Lens advice for your DSLR (renamed to reflect general questions)

[nfnx]

ok so i bought a rebel and brought it to vietnam and basically learned a lot there through trial and error and reading some slr for dummy books (3 to be exact)

basically.... i had no info on lens so when i went to hong kong, i decided to buy one cause i didnt like the stock lens... but again, had no idea what to buy...

me being the idiot that i am, i bought something that was decent in everything but not particularly good in anything. a sigma 28 - 200 lens for basically 450 bux (which is expensive imo if i had done more research)

im going back to london, paris, amsterdam, etc in may and then LA at the end of may... so id like to invest in a better wide angle lense, perhaps 18 or lower...

what do you guys recommend? a tamron or canon lens? price range? IS?
should i sell my sigma lens?

[sw9]

First of all, you're on the slippery slope and there's no turning back now. You'll be trapped in the SLR hell trying to upgrade your lens until you eventually give up and collect all the top-of-the-line L-lenses.:twisted:

As for the Sigma 28-200, personally I'd get rid of it if I were you. It's a good lens for the price but the wide angle side is just too narrow since on a digital crop SLR like the Rebel it becomes 42-300mm, I'd say you want at least 35mm on the wide angle, and 28mm is much more preferable. If you want a convenient zoom lens with a lot of reach for telephoto, get the Sigma 18-200 mm which will give you pretty decent wide angle coverage although the optical quality is rather mediocre.

If you want a nice wide angle at a reasonable(I use that word loosely) price, the excellent Canon 10-22 mm lens is available at a bit over US$600 +shipping and tax if you get it from the States and around Cdn$800 from Canadian stores. If you want to go a little cheaper the Tokina 12-24mm is pretty good for the price and my friend who owns it loves it.

One word of warning would be that although a real wide angle lens like Canon 10-22mm will allow you take really cool shots, if you're traveling there will be times when you want to zoom into something from afar, and often it is either pain in the neck to change the lens, or the photo opportunity simply disappears while you're busy changing the lens. So long story short, unless you need extreme telephoto or wide angle, go get the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and superglue it to your camera so you won't get tempted to spend more money. ;) But really that 17-85mm Canon should cover most of your needs, and the Image Stabilization is a great bonus, since it'll reduce blurred shots and even let you take some nice evening shots without a tripod.

[Outsider]

+1 on the 17-85mm USM IS lens

I took my Xt and that lens to Morocco last summer, and 95% of the shots were taken with it.
I am super happy since the range is just perfect. It made the perfect walk around lens.

And for shots where I wanted an even wider angle, I just took took several photos side by side, and stitched them together into a wide angle shot when I got home.

Just my $0.02

[sw9]

+1 on the 17-85mm USM IS lens

I took my Xt and that lens to Morocco last summer, and 95% of the shots were taken with it.
I am super happy since the range is just perfect. It made the perfect walk around lens.

And for shots where I wanted an even wider angle, I just took took several photos side by side, and stitched them together into a wide angle shot when I got home.

Just my $0.02

Yeah but it's too bad that Canon doesn't have anything like Nikon's 18-200 VR. If I were to get myself a traveling DSLR at any cost, I'd get the Nikon D40 and the 18-200 VR in a second. That's the killer combo for a convenient all-in-one(sort of) traveling DSLR IMHO.

[nfnx]

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

hwo much is this?
whats the image stabilizer do?

does the f 4-5.6 have a lot of effects? or should i look for something lower wiht more range?

[nfnx]

and whats a reasonable price to sell the 28 - 200 lens for?
its a shame if i lose a lot cause i used it for about 4 photos as i bought it on my way out of the country lol.... fak!

[sw9]

4-5.6 is simply the maximum aperture of the lens through its zoom range, the F value. At the wide angle(17mm) the maximum F value is 4 and at the telephoto end (85mm) the maximum F value is 5.6. It is not the fastest lens but combined with the high ISO ability of the Canon and the Image Stabilization, it shouldn't be too bad. The image stabilization system tracks how much the camera shakes when you hold the camera and press the shutter, and counteracts that movement, making the picture a lot less blurrier. It basically gives you a similar effect, though less effective, to that of a tripod, but you won't have to carry a tripod with the IS. :) Check out this comparison:

With IS
http://myweb.hinet.net/home2/stevewang/TEMP/IMG_0054.jpg
Without IS
http://myweb.hinet.net/home2/stevewang/TEMP/IMG_0053.jpg

source :
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222

[DelSolMan]

I have a lot of trouble trying to relate dslr lens specs to point and shoot specs. I don't have a dslr but I'm thinking of getting one soon. This Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM you guys are talking about, approximately what zoom does that compare to if something like this was on a point and shoot. (ex: 2x 4x)

[goofball]

I have a lot of trouble trying to relate dslr lens specs to point and shoot specs. I don't have a dslr but I'm thinking of getting one soon. This Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM you guys are talking about, approximately what zoom does that compare to if something like this was on a point and shoot. (ex: 2x 4x)

To understand, you need to convert it to 35mm equivalent. Most consumer level canon's have a 1.6x crop factor, so 17-85mm is ~27-136mm. If you do the straight math, that is a 5x multiplier. However, you do not find many P&S which do 27mm at wide angle, most are 35mm or higher. Kodak has one that does 23mm and Fuji's start at around 27mm as well (depending on model)

For the average consumer P&S, the telephoto (at infinity distance) is probably around a 4x. Not that that really means all that much.

[2000fordfocus]

Personally, the only sigma I would consider is the 10-20mm(still, I rather work in MacDonald and save up for a Canon or Nikon). I just dont trust sigma one bit...

Stick with Canon lens!

Tokina is really good maker too, they build solid stuff!

[goofball]

Dear customer,
we are mobile phones/laptops/ipods wholesalers, we deals on all
brands and models of mobile phones/laptops.very good prices.
we have mobile phones accessories such as
battery,charger,keypad,housing,datacable,lcd and
laptops.we supply many other electronic products, such
as portable DVD, car dvd,mp3,mp4,lcd TV, plasma tv,cd
rom,dvd writer, windows xp,office 2003 software,ip
phone, USB phone, Bluetooth earphone, Bluetooth USB
dongle,etc.
condition: brand new wireless standard with 1 year
manufacturer warranty and 6 months seller
gaurranty,with original mother board, original English
British battery, all software and manual contain
writing English languages, the shipment will be
delivered via 48 hours over night express drop
shipment to your door step.
We send price list to interested buyers only.

email:cupidlimited@myway.com
tell:+447011147101

Yours faithfully,
mr luke yemi

WTF??? :confused:


:mad: :mad:

[nfnx]

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

hwo much is this?


whats the image stabilizer do?

does the f 4-5.6 have a lot of effects? or should i look for something lower wiht more range?

what price is good to sell the 28 - 200 for?



advice anyone????

[nfnx]

also, is the kit lens 18 -55 considered wide angle as well???
waht bout the 17-85
is this really wide angle? i thought my 28-200 woudl be wide, but the pictures dont look that wide, very comparable to the 18-55 stock lens....

aiii i need answers cause its starting to bother me lol, soo many options and i cant figure out what to do..

[nfnx]

henry's sells the CANON EF-S 17-85MM F4-5.6 IS USM LENS for 799

but CANON D-REBEL XT BLK W/17-85 EF-S IS USM for 1280....

is that right?? or are they diff models?

cause it comes out cheaper to buy it as a kit lense...?


my choice is between this and the Tokina 12-24mm right now based on your recommendations....
can someone get me a price range and where i can purchase tehse? i dont want to go by henry's costs because they seem inflated...

[sfu_engineer]

also, is the kit lens 18 -55 considered wide angle as well???
waht bout the 17-85
is this really wide angle? i thought my 28-200 woudl be wide, but the pictures dont look that wide, very comparable to the 18-55 stock lens....

aiii i need answers cause its starting to bother me lol, soo many options and i cant figure out what to do..

18mm * 1.6 crop factor (for your Canon) = 28.8mm equivalent to 35mm cameras

28mm* 1.6 crop = 44.8mm which is not really wide IMO.

