New to DSLR, suggesitions on lens [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page

View Full Version : New to DSLR, suggesitions on lens

canonmonkey

10-14-2006, 10:37 AM

RichNY

10-14-2006, 10:54 AM

Yes you can. You've got a few ways to go with the 2 lenses depending on whether you want to cover more focal range or have one lens that will be better in low light.

Based on your budget you might want to consider a 3rd party lens with more focal length than the kit lens to meet your stated needs. A 265mm focal length on the Xti would be about the same reach as your S3 will get.

Clyde

10-14-2006, 06:45 PM

canonmonkey

10-14-2006, 08:50 PM

Would it be worthwhile trying to find a Rebe XT ? Since its the old model, Ive seen them for a couple hundred less.

aparmley

10-14-2006, 10:51 PM

Would it be worthwhile trying to find a Rebe XT ? Since its the old model, Ive seen them for a couple hundred less.

You won't save enough to afford a medium to high quality lens, so I say get the better body, the kit lens, the 50 1.8 and maybe the sigma like clyde said. . . its got a quasi macro mode and it works fairly well - But only buy these with the understanding they are for learning, you'll likely spend some where around 2-5x the cost of the body on lenses.

canonmonkey

10-14-2006, 11:09 PM

You won't save enough to afford a medium to high quality lens, so I say get the better body, the kit lens, the 50 1.8 and maybe the sigma like clyde said. . . its got a quasi macro mode and it works fairly well - But only buy these with the understanding they are for learning, you'll likely spend some where around 2-5x the cost of the body on lenses.

I understand that the lens is where the $$ is. :)

With the above lens that you recommend, even though its a learning lens, its still better than the S3 lens, correct?

aparmley

10-14-2006, 11:36 PM

I understand that the lens is where the $$ is. :)

With the above lens that you recommend, even though its a learning lens, its still better than the S3 lens, correct?

Depends on how you define better - if you mean are those lenses more capable of producing better images, I'd say yes.

Here are two sample shots: my niece and my friends son both are with the Sigma. . .

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/43130628-M.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/43130630-M.jpg

Here is a Rose I took this year. . .

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/71624072-M.jpg

The semi/quasi macro mode of the Sigma:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/71623975-M.jpg

Once you learn to use the Sigma only in situations where it can perform it will produce very acceptable results. . . ie - give it enough light ;)

DonSchap

10-15-2006, 03:47 AM

Committing to DLSR is a serious choice. You should not be fooled into believing you can "get away" with using sub-par equipment and turning out reasonable work. Many have tried... but read on.

IF (and this is a pretty big IF) you have no expectations of doing so and are just playing for effect, that is one thing...

BUT (and this is a major-league BUT)

you are going to very quickly find out that you will want and desire that "sharper" and "more in focus" look with every shot result. Your disappointment with inferior equipment will be remarkable, just intolerable, and quite immediate. It's like having an itch you simply cannot reach or scratch at. Crappy focus makes all your work appear irritatingly just short of what you want to see. You need to rely on the camera's ability to acheive a good, sharp focus... every time or within a reasonable amount (80% is fair). Everyone will admit that trying to acheive sharp focus with a little LCD screen can be nearly impossible to tell.

COMMIT to spending what it takes to buy decent enough equipment to give you what you want... or chances are... you will very shortly abandon your chosen hobby in pursuit of finding something that can deliver a satisfying result.

The Canon Powershot S3 IS will deliver a decent shot. I've had one and I can testify to that, as will many others. It is a good and sound solution, but with some serious limitations. Happily, there are enough benefits to this remarkable camera to outweigh a lot of this.

Is the S3 IS on par with using a DSLR? If it were, this discussion would be pointless. It isn't, so go ahead and ask what the various differences REALLY are and deal with it. At least it won't be standard focusing practices.

The point is (and I suspect, this want you really want to know): Once you decide to go DSLR... you can bet it would not be unreasonable to spend at least $5,000 to get a system capable to equaling the range of the S3 IS, based on aperture and focal length and with a capable DSLR camera body and associated zoom SLR lensing. That's the investment... anything less will do less. Plain and simple.

