PDA

View Full Version : anyone want to help a newbie



MissJezabelle
05-16-2005, 05:10 PM
I just purchased a digital canon rebel, Body only. I am now looking for lenses and would like some pointers or tips on whats out there. I looked at canon lenses and they seem quite spendy, compared to others I looked at like sigma, quantaray, and Tamron. What I really want is a 300mm lens. I was looking at the 28-300 which seems to be a universal one lens will do it all type of thing. Is this true or should I be focusing on 2-3 different lenses. This is my 1st trip into SLR land as I have always done the point and shoot, But I want MORE. Any reccomemdations on lens brands and sizes would be very appreciated.

cwphoto
05-16-2005, 05:31 PM
Are you sure you want a 300mm lens?

The reason I ask is that a 300mm lens on a 135-format film camera will "appear" as a 480mm lens on your new Canon.

By "appear" I mean that the sensor is capturing a smaller portion of the frame than a standard 135 film SLR.

If all you merely want is a similar effect that a 300mm lens has on a 135-format film camera, then a 180mm lens will almost match it (this is not exactly true but I'm merely taking a simplistic view and disregarding depth of field issues etc).

This opens your choice up to other less-expensive lenses (even potentially wide angle lenses greater than 28mm).

My recommendation would be a combination of two lenses:

Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II USM
Canon Zoom Lens EF 55-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 II USM

This would give you a range of 29-320mm in 135-format film SLR land.

speaklightly
05-16-2005, 06:25 PM
jezzibel-

Honestly, I would throttle back a good amount. The lens that I use as my "walk around" lens for my EOS 20D is an EF 28-135mm F 3.5 - 5.6 IS USM lens and I find it works out very well indeed for me. Here is a no flash/existing light only example.

Sarah Joyce

Rex914
05-16-2005, 06:26 PM
Check my lens guide (in my signature). You're the kind of person I'm targeting to read my guide.

For a quick suggestion, if you prefer a "do-it-all" lens, go for the Sigma 18-200 ($400). If you don't, there are plenty of great, affordable choices in there.

MissJezabelle
05-17-2005, 08:19 AM
Guess it would help if I said what I was planning on shooting lol. I was looking at the 300 for sports. We go to lots of Nascar races and thought I needed something of the such to really pull the image in.

MissJezabelle
05-17-2005, 09:01 AM
rex. I looked at your guide. Wow did I learn alot. The lens i was looking at was a sigma 28-300 f/3.5-6.3. If I read your guid right, that may not be the best lens for me, because of the f-stop #??? I do plan to make a studio out of my garage to have fun taking pics of my son. I plan on setting up"studio lights" but as far as natural light there is next to none in there. Guess I have come to the right place to learn.

here is a pic taken with my 5.25 MP point and shoot. forgive the photoshop elements.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/jezabelle/bluejeanbabe.jpg

Ant
05-17-2005, 11:17 AM
With lenses you tend to get what you pay for. However, there are some pretty good lenses out there for a reasonable price.

For 300mm I can recommend the Sigma 70-300mm APO. It's not too expensive (about 150 over here) and I was pretty impressed when I got a chance to use one a few weeks ago. Of course you'll get a better lens with more money, you haven't said what your budget is.

D70FAN
05-17-2005, 11:54 AM
Are you sure you want a 300mm lens?

The reason I ask is that a 300mm lens on a 135-format film camera will "appear" as a 480mm lens on your new Canon.

By "appear" I mean that the sensor is capturing a smaller portion of the frame than a standard 135 film SLR.

If all you merely want is a similar effect that a 300mm lens has on a 135-format film camera, then a 180mm lens will almost match it (this is not exactly true but I'm merely taking a simplistic view and disregarding depth of field issues etc).

This opens your choice up to other less-expensive lenses (even potentially wide angle lenses greater than 28mm).

My recommendation would be a combination of two lenses:

Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II USM
Canon Zoom Lens EF 55-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 II USM

This would give you a range of 29-320mm in 135-format film SLR land.

cwphoto,

I'm not sure that the 18-55 is a recommendable lens, even in the II version. I will be the first to admit that I don't own a Canon so I haven't used this lens, but the consensus here seems to be "use it if you have to" but there are better lenses out there for just a little more money.

But then maybe you personally have had good results with this combo (18-55 + 55-200) so I could be wrong. But it still means pretty frequent lens changes.

MissJezabelle,

As an everyday lens I have used the Sigma 18-125 DC and it is a great performer for around $270. There are several of us here using this lens with good results.

I haven't used the new Sigma 18-200 DC yet (probably this weekend), but so far people have been pretty impressed. Priced at around $400 and supplimented with a Canon 50mm f1.8 for portraits, you should be able to handle family protraits as well as sports and NASCAR with 2 lenses and very infrequent lens changing.

Down the road you might want to add the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for those special indoor/outdoor occasions (like weddings) where you want a sharp, fast, lens at a decent price (~$400).

Just my two cents...

jamison55
05-17-2005, 12:14 PM
rex. I looked at your guide. Wow did I learn alot. The lens i was looking at was a sigma 28-300 f/3.5-6.3. If I read your guid right, that may not be the best lens for me, because of the f-stop #??? I do plan to make a studio out of my garage to have fun taking pics of my son. I plan on setting up"studio lights" but as far as natural light there is next to none in there. Guess I have come to the right place to learn.