I would say that 18mm is a good starting wide angle lens.

[nfnx]

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Canon

CANON D-REBEL XT BLK W/17-85 EF-S IS USM

Tokina 12-24mm


which one is best ? lol

and i still need the previous questions answered? lol as u can see im getting excited over this

[mahpoaht]

I have a tip for you: lenses and accessories are way cheaper in Vietnam. If you can find them, much cheaper for a like new lens with no dust and scratch.

i.e. Tamron 28-75: around $320 usd like new, 70-200 f2.8 under $1000 usd, and the list goes on.

Good luck.

[GYR8]

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

hwo much is this?
whats the image stabilizer do?

does the f 4-5.6 have a lot of effects? or should i look for something lower wiht more range?

Here are two links to a price of $599.99

http://www.simonscameras.com/digitalphoto/lenses/index.asp?cat=200&fmt=80&ftype=0

http://lensandshutter.com/index.lasso?content=products&key=item&id=453

GYR8

[goofball]

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Canon

CANON D-REBEL XT BLK W/17-85 EF-S IS USM

Tokina 12-24mm


which one is best ? lol

and i still need the previous questions answered? lol as u can see im getting excited over this

I believe Sigma has the International Warranty? In that case, you should take off 10-15% if you want a quick sell.

In terms of the above setups, you are comparing 2 lenses with a camera + lens kit. And they all cover different focal ranges with some overlapping.

Tamron is good but you have to try it out and test it as there are QC issues with them at times. It's very easy to get a copy that doesn't focus spot on.

Tokina is good but doesn't really give you any reach. It's definitely a wide angle to standard zoom lens. Good one to pick though.

The Camera + lens is interesting but the main thing you want is the lens, and it's a good one.

[magical]

Another one to look at:

24-105L F/4 IS USM .. =38-168 ... pretty nice range plus its 'L' series and we all know how good these are, although not true wide angle, would probably put one of these in my bag ...

But currently since I sold my 70-200 F/4L L ... my bag consists of this...

Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for wide angle/inside/walking around
Canon 100-400L USM IS for my high power zoom..

I really really miss the 70-200 tho ... probably will either grab one of those or a 24-105l .. since I can use the 100-400l for the rest of the stuff...

[klam]

I think for someone starting out, I think the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Canon 17-85mm would be good starting points. Don't overspend before you understand what type of equipment you really need and if you will be serious enough to use the equipment.

[aximrocks]

two lens setup

walk-around: Tamron 17-50 2.8 or EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
Tele: 70-200 4L

[nfnx]

i was actually waiting on an XTI, but i think because im on a budget, ill switch back to an XT and purchase this lens....

the only reason i wanted the xti was the expanded range of autofocus, but now that i dont have it.....


can someone give me the pros of an xt over an xti? lol... i need to justify in my mind that i made the right decision.




also, this would be the first IS lens i use, so is there anything to learn aobut it? do u have to turn it on? or is it automatic?

[klam]

The improved AF of the XTI borrows from the 20D/30D, which has improved speed/accuracy when used with lenses f/2.8 and faster. If you are using the f/4-5.6 17-85mm, you won't see any real differences in terms of AF performance.

There is a switch on the side to turn on/off the IS feature. It kicks in when you begin to focus for your shot (i.e. half shutter button press). Other than that, nothing really to think about. You may want to turn it off when using your camera on a tripod and when shooting with IS you have to give it a half sec to stabilize the image. Don't just release the shutter immediately.

[nfnx]

damn... i really like the autofocus thougha nd i do plan on getting better faster lens....


but i guess its better i keep my hands in my pocket on this one til i do get a better lens....

3 bills and waiting time is too long for me to wait on an xti atm...

[sfu_engineer]

Lenses are more important than digital camera bodies anyways ;).

Save you money and get some decent glass.

[goofball]

Lenses are more important than digital camera bodies anyways ;).

Save you money and get some decent glass.

and buy a good flash too.

[2000fordfocus]

Once you start, you can't stop...

[nfnx]

i want a nice flash, i noticed i need this when i was in vietnam and shots were constantly being underexposed at night....

yuck!

[goofball]

i want a nice flash, i noticed i need this when i was in vietnam and shots were constantly being underexposed at night....

yuck!

Set longer shutter speed, but you'll need a monopod/tripod to avoid camera shake and resulting blurry pictures

[nfnx]

i kno... but a flash helps a lot for lighting areas and getting effects that i want....
i use the flash that comes wiht the camera but its not strong enough for some of my wanted shots

[sw9]

i kno... but a flash helps a lot for lighting areas and getting effects that i want....
i use the flash that comes wiht the camera but its not strong enough for some of my wanted shots

Really I'd advise you to stop thinking much about lenses and just buy the darned 17-85mm IS, :) and maybe a nice flash if you need extra light at night. Decide if you want anything else later when you are ready to spend more and know what lenses you want. Of course if you can afford it now you could always go for one of those expensive L-series lenses, but unless you're really picky about the picture quality, I'd try to get the least amount of lenses possible for the trip. Just go get something light and versatile with reasonable picture quality. If you want the best picture quality for the money, you could always get the 50 mm 1.4 or the 50 mm 1.8, but again, are you willing to carry all these lenses?

[nfnx]

lol i did, i bought the rebel back today (rather than the xti)
and my friend happens to be in vietnam, so i sent her to get me the IS lens, and if she cant i already have a place to get it here lol.

everything is in motion, now i just have to sell my sigma 28-200

btw, what does the lock switch do on the lens?


and can someone explain matrix metering for me? =)

[Gdog]

Not sure if I'm posting late or not, but I bought the XTi a couple months ago in Seoul. It's an awesome camera for me as it's my first dSLR. I picked up the 50mm f1.8 prime and went with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

The Tamron is an incredible lens that is well built and has excellent image quality. It is a fast lens if you are planning to shoot in low light and the wide angle is very nice. The price is right too if you are on a medium budget.

Check out my sample pics, my username is dailykimchi:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209580&page=9

[albundy99999999]

Just curious to know how much did you pay for the XTI after converting to Canadian dollars? Is it cheaper to get it there?

Not sure if I'm posting late or not, but I bought the XTi a couple months ago in Seoul.

[Gdog]

Just curious to know how much did you pay for the XTI after converting to Canadian dollars? Is it cheaper to get it there?

I paid roughly $750CDN for the XTi body. I bought the Kiss Digital X, the Japanese model, so I saved some money since it's grey market (but the camera is the exact same).

[CameraBill]

I have a tip for you: lenses and accessories are way cheaper in Vietnam. If you can find them, much cheaper for a like new lens with no dust and scratch.

i.e. Tamron 28-75: around $320 usd like new, 70-200 f2.8 under $1000 usd, and the list goes on.

Good luck.


beware of fungus from the humid environments

[hytong]

if you have a Canon body stick with Canon lens
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/index.html

[goofball]

if you have a Canon body stick with Canon lens
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/index.html

That's a pretty poor recommendation. Sigma and Tamron have some very good lenses with reasonable pricing. Yes, they do have a bit of QC issues but if you get a good copy, it's a very good lens that will keep you happy. The 17-50 is a great lens for weddings. And the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is great for low light work. Sigma 105/150 are great macro lenses, as is the Tamron 90.

[hytong]

Its matter of confidence the way I see it.
I have no problem with the 3rd party approach, as long as you don't start wondering how the Canon equivalent will perform... when you are using the Tamron. Thats too much for me to think while making a shot.

P.S. I have no doubt the Tamron 90mm macro is equivalent if not better than OEM - in this case, it is a matter of taste, Tamron gain little in one area but lose out little in another. Not sure about others though.

[hagbard]

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF Canon

CANON D-REBEL XT BLK W/17-85 EF-S IS USM

Tokina 12-24mm


which one is best ? lol

and i still need the previous questions answered? lol as u can see im getting excited over this

The Tamron is very well liked in the photography forums. I've considered that one, but now decided to sell all my DSR equipment (20D, etc). I'd go with anything BUT Canon, they're overpriced for what you get (in this country) and you can get really screwed around if you ever need send it for repair.