There are various shades of "gray" (or grey - even the dictionary cannot decide :rolleyes: ) concerning the DSLR options, because it can be relatively vast and ever-changing. You can pick and choose for effect... it's quite amazing. In contrast, the list of options for the Canon Powershot S3 IS is pretty short. It is basically a P&S (point & shoot) or (plain and simple) digital camera. It has a tremendous set of INTERNAL options and offers incredible flexibility to the things P&S cameras do... BUT, it still is a Point & Shoot.

For less than a $1000, it probably is your best bet, over all. If that's all you will have to spend... then the answer seems clear. Forcing a DSLR into such a tiny niche is not only unworthy, but relatively unwise. Your immediate desire for more will most certainly overwhelm your tolerance of the shortfall.

Also, if you are COMMITTED to your photography, you will quickly find out that after a quick exposure (pardon the pun) to the world of the DSLR... this temporary fix in the form of this rather advanced P&S camera is one that just will not hold. Plan on getting money together and joining in on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride in the wide-world of the DSLR.

Good luck with the Canon Powershot S3 IS... it is probably the wisest choice for the money you have available... for now. :cool:

Take your best shot!

Nickcanada

10-15-2006, 06:30 AM

Hi Don, I agree about the missed shots because of bad focus. I know I have enough of those!!! but I think as long as you understand the limitations of the equipment before you buy it, you'll be ok.

I bought a 50mm 1.8 knowing that it was a cheep lens, and you know what I got a cheep lens that surprised me with some great pictures. Keep in mind I'm not as picky as most here and "great pictures" is relative. My cheep set-up has taught me a lot about phtography and I am planing on some big purchaces now that I have a better idea of what I want in a lens.

Here are a few pics from my 50mm 1.8 1/4000 sec F1.8 ISO 100

Nickcanada

10-15-2006, 06:33 AM

1/60 sec F2.2 ISO 1600

Nickcanada

10-15-2006, 06:37 AM

1/60sec F1.8 ISO 1600

canonmonkey

10-15-2006, 07:15 AM

Commiting to DLSR is a serious choice. You should not be fooled into believing you can "get away" with using sub-par equipment and turning out reasonable work. Many have tried... but read on.

IF (and this is a pretty big IF) you have no expectations of doing so and are just playing for effect, that is one thing...

BUT (and this is a major-league BUT)

you are going to very quickly find out that you will want and desire that "sharper" and "more in focus" look with every shot result. Your disappointment with inferior equipment will be remarkable, just intolerable, and quite immediate. It's like having an itch you simply cannot reach or scratch at. Crappy focus makes all your work appear irritatingly just short of what you want to see. You need to rely on the camera's ability to acheive a good, sharp focus... every time or within a reasonable amount (80% is fair). Everyone will admit that trying to acheive sharp focus with a little LCD screen can be nearly impossible to tell.

COMMIT to spending what it takes to buy decent enough equipment to give you what you want... or chances are... you will very shortly abandon your chosen hobby in pursuit of finding something that can deliver a satisfying result.

The Canon Powershot S3 IS will deliver a decent shot. I've had one and I can testify to that, as will many others. It is a good and sound solution, but with some serious limitations. Happily, there are enough benefits to this remarkable camera to outweigh a lot of this.

Is the S3 IS on par with using a DSLR? If it were, this discussion would be pointless. It isn't, so go ahead and ask what the various differences REALLY are and deal with it. At least it won't be standard focusing practices.

The point is (and I suspect, this want you really want to know): Once you decide to go DSLR... you can bet it would not be unreasonable to spend at least $5,000 to get a system capable to equaling the range of the S3 IS, based on aperture and focal length and with a capable DSLR camera body and associated zoom SLR lensing. That's the investment... anything less will do less. Plain and simple.

There are various shades of "gray" (or grey - even the dictionary cannot decide :rolleyes: ) concerning the DSLR options, because it can be relatively vast and ever-changing. You can pick and choose for effect... it's quite amazing. In contrast, the list of options for the Canon Powershot S3 IS is pretty short. It is basically a P&S (point & shoot) or (plain and simple) digital camera. It has a tremendous set of INTERNAL options and offers incredible flexibility to the things P&S cameras do... BUT, it still is a Point & Shoot.

For less than a $1000, it probably is your best bet, over all. If that's all you will have to spend... then the answer seems clear. Forcing a DSLR into such a tiny niche is not only unworthy, but relatively unwise. Your immediate desire for more will most certainly overwhelm your tolerance of the shortfall.

