The macro shot then was because he was physically close to it.

Zoom lenses cost money. Any dSLR can offer you any range from cheap 175$ ones (which suffer from things like slow focus, image issues, vingetting, CA (purple or red fringes on high contrast areas) etc to near perfect very expensive (4000$+) lenses offering extreme magnification.

Depends on what you want to spend.

Tim

[coldrain]

Walk around lenses usually go to the wider angle range, so you can capture group pictures, landscapes, buildings, city views.

The "affordable" DSLR camera's all have sensors smaller than 35mm film. Nikons have a 1.5x "crop factor", meaning the picture, and therefore the captured angle of the photo's, is 1.5x smaller than if it were a 35mm film DSLR. The pentax *istDS has a silly name and a 1.55x crop factor, the Canon EOS 350D and 20D have a crop factor of 1.6, and higher end canons have a crop factor of 1.3 or 1 (full frame). The 1.5x and 1.6x crop factor sensors are often referred to as APS-C size sensors.
The 1.6x crop factor of the 350D means the "standard" walk around wide angle of 28mm field of view can only be reached by using a 18mm lens (18 x 1.6 is about 28 mm)
Therefore a walk around lens for a DSLR usually starts at 18mm.... giving the field of view of 28mm, but the distortion of a 18mm.

The 18-55 kit lens is quite disappointing a lens, I would not recommend it. Not only is the sharpness great (it still will do for small photo prints) but most of all the colours of the pictures seem often quite bland and lack in contrast/definition.

Lenses to consider for 18mm and up as walk about lenses are:

Affordable (even cheap?) longer range lenses
18-125mm Sigma
18-200mm Sigma and Tamron

walk about lenses with less zoom range but which are more light sensitive:
Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC. Nice sharpness and contrast, some (mine including) seem to have a problem with focussing (the Canon way of focussing which involves both the camera body and the lens sometimes gives problems with certain samples of Sigma lenses, it is not clear what Sigma does "wrong")
Good samples of the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 are very nice lenses to have.

Tamron 17-35mm 2.8, very sharp and contrasty lens, good price especially compared to Canons offerings in this class.

Canon 17-40 f4 L, sturdy and silent lens, good colour and sharpness, although the Tamron beats it in image quality. Quite expensive...

Canon 16-35 f2.8 L, expensive.

All these lenses are capable of ok close up photo's, but for macro capabilities (getting really close, to single flowers and butter flies and such) you will need a macro lens.
Canons 60mm macro offering is not recommended because it darkens the edges of the photo much more than comparable offerings of Sigma and Tamron. "Affordable" macro lenses to consider are:

Tamron f2.8 90mm SP macro lens, sharpest of the bunch, nice portrait lens (portrait lenses are slight tele lenses, because the slight "flattening" gives a flattering effect (50mm is a "standard" lens, how the human eye sees the world)) 85mm is considered often as ideal for portraits. The 1.6x crop story is not valid here, since the distortion of a 85mm lens does not change with the crop factor, just the field of view.

Sigma 50mm macro. Cheapest and still a very capable macro lens.

Sigma 105mm f2.8 Macro. Very close to the Tamron 90 mm, personal prefference is the deciding factor here since both are so close in performance. Some find Sigma lenses to make photo's too yellow.

Cheap macro option:
Sigma 70-300mm APO zoom lens. Gives a 1:2 macro capability (the above mentioned macro's are 1:1 macro lenses, bringing things 2x closer than this sigma), and gives you and added zoom range upto 300mm. So a nice choice when on a tight budget.

As you notice, there are many paths and options to consider, the above recommendations are focussed on macro capabilities and walk around lens offerings... This does not include tele zoom range lenses even... (besides the sigma 70-300 mm APO lens).

What is recommended does rely on budget and real needs, so it is hard to really tell you what you need without more sudy/information.

[Warin]

Are you sure? I thought it was a widely held notion that 85mm was the "ideal" portrait focal length.

Woops. I sort of missed my rant about prime lenses that should have been smack dab in the middle of that post.

I far prefer "foot zoom" to zoom lenses. I have tried a couple zooms, but outside of the really expensive ones, I am far happier with my (usually) faster prime lenses.

[slthree]

What is recommended does rely on budget and real needs, so it is hard to really tell you what you need without more sudy/information.Under 600.00

[jamison55]

I have been hearing a lot of good things lately about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM Macro. It is said to be really sharp at all apertures, and the pics on PBase seem to back it up (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28105_35ii). It also has Canon's super fast focusing USM, and a bit more durable build quality than the XT Kit.