[ryan_lau100]

All this technical nonsense kills me. Sure the more you spend on a lens is the better quality of a lens you will have. For all of the newbies out there this is what I recommend.

1. ask yourself what will you be shooting? Landscape? Portraits? Sports?
2. After you have figured out what you will need the camera for then look at the options and start to kill of stuff you probably wont need. Get a lens that will serve your purpose
3. Go out and try out the lenses on your body. Bring your body to the camera stores and smack them on and see how you like it.

If you are shooting outdoors or anywhere that has a decent amount of light dont even bother with a "fast" lens (anything f2.8 or lower). Anything lower than that you are wasting your time.

If you are indoors a lot I would say invest into a flash before any lens other than the stock. The results you will see from a stock lens is amazing! If you are a decent photographer the lens doesnt make a difference.

Landscape go wide. I have seen and heard very good things about the Tamron (11mm-18mm) and Sigma (10mm-22mm). The Tamron doesn't have a great build but the glass is the most important and on this one Tamron wins. They are slow lenses but if you are doing landscapes i would assume you have a lot of light or a tripod so having a fast lens shouldn't matter.

sports go really really tele. I personally have a Sigma 70-300 DG APO and that was a fraction of the cost of any L series Canon lens. I have shown people pictures from it and they were astonished at the quality it could push. if you have the money definitely go for a Canon 70-200 f2.8IS.

portraits go prime. less glass means great quality. I have used the 50 f1.8 and it is amazing in the studio setting. again if you have the money hit the 50 f1.4. use primes because you have time to switch a lens to a different focal length.

I have shot almost every kind of photography and I have the so called "cheap" lenses. Currently I use:

Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG
Canon 17-55 f3.5-4.5
Canon 28mm f2.8
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 28-105 USM Macro F3.5-4.5

You tell me if the lens is taking away from the pictures
www.ryanlauphotography.ca

All of these are not the cream of the crop but push some crazy quality. Just remember the picture make the photographer not the lens.

One last thing if you are looking to get into professional stuff I would suggest this setup (which I am currently attempting to get)

Canon 24-70 F2.8
Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5
Canon 70-200 F2.8IS

With those three lenses you will be able to complete any application and you wont have to carry a suitcase with it =)

[goofball]

Just remember the picture make the photographer not the lens.


I think you mean the photographer makes the picture, not the lens?

[nfnx]

which flash do u recommend?
i want one too

[nfnx]

can someone give me a quick tutorial on speedlights?
whats the main diff between the 430 and 580?
i want to pick one up cause i take a lot of in door shots and night shots and they are comming off too dark.

[sfu_engineer]

can someone give me a quick tutorial on speedlights?
whats the main diff between the 430 and 580?
i want to pick one up cause i take a lot of in door shots and night shots and they are comming off too dark.

I am mainly a Nikon guy so I cant help you with your 430 and 580 selection; however, take a look at this page:

It has many good photography tutorials.
http://www.planetneil.com/faq/index.html

Is a great guide to using flash.
http://www.planetneil.com/faq/flash-techniques.html

Personally I love my flash. I am able to stop down to a higher F-number to get sharper images even with lack of light indoors.

[klam]

Here you go
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/ex_speedlites.html

I recommend the 430EX if you are just needing a flash. Doesn't sound like you need the 580EX's advanced features like wireless master control, stroboscopic flash, external power source capable.

[goofball]

can someone give me a quick tutorial on speedlights?
whats the main diff between the 430 and 580?
i want to pick one up cause i take a lot of in door shots and night shots and they are comming off too dark.

First, what kind of indoor shots? Are you trying to shoot parties of people? If so, then yes, you would want a flash here, and definitely bouncing off the ceiling/wall or using a bounce card if the ceiling is too high.

Second, what kind of night shots? A flash won't help you too much here, as it will usually just ruin it. Night shots are best done with long exposures, narrow apertures, and low ISO, to get the effect. Unless you are dealing with people, where getting them to hold still for 3 seconds is kinda hard to do.

Most times, you only really use flash outside for fill, not for main lighting source.

[hytong]

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

If you have the resource, definitely try indoor shots with 3 or more flashes.
1 for fill, 1 for side/hair, 1 for background, you do need stands or volunteer pointing them. You can skip the background if you don't care.

When you are bored with the low ISO style, try it with the ISO1600/3200 style with f/1.4 or 1.2, also no flash.

[hellodan]

Hope someone can help me out...

What would be a good $100-ish lens for the XT for general shots? not shooting wildlife or sports, most likely closeups of the pets, some company products, and typical family shots.

I haven't gotton the XT yet, but i've got a deal arranged already for the body, unfortunatly i'll be half broke after paying for it since i also took on another new hobby which also costs alot of money (Music Recording :) )

Or, would i be better off to wait a week or two for another paycheck and buy something else?

:|

[SoNgMaN]

Hope someone can help me out...

What would be a good $100-ish lens for the XT for general shots? not shooting wildlife or sports, most likely closeups of the pets, some company products, and typical family shots.

I haven't gotton the XT yet, but i've got a deal arranged already for the body, unfortunatly i'll be half broke after paying for it since i also took on another new hobby which also costs alot of money (Music Recording :) )

Or, would i be better off to wait a week or two for another paycheck and buy something else?

:|


there aren't many if any 100ish dollar lens. if you are talking $1000 that's a whole different story but for $100 you might get the 50mm f1.8

[goofball]

Hope someone can help me out...

What would be a good $100-ish lens for the XT for general shots? not shooting wildlife or sports, most likely closeups of the pets, some company products, and typical family shots.

I haven't gotton the XT yet, but i've got a deal arranged already for the body, unfortunatly i'll be half broke after paying for it since i also took on another new hobby which also costs alot of money (Music Recording :) )

Or, would i be better off to wait a week or two for another paycheck and buy something else?

:|

how much of the frame do you want to fill?
50mm is about the only one I can think of other than the kit lens (18-55mm used) that is around $100. The 50mm is tight though, and I found it limiting inside a home. In a hall/church, it is fine. Outdoors, it is pretty good too. The 50mm is a good low light lens but you do have to work within it's limitations (80mm equivalent on Canon XT).

[nfnx]

would u buy my sigma 28 - 200? is that decent for that? lol ill sell it to u for 175 haha

i bought it at 450 like a month ago... lens is not particularly good or bad at anything, just decent at everythign, but its a decent multipurpose i guess.

as for the flash, i need it for indoors and parties, but outdoors i just want to capture the moment type thing.... to the point of a point and shoot will be fine.

[hellodan]

would u buy my sigma 28 - 200? is that decent for that? lol ill sell it to u for 175 haha

i bought it at 450 like a month ago... lens is not particularly good or bad at anything, just decent at everythign, but its a decent multipurpose i guess.

as for the flash, i need it for indoors and parties, but outdoors i just want to capture the moment type thing.... to the point of a point and shoot will be fine.

Is the sigma 28 - 200 at least better than the kit lenses?

Maybe i should just wait a week or two, get my paycheck and buy something around the $500 range...

Goodthing i don't have a girlfriend, or that #'ll go even lower.

[George W. Bush]

Get yourself the Canon 50mm 1.6 II (or I - the metal body) for very sharp and colorful images - you will NOT regret this lens. Check out the reviews on this one. About $120 CDN, or less in US.

[goofball]

Get yourself the Canon 50mm 1.6 II (or I - the metal body) for very sharp and colorful images - you will NOT regret this lens. Check out the reviews on this one. About $120 CDN, or less in US.

It's f/1.8, not 1.6, and it has been mentioned several times already in this thread.
The only thing to note is the zoom on it, being 80mm equivalent on 35mm body, it's not really that giving in terms of space.

[George W. Bush]

True, my mistake. the 1.8 (I) - get the I vs. II, as I is a metal body vs. the plasticky one.

Another vote for Canon 50 1.8 from me!

[goofball]

True, my mistake. the 1.8 (I) - get the I vs. II, as I is a metal body vs. the plasticky one.

Another vote for Canon 50 1.8 from me!