Also, if you are COMMITTED to your photography, you will quickly find out that after a quick exposure (pardon the pun) to the world of the DSLR... this temporary fix in the form of this rather advanced P&S camera is one that just will not hold. Plan on getting money together and joining in on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride in the wide-world of the DSLR.

Good luck with the Canon Powershot S3 IS... it is probably the wisest choice for the money you have available... for now. :cool:

Take your best shot!

Nice comments, thanks :)

I started to review some images I took with the S3 yesturday, and I really like some of them. I got a little spoiled a couple of months ago when I borrowed my Aunts Rebel XT. She has some expensive lens that she use to use on a old 35mm film SLR. I was pretty impressed with the pics I took.

Im still up in the air about what I should do. Your comments about spending money is on a good setup is valid. My wife is currently in school studying to be a nurse, which makes it harder to justify an expensive new hobby. This is something Ive wanted for awhile now, but I may hold out until she gets out of school.

Thanks again for your comments :)

DonSchap

10-15-2006, 09:14 AM

Once you have spent the $5000, the cost from then on are pretty much discretionary, to a point.

To be quite honest, it really is not an expensive hobby, once you have a basic, good set of lenses in place. That's the secret. What can drive up the cost is initially buying cheap glass or some cheapo camera body and then having to replace it with better stuff. The best choice is to get the good glass FIRST. Just... (this is a big JUST, admittedly) by-pass the use of stuff you will have to dump, later. I figure, doing the math, that may be at least a $1000 savings, right there. Camera bodies change constantly (every six-months, these days)... so you can probably buy the low-end model and eventually upgrade to a better one, sometime later. Glass hardly ever changes. Years and years go by, and it still works great. The Minolta/SONY pair-up is a perfect example. Good, solid 20-year old Minola-glass still being successfully used by a brand new SONY-camera body! That's "legs"!

Like the CFO says: "Come to me once, for what you need... dribs and drabs and replacements are going to be hard for me to understand if you've done your job right. You DO like your JOB, don't you?"

Anyway, there is plenty of information and discussion on this website to keep you considering for months to come. Just don't get anxious. Carefully measure out the type of shooting you want to do... narrow your focus, so to speak, and select the best darn lens for that purpose. Don't look back... look ahead... to better photography, with superior equipment.

Oh, if only I had listened to me, years ago. LOL :rolleyes: The piles of dust that old, inferior glass has collected... where's the vacuum? :o

Clyde

10-15-2006, 10:30 AM

Something to keep in mind as you read our responses is that we come from a wide variety of financial situations. Don, for instance, has spent over $5000 on his set up. I have spent less than $1500 on mine.

If I had his resources, I would have different "requirements." As it is, I can shoot many situations quite well, and there are situations I shoot regularly where the S3 wouldn't do a good job.

Also keep in mind that one prerequisite to getting any kind of senior status on a site like this is an obsessive interest in photography. That means that most of the knowledgeable folk here have devoted much more time and money on this hobby (or occasionally proffesion) than the typical photographer. Our "requirements" are likely to be more demanding than most.

The XT, kit lens, and sigma 70-300 would be a better set up than the S3. It would have some limitations. It won't focus as effortlessly as a more expensive kit. It won't work as well in low light situations as a more expensive kit. It won't satisfy a true "pixel peeper" as much as a more expensive kit. However, if you become familiar with its quirks, you will be able to take great pictures in many situations where the S3 would leave you frustrated.

Clyde

nutmac

10-16-2006, 05:57 PM

The point is (and I suspect, this want you really want to know): Once you decide to go DSLR... you can bet it would not be unreasonable to spend at least $5,000 to get a system capable to equaling the range of the S3 IS, based on aperture and focal length and with a capable DSLR camera body and associated zoom SLR lensing. That's the investment... anything less will do less. Plain and simple.

Don has made many valid points and yes, it is not unreasonable to spend $5,000 or so on a given DSLR solution. It's all too easy to fall under "L-series" addiction, for instance. In my bag: ~$775 EOS 400D (body only, recently upgraded from EOS 300D) + ~$675 17-40mm f/4L USM + ~$1100 24-70mm f/2.8L USM + ~$575 70-200mm f/4L USM = over $3000. That's excluding few hundred dollars worth of filters, bag, memory cards, and an extra battery.