It's a little zoomy on a 1.6cf camera like the XT (44mm-168mm), but it is inexpensive at around $230 new: http://www.adorama.com/CA28105AFNU.html (and around $200 used: http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=11982237&SKID=CE07999046288N3&SID=newused&BID=CE&CID=07&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0)

[eastbluffs]

Under 600.00
That really opens doors.

I am VERY satisfied with my choice of the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Macro at $360. I don't miss the very wide (under 28mm), but over 75mm - say up to 125 - would work much better for scenes.

The Tamron doesn't break the bank and lets me see if that's a range I can live with (so far so good, for me). Also; its a very popular, respected, and much talked about lense on most forums. Therefore; the resale value would be at least 80% of the new price.

Of the last 3,000 shots, probably less than 300 were from the other lenses I own, and then only because I felt obligated to get some use from them.

Here's a few of sample shots - just to demonstrate that this range (28-75) works out pretty well for people shots.

from 12 feet, bright daylight. 40mm f2.8
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/34044974-L.jpg

From 5 feet (I think) with flash. 75mm f4.0
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/35309319-M.jpg

quick snapshot before she darted away - very shadowy in the woods. Color was retouched (actually not quite right). Will look around for original. 75mm f2.8
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/32358679-M.jpg

For people shots, the 50mm prime is also a very good choice and I've gotten some pretty good use of it. Here's one to show you the field-of-view. Unfortunately; I had my ISO at 800 so it doesn't demonstrate the full potential performance of this $75 lense. However; I would go for the 50mm f1.4 if doing it over again, for build quality and other factors (notice the pentagrams in the background blur on this one), but this is definately no slouch.

This was taken is fairly low light (outdoor covered theater) from about 4 feet away, no flash. Canon 50mm f1.8 prime.
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/35306467-L.jpg



The 60mm macro mentioned above sounds very attractive because those little bug shots would be wonderful and 60mm (converting to about 95mm on the XT) is a good portriat length without being so long you can't get close-in shots too.

Then there's the Canon 85mm f1.8 is touted as about the finest portriate lense bar none for under $400. One photographer after another raves about it. Its not an all-round-use length (85mm, equates to about 130mm efl). But then, what prime is.

Lastly; Canon's coming out with a 24-105mm IS L lense that should become the granddaddy of all walk-around lenses. Being an "L" it will be professional caliber. Being IS (Image Stabalizing) it'll make for a much higher percentage of Keepers. But at $1,250, well, I shouldn't have wetted your appetite.

Note: Very wide lenses (like 18mm) on a zoom seem very attractive and tempting, but the wider you go the more distortion. So (in my humble and relatively inexperienced opinion) unless its a look you're going for, stick to 45mm or above (on the XT camera) for portriats and people shots in general (for complementary shots, 65mm or above). Otherwise, you'll make people look fat, big nosed, and big headed. Can be endearing on a baby but ...

EDIT: I've wondered if this distortion is differs on EFs or EF lenses. I defer to someone with greater knowlege on this topic. However; wide angle distortion is a fact - just not one I'm overly informed about. The rule of thumb is that to get "normal" p;erspective (what our eyes see), use a focal length slightly more than the diagnal measurement of the film (43mm for film, so 50mm lenses give normal perspective). Not sure how this applies to the Digital SLRs since they are really just cropped film perspectives.

[erichlund]

Are you sure? I thought it was a widely held notion that 85mm was the "ideal" portrait focal length.

For a true 35mm frame, 85mm is considered an ideal lens, though, generally speaking, anything in the 80-120 range is considered a portrait length lens. This is why both Canon and Nikon have gone to a great deal of trouble to produce fast 85mm primes with excellent bokeh.

The problem is that on a Nikon, 85 x 1.5 is 127.5 and on Canon it's 85 x 1.6 = 136. Because the field of view is much narrower, you have to be farther away to get the same image. This makes the depth of field smaller, but that's counteracted by the smaller sensor, so that's pretty much a wash. But, being farther away brings in even more of the telephoto flattening effect, which may be more than you want. The small telephoto effect helps give a flattering flattening of the image, which hides some common human flaws. Too much flattening and the image starts to lose something; that "live" quality, or presence. You don't want a portrait to look like a long range surveillance shot.

If you do the math, a lens in the 50-60mm range gives roughly the same telephoto effect on an APS-C sensor that the 85s give on a 35mm frame. That's good for us, because 50mm primes are cheap. Of course the 1.4s generally give much better bokeh than the 1.8s, but the Nikkor 1.8 is not bad in this department. I can't speak for the Canon 1.8, but I've heard some say it's a bit harsher in the bokeh. This results in backgrounds that stand out as geometric shapes rather than blending together as a nice creamy background (I'm not sure how to better describe it than that).

Cheers,
Eric