That's ok, you're GWB. If you said anything that made sense the first time, you wouldn't be GWB! :D

[hellodan]

Aight, thanks guys. I'll take a look at that lens and descide if i want to wait a week or two for my paycheck and get a better lens or something. I sort of want to shoot macro shots =P

nfnx, no thanks =P but good price on the lens

[goofball]

Aight, thanks guys. I'll take a look at that lens and descide if i want to wait a week or two for my paycheck and get a better lens or something. I sort of want to shoot macro shots =P

nfnx, no thanks =P but good price on the lens

Macro shots, you may want to look into lens that are at least 1:2, 1:1 is better. What kind of objects will you be shooting? If it's bugs, you will want at least something like a 105mm/135mm, which should give you 12-15" of working space. 200mm normally gives you around 20", enough for you to not be in most bugs "safety zone". Not cheap though.

[hytong]

EF-S mount (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=0&a=695_6144&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=&shs=&ci=12039&ac=&Submit.x=10&Submit.y=9)
EF mount (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&Q=&b=0&a=0&a=700_6186&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=&shs=&ci=8429&ac=&Submit.x=15&Submit.y=8)
Get 2nd hand lens / use extension tube / magnifying filter if you want it cheap.

[nfnx]

the 50 1.8 hasnt been mentioned. the 1.8 is tempting but i dont want to sway away from the 17-85 IS

[goofball]

the 50 1.8 hasnt been mentioned. the 1.8 is tempting but i dont want to sway away from the 17-85 IS

you are kidding, right? It has been mentioned several times on page 4.

The 17-85 doesn't compete with the 50mm f/1.8 directly. The only thing they really have in common is the focal length, that the 17-85 can do 50mm. It won't do f/1.8 at any focal length.

IS doesn't freeze action, contrary to popular belief among those who don't understand photography. IS merely allows you to get non-blurry pictures from having too low of a shutter speed for handholding or shakey hands (camera shake). IS doesn't allow you to get faster shutter speeds, but rather, slower ones. Wider aperture allows for faster shutter speeds but at the expense of lower DOF.

[hytong]

It is at these large aperture (f2.8 and up) where difference between mediocre and excellent lens are usually seen. So your choice depends on whether you need to use large aperture or not. Mind the associated weight and bulk.
In 135 world, in theory, lens are at their optimal around a f/8 or 11. Going larger and spherical aberration becomes the main problem, at f/16 on 135 the effects of diffraction starts to become dominant. Good lens typically degrade much less over a wider range of apreture and light conditions
A fixed 50mm sure beats slow zooms at f/5.6 and above. Get the f/1.4 version if you want better bokeh and the slightly different color otherwise the f/1.8 is a good buy as long as you have a use for it.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

[nfnx]

Get yourself the Canon 50mm 1.6 II (or I - the metal body) for very sharp and colorful images - you will NOT regret this lens. Check out the reviews on this one. About $120 CDN, or less in US.

ill actually pick this up tomorrow, i think its cheap and a good buy f/1.8
where can i buy it in toronto??

also this wont do the job for buildings and anything with a reasonable amount of distance, so what do you guys suggest for that then?
i would like a wide angle for landscapes, is the 17-85 is sufficient for that? or are the two lens used for too similar type that it isnt worthwild?

[nfnx]

oh and can someone brief me on the L, USM, etc...

[goofball]

17-85 is somewhat wide (27mm equiv) but not really. Ideally, you'd go for a Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24 for wide, or Canon equivalent.

L designates professional lenses, lenses made with higher quality glass.
USM = Ultra Sonic Motor. These are quieter and focus faster. USM is actually a motor design, just like Nikon's SWM.

[hytong]

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/room/f_index.html
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#lensmotor
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/lens-specs.pl?lens1=EF+50mm+f1.4+USM
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/lens-specs.pl?lens1=EF+50mm+f1.8
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/lens-specs.pl?lens1=EF+17-40mm+f4+L+USM
http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/lens-specs.pl?lens1=EF+16-35mm+f2.8+L+USM

In general, expect larger USM motor for heavy glass, expect non-USM motor for lower end glass ... you get the idea

USM/SWM advantage:
1. full time manual
2. quiet
3. fast (depends on Canon body AF CPU)

Disadvantage:
delicate

[George W. Bush]

ill actually pick this up tomorrow, i think its cheap and a good buy f/1.8
where can i buy it in toronto??

also this wont do the job for buildings and anything with a reasonable amount of distance, so what do you guys suggest for that then?
i would like a wide angle for landscapes, is the 17-85 is sufficient for that? or are the two lens used for too similar type that it isnt worthwild?

I say the 50 1.8 is nice for portraits and other indoor shooting. You can shoot outside as well, but require more distance. You need a wide angle lens for landscape for sure. Something with a wideangle.

The 50 1.8 is nice because it is a cheap lens, very good optics and is a middle of the road range - 50 fixed. I have other lenses, the widest is a 28-105 Canon, but I kinda prefer the 50 over it. I also have a 70-300 Sigma for nature shots, wildlife, and a macro one Sigma 105. I personally really like the cheap plastiky 50 1.8 II - the I version is a metal body - a little more sturdy.

Fixed lenses have better optics than zoom lenses in general.

I personally would love to get the Sigma 12-24 for very wide shots - but expensive - over $500 CDN. I am seriously looking at Tokina 19-35 for about $150 US.

[hytong]

here is one review :twisted:

http://www.pbase.com/dhatchner/sigma_1224_vs_canon_1740_l

[nfnx]

i figure i want a really wide angle now... i figure the 28-200 will have to do for long distance shooting for now, and wha till need is something for in close range.

it seems the wide angle lens mentioned above, all have f/ above 4, will this be a nuisance to me?

[nfnx]

where do people buy lens for good priceS?

[KevC]

Disadvantage:
delicate

The sh~t i put my 70-200 and 17-40 through, I really wouldn't call USM delicate.

[goofball]

it seems the wide angle lens mentioned above, all have f/ above 4, will this be a nuisance to me?

Do you understand what the f-value is? and what it represents? and how it affects your pictures?

[nfnx]

i believe so, lower = lower number, higher aperature, less field of depth? less light as well.

[gsrrr]

i believe so, lower = lower number, higher aperature, less field of depth? less light as well.

http://photoworkshop.com/canon/index.html

Digital Rebel XT Tutorials -> Click here to learn more -> DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY BASICS #5 Accent on Aperture

[sfu_engineer]

i believe so, lower = lower number, higher aperature, less field of depth? less light as well.

Also all lens are a lot sharper when you set the lens at a higher F number and wide open, say F2.8, they may be softer than what the lens is capable of.

[nfnx]

i know... lower f gives that blur effect right? and higher f gives you more distance....

its just complicated cause im also looking for phantom of the opera, and raptors tickets lol

[nfnx]

Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24
which of the two do you recommend?
and what do u think is a good deal for them?
i've looked up both on the internet and they are around the same price, so which of the two would u rather have?

and what is considered a good deal for them?

[Veteq]

I just got my first SLR (Rebel XTi).
Would the CANON EF 50MM lens be a better choice for taking pictures at the auto show then the one that came with the camera ?

thanks

[hytong]

my best advice would be to look for auto show samples on the web and see what equipment others are using ...
IMHO, 50mm is usable but likely disappoint you unless you already know whats coming and you are aiming for that 50mm look

[goofball]

I just got my first SLR (Rebel XTi).
Would the CANON EF 50MM lens be a better choice for taking pictures at the auto show then the one that came with the camera ?

thanks

Tough to say. Again, the focal length of 50mm might be a bit tight, it all depends on how much you can back up if you want a full shot of the car sideways from bumper to bumper. It is good because of the wide aperture and indoor lighting, while appears good for our eyes, is not so good for camera's. Be prepared to either shoot in RAW and post-process after (my recommendation) or get your white balance spot on (can be tough to do)

[nfnx]

btw , i never got to thank you guys...

[goofball]

btw , i never got to thank you guys...

As to your question, it depends. I personally like the Tokina 12-24. You may want the Sigma for the little bit wider that it allows. I find Sigma has more QC issues than Tokina as well so you may go through several copies to get a good one. Or not. It depends.