In other words, although DSLR bodies have become relatively affordable, the lenses have not. That said, it is possible to build relatively affordable and high performance DSLR solution for significantly less, although it will be tough with $300 or so for the lenses.

My recommendation. Have the patience to learn each lens to the fullest and purchase more as your budget and skills grow. A lot of us here started with either a kit lens, EF 50mm f/1.8, or one of the Sigma or Tamron lenses. Regardless of which, just get one lens for now. After mastering the starter lens, advance to the next lens. In the end, it is entirely possible to spend $5,000 for the entire solution, but at more practical piece meal pace.

unix04

10-16-2006, 06:13 PM

in place of the kit lens, you can possibly get the 50mm f1.8 with the sigma APO along with the xti. i've seen the xti on sale for under 750 in various places, and getting the 50mm+sigma will probably keep you a tad bit above 1K, but i think that can make a great setup. sigma for your long range zoom, and the 50mm for most normal shots. you'll have to adjust with some footwork with the 50 to take your everyday picture of people and objects nearby, but you get a low-light performer, which is hard to ask for from the kit lens.

on the less brighter side, you'd need a CF card if you dont have one, and that will add on to your grand total. but i think that's the best ~$1100 setup that i can think of (that involves a telephoto lens) at the moment.

cwphoto

10-16-2006, 06:32 PM

My recommendation. Have the patience to learn each lens to the fullest and purchase more as your budget and skills grow. A lot of us here started with either a kit lens, EF 50mm f/1.8, or one of the Sigma or Tamron lenses. Regardless of which, just get one lens for now. After mastering the starter lens, advance to the next lens. In the end, it is entirely possible to spend $5,000 for the entire solution, but at more practical piece meal pace.

Good advice Nut and welcome to this little part of the internet world.:)

I started with the 50mm f/1.8 too (although that was fifteen years ago) and looking back now it was the right way to go.

adam75south

10-17-2006, 08:24 AM

haha another gear debate.....

well, they're right. you won't be happy with the cheap stuff. when i first bought all my crap, i got the 30d for $1200, the 50 1.4 for $330 and the 70-200 f/4L for $600, spent $250 on the 4gb Extreme III card...and i was still very unhappy. i added the 24-70 f/2.8L and that satisfied me for a little while. now i really want the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 400mm f/5.6 and i would really like to get the 50mm f/1.2L....that's a $4500 sentence i just wrote.

Effzeeone

10-20-2006, 02:11 PM

Canonmonkey is in a very similar boat as me. I have an older Panasonic superzoom camera, and was deciding whether or not to move on to a Panasonic FZ30 or 50, the Canon S3, or going entry level dSLR.

I do not have much money to throw at lens purchases, but I have a reasonable amount and don't mind doing it if it will get me what I want out of a camera. I believe it will. My main issues with P&S or even "Prosumer" cameras is noise, low light, action shots, etc., all of which would improve with a dSLR, even with a mediocre lens. I'm not fooling myself into thinking that it still won't take a lot of "work" to get a great shot, but I'd rather be frustrated by my lack of skill or knowledge, than simple lack of features/capabilities of a simpler, cheaper priced camera. I can always learn how to better use a dSLR, and can even throw some cash at a better lens when that highschool gym basketball shot is still a little too blurry, but there's nothing worse than sitting through an entire sporting event having given up on taking any pictures of my kids because they're all blurry, dark, and out of focus (or even a complete miss!) because the P&S "Prosumer" camera I purchased for $600 simply does not work for those types of shots.

For all of you giving advice here, don't be offended if we don't take it to heart or spend the big bucks on high quality lenses, etc. It's likely not that we're disregarding your recommendations! You have to understand what we're used to when it comes to photography! For example, I will get better action and low light shots with a Rebel XT and a kit lens than I will with my Panasonic FZ series P&S camera. The shots may not look great to a pro, but they'll look fantastic to me because I simply couldn't get these shots with my P&S camera.

Also, for all taking advice here (those P&S users like me), you need to remember some things that I've picked up about dSLRs. For one, don't expect the shot to come out exactly how you want it straight out of the camera. Most dSLRs users are big-time post-processors (PhotoShop, PaintShop, etc.) -- not all, but most. We P&S users need to remember that. The instant gratification isn't always there, but gratification will come later when you tweak things to "perfection" in front of your computer. A lot can be done with a "bad" dSLR shot that you wouldn't even want to attempt with a "bad" P&S shot.

