frustrations on lenses for rebel XT!

[mediyoga]

Hi all. My canon 17-85 lens is very good indoors if I hike the iso to 400. So I dont need a tamron 28-75 2.8 as the canon delivers good images. If I use a speed lite 550 I suppose the imaging will be even better.

For outdoor snaps is an aperture of 5.6 on a sunny day (of course light can come from any direction) enough if I am shooting the sea/ hills/ buildings next the the sea side, people etc. Or is a L series 2.8 needed? The L series is heavy and I dont mind the investment but the awkwardness of carrying it around!

Beats me why technology cannot produce a smaller lens with a 2.8 aperture.
On the hand one is limited by size and weight and the other lack of innovative technology to change lenses! The problem is one cant be sure when and in what situation one would need a 2.8 lens and hence the confusion as to whether to but such a heavy one or not.

Imagine if you are in akaka state falls in Hawaii ( i used a D 100 then) and its slightly cloudy , what will I do with a 5.6 aperture- jack the iso up again?
Man things are irritating!
Thanks to all for their views

[aparmley]

Hi all. My canon 17-85 lens is very good indoors if I hike the iso to 400. So I dont need a tamron 28-75 2.8 as the canon delivers good images. If I use a speed lite 550 I suppose the imaging will be even better.

I shot a few photos indoors this evening, 1.8 ISO 1600 was no where near fast enough. So . . . You must be shooting with walmart lighting indoors or something. . . Ofcourse mine was at night. Shooting indoors in a house with many windows during the day might not be so bad. . . Every situation is different. You can either have a lens that will prepare you to shoot in the dark conditions as well as the more bright ones or you can have a lens that you can only use under well lit situations.

For outdoor snaps is an aperture of 5.6 on a sunny day (of course light can come from any direction) enough if I am shooting the sea/ hills/ buildings next the the sea side, people etc. Or is a L series 2.8 needed? The L series is heavy and I dont mind the investment but the awkwardness of carrying it around!

It depends on what you are shooting and the type of photo you want. to get a better understand of aperture and SSs pick up bryan petersons book understanding exposure.

Beats me why technology cannot produce a smaller lens with a 2.8 aperture.

the lens' max aperture is its "light gathering" power. just think of it this way. what lets more light in, a small little 12"x12" window or a huge bay window ? if you want a lens to gather more light than one you have now, it has to get bigger, the diameter of the lens at the same focal lenght must be larger, its simple. the smaller the diameter of the lens, the lighter it is yes and also the slower it is because the lens does not have enough diamter to allow the aperture blades to open up any wider to allow more light to pass by.


On the hand one is limited by size and weight and the other lack of innovative technology to change lenses! The problem is one cant be sure when and in what situation one would need a 2.8 lens and hence the confusion as to whether to but such a heavy one or not.

This is the point I was making, since one will not know what the lightening will be anywhere he might want to take a photo - it is best to have the ability to shoot in the widest range of available light.

Thats the best I can do at 2am. . .

[mediyoga]

Aparmley, thanks a lot for your so patient reply. It is very kind of you to give so detailed a reply too. I will read bryan petersons book. I suppose one has to have at least 2 lenses - there is no escape. Your explanation of the window is very apt. I shall go have a look at the l series this week!
thanks

[ReF]

as aparmley has said, apertures get bigger depending on the focal length of the lens, and large apertures need large glass. they actually have tried to shrink down a few lenses like the DO series, but with some unwanted side effects. the tamron 28-75 f2.8 is the only shrunken down lens i know of without side effects.

honestly, i think you just need to go out and shoot, and get more experience. a "slightly" cloudy day would hardly call for a f2.8 aperture. indoor lighting should also normally be much worse than cloudy outdoor lighting. the ISO on dslrs are very clean in most cases compared to film, so bumping up the ISO really should not be as a big a deal as you make it sound. i think you should get yourself a cheap 50mm f1.8 lens so you can see for yourself whether you need large apertures or not. it might even help you decide if you want to get into primes.

[aparmley]

Aparmley, thanks a lot for your so patient reply. It is very kind of you to give so detailed a reply too. I will read bryan petersons book. I suppose one has to have at least 2 lenses - there is no escape. Your explanation of the window is very apt. I shall go have a look at the l series this week!
thanks

No problem Mediyoga. I was typing fast as it was late last night. =). I think ref has filled in nicely to add more helpful knowlege to my post. He is right about overcast days v indoors - normally over cast is much nicer than indoors. the light is evenly distrubed - you'll see it regard as soft diffused light - much like from a lightbox in a studio setting. . .

as aparmley has said, apertures get bigger depending on the focal length of the lens, and large apertures need large glass. they actually have tried to shrink down a few lenses like the DO series, but with some unwanted side effects. the tamron 28-75 f2.8 is the only shrunken down lens i know of without side effects.

honestly, i think you just need to go out and shoot, and get more experience. a "slightly" cloudy day would hardly call for a f2.8 aperture. indoor lighting should also normally be much worse than cloudy outdoor lighting. the ISO on dslrs are very clean in most cases compared to film, so bumping up the ISO really should not be as a big a deal as you make it sound. i think you should get yourself a cheap 50mm f1.8 lens so you can see for yourself whether you need large apertures or not. it might even help you decide if you want to get into primes.

I think this is pretty sound advice - I wanted zooms when I started. I loved the thought of being able to frame my photos the way I wanted by zooming all the while my lazy butt stays put. I got the 50 1.8 first for affordability and to get me shooting. then the Sigma 70-300, then the 85 1.8 - and I my current wish list is nothing but primes. . . funny isn't it? comparing the quality and ability to shoot in lower light situations removed any high priority desire for a zoom after that Sigma - well, if you get an L zoom or the equivelant then sure, it will be nice. . . But, eventually, I will need zooms, you will need them, there will be situations were zooms are the best option - when ones butt has to stay put and the distance to subject varies on subject movement.

good luck.