As for deal, it's hard to say. Most who have those lenses don't give them up so you're pretty much stuck paying retail. Save by going out of province but again, be careful with the Sigma's.

[Veteq]

my best advice would be to look for auto show samples on the web and see what equipment others are using ...
IMHO, 50mm is usable but likely disappoint you unless you already know whats coming and you are aiming for that 50mm look

that's a great idea, I will check on what type of lens others are using for this type of event. Like I say, I am new at this and still have everything to learn.

thanks

[gobbledygoo]

I took the 24-105L f/4 IS with me on my Asia trip and it took a beating - ate some dust, mud and rain :)

For me personally, that's my single travel lens. I'm willing to sacrifice the short end (with the 1.6x crop) for the relative mobility of not having to switch lenses at all. It's still a heavy mofo lugging around a DSLR w/ this lens in 40-degree weather with my friends laughing at me with their tiny Point & Shoot haha

Still though as others said, it's the photographer not the equipment that makes for good pictures. My excuse for having an SLR is because I'm used to having the manual controls at my finger tip (vs. the P&S where you have to go through menus to get to the manual controls).

But to get back to your topic, nfnx, the lenses you choose now depends on how serious you are about SLR photography and whether you plan to keep up with this expensive hobby. If you are serious about it and has geniune interest, then investing in a quality lens won't hurt as much :)

Like quite a few of the folks here suggested, definitely get the Canon 50 f/1.8 IMHO one of the greatest bang for buck lens Canon has made. After that, just go out and shoot!

[ynchu]

I am a Nikon user, but you would not go wrong with a 50mm. Canon must have one for about $180 CAD!

[goofball]

I am a Nikon user, but you would not go wrong with a 50mm. Canon must have one for about $180 CAD!

It's sad for us Nikon shooters that ours costs about 40% more than the Canon's. Canon's can be had for ~$115 CDN.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=2514A002

However, there is the Canon f/2.5 50mm which will do 1:2 macro. 3x the price though.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=2537A003

[sfu_engineer]

It's sad for us Nikon shooters that ours costs about 40% more than the Canon's. Canon's can be had for ~$115 CDN.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=2514A002

However, there is the Canon f/2.5 50mm which will do 1:2 macro. 3x the price though.

http://www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/product.asp?pid=2537A003


Yes I noticed this as well. :( Very sad.

However, the 50mm F1.8 (for the Nikons at least) is one super sharp lens that fares very well in low-light. However, if you are new to photography, and not used to primes (especially at 50mm with a 1.6 or 1.5 crop factor) you may not like the constraints that a 50mm lens focal point limits you to. A good way to find out if a 50mm is for you is to take you kit lens (18-55mm or whatever lens you have) and set it to 50mm and just shoot around like that.

Although I do not presently own a 50mm prime, I have had experience using 20mm, 60mm, and 85mm primes and although I enjoy the optical quality and excellent bokeh (background blur) that each lens provides me I do find it much more tough to shoot with. It does allow for a lot more creative photos though.

[nfnx]

ok ive made my decision
its between the tokina and the canon 17-85 IS
i realize the tokina is much more wide angled, while the canon offers me image stabilization, the canon and tokina offer the same range of f/ so what do you guys think is better for me?




also, this picture was posted on the post the best picture thread, just wondering how this photo was generated in the dark surrounding with no flash?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/351972016_90722717a9_o.jpg

[goofball]

ok ive made my decision
its between the tokina and the canon 17-85 IS
i realize the tokina is much more wide angled, while the canon offers me image stabilization, the canon and tokina offer the same range of f/ so what do you guys think is better for me?


I know you'd like us to answer this for you but only you can answer this. You need to figure out what you need more from the lens. The reach + IS, or the wide angle. For shooting wide/landscapes, the maximum aperture value isn't that important, as you normally want a large DOF anyways. Even though at infinity, you have a fairly large DOF, it's not always enough to get the whole scene in focus, which for landscapes is always an idea.

Sorry but you will need to figure this one out on your own.

[hytong]

Either there is a spot light behind the photog or flash is used.
Note the shadow, note the color temperature difference between the main subject and the rest.

BTW, once you have mastered the ordinary, do not limit yourself to the ordinary.
Science is science and art is art.

[sfu_engineer]

Either there is a spot light behind the photog or flash is used.
Note the shadow, note the color temperature difference between the main subject and the rest.

BTW, once you have mastered the ordinary, do not limit yourself to the ordinary.
Science is science and art is art.

Yes I agree. Ordinary is just so "ho-hum". To be creative your photos really need to look different and stand out from the rest.

[klam]

also, this picture was posted on the post the best picture thread, just wondering how this photo was generated in the dark surrounding with no flash?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/351972016_90722717a9_o.jpg
This was one of my photo posted in this thread (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4631788&postcount=1434). To answer your question, no flash was used, this was a stage spotlight lighting up the actor. I used the 85mm f/1.8 for this photo.

[rc51]

Anyone ever use this lens? Very curious about it...wonder how well it works.

http://www.vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=215406&CategoryID=CameraLenses

[nfnx]

because of the great response from our trusted community, i've renamed the thread so that anyone with any questions such as the one above can get help from the pros here.


finally, im leaning towards the 17-85 over the tokina simply because of the is. both the f stops are the same os its is v a slightly wider angle and i think i cant let that get the best of me rationally.

what would teh 17-85 be classified as? moderate wide angle?
also what other lens should i look at for generic photography since i have gotten the wide angle out of the way?

a telephoto lens?

[thelefteyeguy]

ok ive made my decision

also, this picture was posted on the post the best picture thread, just wondering how this photo was generated in the dark surrounding with no flash?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/351972016_90722717a9_o.jpg

lots of spotlights on stage ;)

[SoNgMaN]

what would teh 17-85 be classified as? moderate wide angle?
also what other lens should i look at for generic photography since i have gotten the wide angle out of the way?

a telephoto lens?

17-85 is a very good lens i'd class it as standard zoom. i'll probably be picking one up after i get the sigma 10-20mm

[klam]

The 17-85mm would be classified as a standard zoom, covering a bit of wide, normal perspective, and some short telephoto. It is an excellent range covering a very useful range.

Honestly, just buy the one lens for now and then determine which deficiencies you have after shooting with that for a while. Then buy lenses that meet your needs or address those deficiencies, whether you need faster lenses, longer lenses, wider lenses, smaller lenses, etc. No need to buy a whole collection of lenses now without even knowing what your exact needs are.

what would teh 17-85 be classified as? moderate wide angle? also what other lens should i look at for generic photography since i have gotten the wide angle out of the way?
a telephoto lens?

[Sl300]

17-85 is a very good lens i'd class it as standard zoom. i'll probably be picking one up after i get the sigma 10-20mm

The sigma 10-20 is a beauty you'll love it.

I might be picking up a sigma 24-70 f2.8, the nikkor 17-55 f2.8 is just was to expensive. Anyone w/ an opinion for the sigma?

[AudiDude]

17-85 is a very good lens i'd class it as standard zoom. i'll probably be picking one up after i get the sigma 10-20mm

I use the 17-85 IS as a walk around, a Sigma 10-20mm for wide angle and landscapes, a 70-300mm IS for outdoor sporting events (daylight events) and a 50mm 1.8 for dark/fairly close inside work. I am looking at the 135mm f2 L lens next. I use a 20D, and most of the times it is the 17-85mm IS and the 10-20mm that are on my camera.

[goofball]

The sigma 10-20 is a beauty you'll love it.

I might be picking up a sigma 24-70 f2.8, the nikkor 17-55 f2.8 is just was to expensive. Anyone w/ an opinion for the sigma?

You're better off with the Tamron 17-50 if you really wanted an alternative to the Nikkor 17-55. Just make sure you get a good copy (no focus issues) and you're set. It does focus slower than the Nikkor but is 1/3 the price.

[pm_john]

You're better off with the Tamron 17-50 if you really wanted an alternative to the Nikkor 17-55. Just make sure you get a good copy (no focus issues) and you're set. It does focus slower than the Nikkor but is 1/3 the price.