I'm likely going with an entry level (maybe slightly above) dSLR with a kit lens, and will see how that works for me for a little while, and then come back for some advice, get a lens strategy going, and plunk down some $ on some medium to mid-high quality lenses. After suffering so long with P&S limitations, I admit that I'm a bit worried about being satisfied with the mediocre kit lens, but I'm sure I will eventually get lens envy...eventually...

Thanks for all who contributed to this thread -- I found it very interesting with great information!

Vich

10-20-2006, 03:16 PM

You can get a decent setup used for $1000.

Used saves you about 10-15% on lens and 15-20% on body, unless you'll settle for 3 year old models, then 20-40% savings on body - age doesn't matter much on lens.

Ask yourself - do you want a hobby or just get some good photos of special events. The S3 will give you good photos. The DSLR, with quality glass, is definately a hobby (and an expensive one).

Many keep the total cost below $1200, but it's sure easy to let it slip into the $5,000 range.

I sold my 20D + kit lens + 50mm f1.8 for $1000 even about 6 months ago. That was a very nice setup (now upgraded to 30D and 5 pro-grade lenses + pro flash).

Also note; Due to the much larger sensor size on DSLR (over the P&S cameras), the lens and body, by necessity, are much much larger.

So; unless you're bent on superior photos or just have $$ to blow, I'd stick with the S3. If you can truely apply self dicipline and stick with a modest body and 1 or 2 modest lenses, you'll be happy (albiet will miss out on some zoom range). Otherwise; welcome to the DSLR world and, open your wallet if you please.

If you decide on option 2 (sticking to a $1K solution) - My recommendation: XTi + Tamron 28-75. I know a very nice used 28-75 that'll sell for $300 including shipping in December. Almost wide enough, almost long enough, but no compromise on Image Quality. Body is the latest. Either that or get a used 20D still under warranty and under 15K actuations.

There's a guy on FM right now selling the original 6MP Rebel for $320. 5,000 actuations, mint condition.

Even that would be FAR better, noise and response wise, than an S3. In fact, due to the lower total MP, but still 1.6x crop factor, the pixels are nice and large. It should do VERY WELL noise wise as compared with the XT , 20D, or 30D. Also; 6MP photos are VERY acceptable at most print sizes.

That would leave you enough for $700 or so in lenses.

So for $700, hmmm. I would get a used Canon 70-200 f4.0 ($450 used) plus, let's see, Used Tamron 28-75 f2.8 ($300). So you blow your budget by $70. You'de be smokin! In 3 years you could upgrade the camera body.
Personally; I hate the cheap Sigmas and I would opt for mid-quality or nothing.

Rontech1

10-21-2006, 07:02 AM

I just purchased a Canon S3 IS "super zoom". It has 12x optical, came to about $350. Im debating on sending it back and getting the XTI, which I originally wanted but didnt want to pay $$. I would like to spend a max of $1000 , if possible, on a XTI with (2) lens. How much would a decent lens be for day to day shots (I guess that is what the kit lens is for) and a lens that would zoom pretty close to subjects (equal to about 12x on p&s cameras).
If anyone can help me, please post.
Canonmonkey,
I can relate to your situation because I was JUST there. My wife and I bought an S3is to use as a P&S but also to get some shots that ( we found out later after more investment) were beyond the capabilities of the camera.
So after reading as much here as I could, and getting some good advice here I can tell aprox how much we have in our starter DSLR.
We just purchased (this week actually) an XTi, the Canon 50mm f1.8, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and an opteka battery grip. Along with a couple of 1 gig cf cards we are setting at about $1600 U.S..
But already I find a hole in our kit. :rolleyes: A quality zoom between 35-130 is still needed ( wanted). Add 4-500. for that. The 70-300 was wanted for the special requirements we had--high quality Hummingbird pics from our feeders, so that could be subtracted from the initial cost, but comes very close to your requirment for a 12x zoom.
However I can tell you from experience that this is the way we should have gone in the first place. We were fortunate enough to sell the S3is stuff at a small enough loss (tolerable) that we were not hurt too bad. Plus the overall picture quality is much more to what we wanted in the first place.
And quite frankly this has been some of the best money I have ever spent. Right next to my marriage license to my wife:)
Hope this helps some.
Ron