Consumer zoom lenses are all a compromise. It costs a lot of money to make a truly excellent zoom, which is why the really high quality zooms tend to have a much higher price tag. When you buy a consumer zoom, you typically make the choice for convenience over the image quality that 3 or more primes of the same focal length would give you.

The compromise seems to be larger with zooms that have to cover a really large focal length (i.e. 28-300). For this reason, I usually recommend that folks weigh the importance of convenience vs pic quality. If having the range without having to change lenses is a strong point for you, than an "all in one" type of lens might just fit the bill. Many users here really like the Sigma 18-125, which is the equivalent of a 28-200 on a 35mm camera. A couple of folks really like the new Sigma 18-200 as well.

If pic quality is more important, and you don't mind changing lenses every once in a while, two zooms that cover the same range might treat you better...or better yet, a good mid range zoom with a couple of inexpensive primes gives you the best of both worlds.

As far as a studio lens...I have a studio in my small garage, and with my 110ws strobes I am at f8/ISO100 almost always. Since f8 hits the sweet spot of most lenses, and the lighting of the studio strobes is so perfect, it is really hard to get bad results from any lens.

MissJezabelle
05-17-2005, 12:38 PM
I was told at the camera shop that you cannot purchase the canon 18-50 lens as a stand alone. it only comes with the camera as a kit. Is this not true?


Also I do not mind switching lenses at all. To me picture quality is more important. I was just led to believe from the camera shop (which had an idiot at the counter) that an all in one was a better lens. They tried to sell me a quantary 28-300 for $400. Which as far as lenses go is quite cheap.

All in all I want the best I can get (within reasonable $. I don't want to spend $900 on one lens) that is going to be the most effective.

jamison55
05-17-2005, 01:31 PM
I was told at the camera shop that you cannot purchase the canon 18-50 lens as a stand alone. it only comes with the camera as a kit. Is this not true?

Not true: http://www.adorama.com/CA1855AFSU.html


Also I do not mind switching lenses at all. To me picture quality is more important. I was just led to believe from the camera shop (which had an idiot at the counter) that an all in one was a better lens. They tried to sell me a quantary 28-300 for $400. Which as far as lenses go is quite cheap.

We now know what camera chain you were shopping at, and my experience with the intelligence of the clerks has been the same as yours! I would avoid Quantaray lenses. At best they are rebranded Sigmas sold at a premium to unsuspecting consumers. While they are made by Sigma, I tend to think they are more like Sigma's "factory seconds", and you can usually find the corresponding SIgma for much less money online. For example, the exact same 28-300 lens with the Sigma brand name sells for $269 at Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/SG28300EOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2028-300&item_no=6#Sigma-28-300mm-f3.5-6.3-Aspherical-IF-Auto-Focus-Wide-Angle-Telephoto-Macro-Zoom-Lens-for-Canon-EOS)


All in all I want the best I can get (within reasonable $. I don't want to spend $900 on one lens) that is going to be the most effective.

Now we are getting down to it. The best mid zoom you can get for around $400 is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Though it lacks the zoom of the 28-300 (or even the 18-125 that george mentioned) it is tack sharp throughout its range, and has a fast 2.8 aperture for low light situations when you don't want to use the flash and want maximum DOF (blurred background) control. As for an inexpensive zoom, the Sigma 55-200 is pretty darned good for its $130 price tag...http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/55-200_4-56_dc

MissJezabelle
05-17-2005, 02:41 PM
[QUOTE=jamison55] For example, the exact same 28-300 lens with the Sigma brand name sells for $269 at Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/SG28300EOS.html?searchinfo=sigma%2028-300&item_no=6#Sigma-28-300mm-f3.5-6.3-Aspherical-IF-Auto-Focus-Wide-Angle-Telephoto-Macro-Zoom-Lens-for-Canon-EOS)

QUOTE]

I am so glad you reccomended that lens. Because I foolishly bid that exact same one on EBAY before learning all this stuff and I'm still the highest bidder :)

cwphoto
05-17-2005, 03:51 PM
cwphoto,

I'm not sure that the 18-55 is a recommendable lens, even in the II version. I will be the first to admit that I don't own a Canon so I haven't used this lens, but the consensus here seems to be "use it if you have to" but there are better lenses out there for just a little more money.

But then maybe you personally have had good results with this combo (18-55 + 55-200) so I could be wrong. But it still means pretty frequent lens changes.


I must admit I am unfamiliar with the optical performance of this lens and have never used it before :o so maybe others who have more experience with this product can chime in here.

My recommendation was based purely on addressing Jezza's needs whilst staying within the Canon fold. I'm the first to admit I've never been one for OEM lenses (but my circumstances are different).

Unless your looking at serious pro-grade gear, I have found that all-in-one lenses (such as a 28-300) rate poorly compared to a dual-lens combo in terms of optical performance, speed, min. focussing distance etc. I reckon it's a better bet even if you do sacrifice some convenience.

Catheriya
05-23-2005, 09:30 PM
Hi, I am a newbie also. Just got Rebel XT for about a month ago and been playing around with it since. I just got a new lens Sigma 18-125mm lens(Sarah from this forum recommended), and really happy with it as a walk around lens. I could have gotten 18-200mm but I am under budget, so can only offord 18-125 for now. Good luck shooting.