The focus issue is for taking pictures at night, day or both? I am planning to get this lens soon.

[goofball]

The focus issue is for taking pictures at night, day or both? I am planning to get this lens soon.

Under lower lighting. It does get it but it might hunt a bit.

At night, there really is not substitute for a tripod. Yes, you can get some very nice shots off but it depends on the scene itself and how much light it has already. Street shots are doable with a good f/1.8 or lower lens and handheld but you do sacrifice DOF.

The 17-50 is more like a general wedding lens. It's hard to call it a walkaround since it isn't overly wide and isn't telephoto. It depends on what you shoot though.

[nfnx]

guys question:


i was reading reviews on the 17-85, and people have been saying pictures are comming out soft when used at wide angles.

my questions is, what seperates the wide angle shooting from not?
i thought the 17 meant that the shots come out wide angle and the 85 rep the zoom capabilities.... i didnt knwo that anlge is changed?


also, what does soft mean???



sorry for the noobiness, but i want to clear that out.... if i get a wide angle lens, i didntknwo that some of your shots wont be wide angle.. get what im saying?

[goofball]

guys question:


i was reading reviews on the 17-85, and people have been saying pictures are comming out soft when used at wide angles.

my questions is, what seperates the wide angle shooting from not?
i thought the 17 meant that the shots come out wide angle and the 85 rep the zoom capabilities.... i didnt knwo that anlge is changed?


also, what does soft mean???



sorry for the noobiness, but i want to clear that out.... if i get a wide angle lens, i didntknwo that some of your shots wont be wide angle.. get what im saying?


What you consider wide angle might not be wide angle for some. 17mm is wide for most, but some like 10mm or 12mm as the starting point for wide.

Angle of view is changed when you go from 17mm to 85mm, that's normal. I think you understand this?

Soft means that it is not sharp. When they speak of soft, they mean that there is really a lack of fine detail. There could be detail but it is more like smudged than hard and well defined.

[nfnx]

i figured that much.

Angle of view is changed when you go from 17mm to 85mm, that's normal. I think you understand this?


i lost you on that part.
so basically the 85 has nothing to do wiht your zooming, but more to do wiht the angle range that your lens offers?
so shots taken at 85 will be more squared than shots taken at 17?


im very sorry for the noobiness, i wish i could be smarter about this but im really not ... at least until i get a new lens and have the time to go out and experiment..


also, mylens has a lock feature on it as well. waht does that do?

im reading some revies on my sigma 28-200 macro dg and it doesnt seem that bad. im rethinking my strategy and now i want to save for the
17-55 2.8 IS.

for that price range of about 1000, i want one really really good walk around, thats fast and IS is preferable. what do u recommend for that price range if i bail on the 17-85 which reviews are aparently not too fond of

[nfnx]

nevermind i figured out the lock blocks creeping in of the lens...
hmm i want a prime for now, maybe i should get a wide angled prime.



what are all the attachments you can get for lens? not the filters but u can get other things like converters and pieces labeled wide angle / telephoto caps and such... do these help you out?

[TenzoR]

nevermind i figured out the lock blocks creeping in of the lens...
hmm i want a prime for now, maybe i should get a wide angled prime.


Maybe you should use the lens you currently have and wait until you figure out what you really want/need. It just seems to me you are asking for people's recommandation and not knowing exactly what you want. Nearly all the lens have fault. You just have to work with it or around it. You can buy an ult super expensive lens to offset or minimize these fault but if you don't know what you are doing in the first place, I doubt you'll notice any differences. You shouldn't really judge a lens capability just by reviews. If you are comparing the 17-55 IS to the 17-85 IS, well of course the 17-55 IS will performance a lot better. It's like almost twice as much. However, to a normal avg user the difference is so minimal it's not worth it paying that much for the 17-55 IS. You can take fantastic photos with any lens (even your current one). No one will care if it's a tad soft and etc if you have a good composition of the picture. Just my 2 cents

[klam]

Additionally it looks like a lot of these questions are things that could be better explained by reading some books or websites that do a better job at explaining different facets of photography. At this rate, this thread will end up to be 99 pages before all the questions are answered.

Here is a comprehensive list of resources that you should take a look at first. Some are very rudimentary and some are more involving.

Basics
http://opd.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lens101/focallength/
http://www.photonhead.com/simcam/shutteraperture.php
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity%20Chart
http://www.dofmaster.com/articles.html
http://eosdoc.com/manuals/

Lighting
http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/
http://planetneil.com/faq/flash-techniques.html
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/
http://www.dg28.com/technique.html

Lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
http://img158.echo.cx/img158/7765/eflens6bi.jpg

Hope that helps.

[hellodan]

I got my XT yesterday, so i'll probably be picking up the 50mm that people have been suggesting since i need to start somewhere to see what i need out of a lens. But, would the 50mm be better than the kit lens? Someone else on RFD (nfnx i think) is selling kit lens for $60 :D

And, since this is the most expensive camera i've ever gotten, is there any advice as to how i should take care of it? Granted i'm not going to throw it in the mud or anything, but what should i do to maximize its life? And that of the battery?

[nfnx]

you'll love it its great hahathe ball is in your court when u take pics.


i guess i am a bit uncertain about what i want. but this thread has helped me a lot in terms of general knowledge so im still thankful for that.

[Jeff Dee]

The 50mm f1.8 prime lens is a great "cheap" portrait lens. It blows the socks off the kit lens for 50mm shots, but its limited in range. It's faster (good for low-light) and has a nice shallow depth of field. The only thing is becasue its a prime lens (fixed range), it requires manual zooming (aka "use your feet" :)) and you cannot take wide-angle shots with it.

The kit lens is a zoom lens and you have the ability to shoot wider shots (from 18 to 55mm) but optically the image quality is average, especially at the long range.

If you compare shooting 50mm portrait style shots with both lenses, the f1.8 prime would win in shaprness over the kit lens.

Sorry for my very none technical general explanation. :)

[goofball]

Maybe you should use the lens you currently have and wait until you figure out what you really want/need. It just seems to me you are asking for people's recommandation and not knowing exactly what you want. Nearly all the lens have fault. You just have to work with it or around it.

Quoted for truth.
Lens don't make the photo's, you do. Buying an expensive camera and expensive lenses doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a camera and lens owner. Just like owning a Subara XTI doesn't make you a rally car driver.
You don't really seem to have a grasp on what you need. You want this and you want that but you don't quite convey that you know why you want it. The simple question of changing focal length from 17-85mm seems to escape you.
I suggest you do some more reading, just take photo's with what you have now, and continue from there.

[hytong]

http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/

[Veteq]

I decided to go with the TAMRON 55-200MM for my first lens... do any of the local retailer carry this brand/lens? or only by Special order from a store like Henry's....

[CameraBill]

Quoted for truth.
Lens don't make the photo's, you do. Buying an expensive camera and expensive lenses doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a camera and lens owner. Just like owning a Subara XTI doesn't make you a rally car driver.

It makes me real mad when I find snap shots taken with a $1500 lens. Furthur I investigate the remainder of the portfolio and the photographer doesn't shot worth crap.

[goofball]

I decided to go with the TAMRON 55-200MM for my first lens... do any of the local retailer carry this brand/lens? or only by Special order from a store like Henry's....

What's local? you don't provide any location information.

55mm is a pretty close up starting point. Are you sure you're ok with that? That's like starting at 2.4x optical zoom in 35mm format. I definitely find 50mm is a bit close for indoor house photography (candid's/small get-togethers). It's definitely not good for group photography unless you have the room to back up.

What kind of photography do you do? wildlife? birds? landscape? wedding/portrait? macro?

[goofball]

It makes me real mad when I find snap shots taken with a $1500 lens. Furthur I investigate the remainder of the portfolio and the photographer doesn't shot worth crap.

You know, I feel this way sometimes and then other times, I don't.

I think it's ok to spend $1500 and get only snapshots.
It's not ok to spend $1500 and complain online (or otherwise) about how the lens/body isn't as good as the price tag seemingly indicates. Unless the unit is defective, it's clearly a case of bad photographer but no one seems to want to admit that they may be at fault.
It's akin to buying an SUV for city driving, no? I can guarantee you that there are plenty that don't touch off-road unless you count sidewalks as offroad :lol:. All the same, I don't care to hear if they are disappointed by the fact that their AWD doesn't stop them from sliding on ice.
I'm not a pro, nor do I aspire to be anytime soon. I do love photography though, as a hobby and probably take some pictures that aren't "done right" but to me, they are a capture of the moment and I am happier that I caught the moment than miss the shot.
That said, i find people to tend to buy first, figure out later that they don't really need what they bought. Or it doesn't suit them.

[Veteq]

What's local? you don't provide any location information.

55mm is a pretty close up starting point. Are you sure you're ok with that? That's like starting at 2.4x optical zoom in 35mm format. I definitely find 50mm is a bit close for indoor house photography (candid's/small get-togethers). It's definitely not good for group photography unless you have the room to back up.

What kind of photography do you do? wildlife? birds? landscape? wedding/portrait? macro?

Thanks for the response. I am in Toronto. I am going to use this lens mostly for outdoors sporting events. Motorcycle and car racing. I was planning on using the lens the camera came with for indoor pictures. I am new to photography in general, I am not sure I would be able to appreciate or take advantage of a more expensive lens, same way a new driver would not be able to appreciate a faster, better car for years after getting the license.

would a 55-300 be a better choice?

[goofball]

Thanks for the response. I am in Toronto. I am going to use this lens mostly for outdoors sporting events. Motorcycle and car racing. I was planning on using the lens the camera came with for indoor pictures. I am new to photography in general, I am not sure I would be able to appreciate or take advantage of a more expensive lens, same way a new driver would not be able to appreciate a faster, better car for years after getting the license.

would a 55-300 be a better choice?

For daytime pictures, to freeze action of moving objects like those, you would need a fast shutter speed. Something in the realm of 1/1000 and above, depending on if they are taking corners or straightaways. Nighttime event shooting, I would suggest a lens with f/2.8 or better. They are expensive though, but you really don't have a choice if you want the pictures.

Indoor pictures are tough, as lighting is usually an issue. What is good lighting for you and I, is usually not sufficient for a camera indoors. You would what they call a "fast" lens. You're looking for one that has a low f/number, like f/2.8 or f/1.4. I suggest you get a flash as well.

Exactly what lens do you have now? I normally suggest something startting in the 18mm range, and up to 300mm if you're just starting off. But this is just a very general recommendation and you may not need 300mm.

[nfnx]

i guess a question a little off the mark but when printing photos from our computer, do we print under best setting or maximum dpi?

[goofball]

i guess a question a little off the mark but when printing photos from our computer, do we print under best setting or maximum dpi?

it depends. You won't always get the maximum dpi depending on the size. 6MP, at 300ppi, only gets me approx 10x6". I upsize using PS CS2's bicubic method. Unless you're going to sit there and pixel peep, 200ppi is fine for printing photos.
I've done 175DPI and because the image was meant to be a soft picture, it turned out. Had it had exquisite detail, or required it, it might not have looked so good.

[hytong]

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html
http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Color-Management-Second/dp/0321267222

[nfnx]

so there is a difference in the printing method?
i just thuogh best was a 600 x 600 dpi and max gave me a 1200 x 1200 therefor max was better....

[Veteq]

thanks for the reply. The pictures I am planning on using this lens for would be taken during the daytime. I have no intension of using this lens indoors or in low light conditions, otherwise a 2.8 would be a must.
After some online research I am inclining towards the "CANON EF 75-300MM/4-5.6 USM II/III AF". Any advise on this lens or any other in the $500 or less bracket would be greatly appreciated.



For daytime pictures, to freeze action of moving objects like those, you would need a fast shutter speed. Something in the realm of 1/1000 and above, depending on if they are taking corners or straightaways. Nighttime event shooting, I would suggest a lens with f/2.8 or better. They are expensive though, but you really don't have a choice if you want the pictures.

Indoor pictures are tough, as lighting is usually an issue. What is good lighting for you and I, is usually not sufficient for a camera indoors. You would what they call a "fast" lens. You're looking for one that has a low f/number, like f/2.8 or f/1.4. I suggest you get a flash as well.

Exactly what lens do you have now? I normally suggest something startting in the 18mm range, and up to 300mm if you're just starting off. But this is just a very general recommendation and you may not need 300mm.

[goofball]

thanks for the reply. The pictures I am planning on using this lens for would be taken during the daytime. I have no intension of using this lens indoors or in low light conditions, otherwise a 2.8 would be a must.
After some online research I am inclining towards the "CANON EF 75-300MM/4-5.6 USM II/III AF". Any advise on this lens or any other in the $500 or less bracket would be greatly appreciated.

I would suggest the 70-300mm Sigma APO instead. Great lens for the price.

[SoNgMaN]

I would suggest the 70-300mm Sigma APO instead. Great lens for the price.

I own this lens it is pretty good. a little on the slow side focus wise but for the $ it's not something that makes a big difference.

[hytong]

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/printer_gamuts/vrml/fuji/frontier-370-gamuts.htm

[Veteq]

This post has been very helpful. At the end, I ended up getting the
Canon EF70-200mm f/4L USM

It seems to produce great pictures, with realistic colours and a very fast focus. More of less what I was looking for in a lens that will be used mostly outdoors covering motorsports.
Here are to pics I took today (sorry if the quality is not great, I am new to the hobby, 2 weeks new)

http://www3.sympatico.ca/mfernan/SLR/IMG_0122.jpg
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mfernan/SLR/IMG_0120.jpg

[qam]

Just a heads up to anyone looking for lenses and accessories since BB is having their friends and family sale so you can get 20% off on some stuff. Granted the selection is poor and BB's regular prices are high there are some ok deals for flashes and lenses provided BB carries something you want.

[nfnx]

damnnit i completely forgot about that... woulda got my flash there.

[Asun]

Since all the photographers have congregated here, I have slightly OT question:

Where can I find a good deal on tripod? Are all tripods created equal? I mean, when you're in a bind, a garbage can can be quite effective tripod. I've seen my friend uses garbage cans, fences, etc to get shots for HDR pictures.

[SoNgMaN]

Since all the photographers have congregated here, I have slightly OT question:

Where can I find a good deal on tripod? Are all tripods created equal? I mean, when you're in a bind, a garbage can can be quite effective tripod. I've seen my friend uses garbage cans, fences, etc to get shots for HDR pictures.

they are not all created equal. i have a velbon it is heavier then i'd like but very sturdy and has a removable head. so it is useful but carrying it can be a *****. it was around $100.

and i'm happy today cause i got myself a 17-85 IS USM for $500.

[Asun]

they are not all created equal. i have a velbon it is heavier then i'd like but very sturdy and has a removable head. so it is useful but carrying it can be a *****. it was around $100.


I don't mean equal in material or make or price, I mean their effectiveness in holding the camera steady. :)

[SoNgMaN]

I don't mean equal in material or make or price, I mean their effectiveness in holding the camera steady. :)

i've got a sherpa 200R. you can spend a lot of money on a tripod, or buy the $20, the $20 might serve it's purpose BUT the build quality won't be there.

[hytong]

Anything that is immobile can be a good support, but getting the position and angle at the location you wanted could be a challenge. Whatever you end up getting, make sure you are going using it instead of leaving it in storage. With an SLR, a lot of vibration happens with the mirror slap and shutter blade movement, this is more evident with long glass or 1/2 - 1/30s shutter speed. The job of the tripod and head is therfore provide support and damping out vibrations.
Consideration:
1. Weight & Length - lighter and shorter collapsed for portability, tall when extended to clear obstacles
2. Strength - depends on your equipment weight, don't be surprised many can only hold its stated load under ideal conditions. Bring your equipment and test under various orientation
3. Ergonomics - suit yourself

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/what_tripod/tripods_1.html
http://www.photo.net/equipment/tripods/index
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gkrc/Tripod-Test.html

[JaGWiRE]

I've got a 3001pro (canadian model 190cl) tripod I might sell with head, if your interested. My lenses are getting huge, so I am going to probably need to invest $800-1000 into a gitzo tripod / RRS ballhead setup, :(.
Regardless, support is something good to invest in. A good tripod is a must. A monopod is very useful. I also own a gorilla pod and bean bag (the pod), which I find useful as well. My hand strap I also find helps, because I feel more comfortable with it.
Song, with the $20 one, the legs snap and your gear breaks :).

[goofball]

Definitely invest in a sturdy model.

I own a Sherpa 200R as well, it's basically just a tripod i leave in the car. It suits my needs at this time, I don't have very heavy lenses.

You definitely need to see if it feels sturdy to you. Also, the height that it extends to is something to pay attention to.

Size, compactness, height extension, weight, ability to hold x kg, some things to pay attention to.

[stuff352]

Can anyone suggest a good tripod for under 100, and where could I find it in the GTA?

[goofball]

Can anyone suggest a good tripod for under 100, and where could I find it in the GTA?

The Sherpa 200R is around $100. I got it at Black's for 70+tax a few months ago. They normally always have sales on their tripods.

[SoNgMaN]

Song, with the $20 one, the legs snap and your gear breaks :).

QFT

that's why i got the sherpa, built well and i can get myself a ball head in the future

[TenzoR]

I've got a 3001pro (canadian model 190cl) tripod I might sell with head, if your interested. My lenses are getting huge, so I am going to probably need to invest $800-1000 into a gitzo tripod / RRS ballhead setup, :(.
Regardless, support is something good to invest in. A good tripod is a must. A monopod is very useful. I also own a gorilla pod and bean bag (the pod), which I find useful as well. My hand strap I also find helps, because I feel more comfortable with it.
Song, with the $20 one, the legs snap and your gear breaks :).

if you are selling let me know, I'm looking for one, it's time to retire my old school 1980s tripod for somehting lighter and easier to use

[nfnx]

hey do u guys recommend the sigma 10 - 20 or tokina 12 - 24? both goin for same price range... let me know asap i have dealas pending on both ahha

[goofball]

Both are great. Take whatever one suits your needs. Sigma has more QC issues than Tokina but if the Sigma is tested fine, then no worries.

[Sl300]

i picked up the sigma 10-20.. i didnt have any quality issues w/ mine... it does distort on the edges but thats normal a wide angle like this, and it goes vingette at f4

i have a few shots taken on my flickr with it, ALL tagged with sigma 10-20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wreecha/

enjoy

[bst]

Recently bought a 30D with a 17-85. However, I am doing more indoor/portrait shots than I imagined. So I have been looking for something with a large aperture. I was looking around and found the 50mm F1.8 II. I was amazed by the price of it... it's so cheap!

Would you guys recommend that lens? Or should I buy the F1.4 USM version?

http://www.adencamera.com/prod-overview.asp?ProdID=131&Category=7

[hytong]

50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Canon 10-22mm / Sigma 12-24mm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

Another Canon firing at Sigma
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/14-vs-16.shtml

[goofball]

Recently bought a 30D with a 17-85. However, I am doing more indoor/portrait shots than I imagined. So I have been looking for something with a large aperture. I was looking around and found the 50mm F1.8 II. I was amazed by the price of it... it's so cheap!

Would you guys recommend that lens? Or should I buy the F1.4 USM version?

http://www.adencamera.com/prod-overview.asp?ProdID=131&Category=7


Put your lens at 50mm and see if it works. I find it too close indoors. Works fine for portrait if you're ok with basically belly up portraits. 85mm is a much better portrait lens. 35mm f/2 is better indoor lens.

Otherwise, get a flash and use it with your 17-85.

[bst]

Put your lens at 50mm and see if it works. I find it too close indoors. Works fine for portrait if you're ok with basically belly up portraits. 85mm is a much better portrait lens. 35mm f/2 is better indoor lens.

Otherwise, get a flash and use it with your 17-85.

I have a flash for the camera already. However, there are instances where I can't use the flash. Seeing the price of a 50mm 1.8... it is really tempting to just get one. :cheesygri

[goofball]

I have a flash for the camera already. However, there are instances where I can't use the flash. Seeing the price of a 50mm 1.8... it is really tempting to just get one. :cheesygri

Yes, it is tempting but if it's a focal length that doesn't suit you, you will find it off the camera more than on and that's not where it should be.

[klam]

Yeah, everybody's had the 50mm f/1.8 at one point or another. But how many have kept them? :) I sold mine a few months after, realized it wasn't really my thing (despite it being so cheap!)

Yes, it is tempting but if it's a focal length that doesn't suit you, you will find it off the camera more than on and that's not where it should be.

[goofball]

Yeah, everybody's had the 50mm f/1.8 at one point or another. But how many have kept them? :) I sold mine a few months after, realized it wasn't really my thing (despite it being so cheap!)

It's the same with me. I ended up with the 35 f/2 which I like better indoors and as a general walkaround.. 50mm is too close, and isn't on the camera as often as I hoped it would be. On a canon with 1.6x crop, it's even closer than on the Nikon (80mm vs 75mm at 35mm equiv).

I probably won't sell mine but I can see already how it's usage has gone down.

[robbiex1]

It's all a matter of preference and what your photographic eye sees.

I, like the people above, don't use my 50mm F1.8 lens that much. In fact, I can't remember the last time I used it! I personally find it a bit long and would love for Nikon to release a 30mm F1.4, like Sigma.

However, on my Nikon, it's 75mm equivalent focal length is considered to be close to an ideal portrait length. With this in mind, I can see how someone may come to love the 50mm even more if they shoot portraits often.

[goofball]

It's all a matter of preference and what your photographic eye sees.

I, like the people above, don't use my 50mm F1.8 lens that much. In fact, I can't remember the last time I used it! I personally find it a bit long and would love for Nikon to release a 30mm F1.4, like Sigma.

However, on my Nikon, it's 75mm equivalent focal length is considered to be close to an ideal portrait length. With this in mind, I can see how someone may come to love the 50mm even more if they shoot portraits often.

I find the 50mm for shoulder portraits not very good. I find there is some weird distorting probably from being too close with a wide aperture on this lens. For portrait, the 85/105 are better alternatives, you don't have to be close to do chest/shoulder up shots, more of the person is in focus, and the image just ends up looking more "normal". I can't really describe it but it's just something I see. As I mentioned, I do use the 50mm for knee/waist up and it's fine.

You could always look for a 28mm f/1.4 Nikon if you have deep pockets. :D

[TenzoR]

It's the same with me. I ended up with the 35 f/2 which I like better indoors and as a general walkaround.. 50mm is too close, and isn't on the camera as often as I hoped it would be. On a canon with 1.6x crop, it's even closer than on the Nikon (80mm vs 75mm at 35mm equiv).

I probably won't sell mine but I can see already how it's usage has gone down.

you are tempting me with a 35mm f2 now ...

i hardly use my 18-200, just my 50mm prime but it's just too long most of the time

[goofball]

you are tempting me with a 35mm f2 now ...

i hardly use my 18-200, just my 50mm prime but it's just too long most of the time

Pull the trigger. It's a great lens.

If you want a bit wider and don't mind an f/2.8, check out KEH for a Sigma/Quantaray 24mm f/2.8. It's a bit noisy and a bit slow on autofocus but given the used price (76 USD), it's a bargain. You can usually find the EX condition ones for 10 cheaper than that. Not sure how much customs/duty or whatever will be.

[hytong]

I can't really describe it but it's just something I see.
...
You could always look for a 28mm f/1.4 Nikon if you have deep pockets.

It's called perspective and it is controlled by optical focal length but not affected by subject (or focusing) distance.

note that active production was ended sometime ago, like the 58mm f/1.2 Noct, it was a specialized lens for special requirement combating coma

The 18-200 is good on resolution but distortion, flare resistance, tonal balance and gradation cannot be compared with. Use it when space / weight is a primary concern.

[TenzoR]

Pull the trigger. It's a great lens.

If you want a bit wider and don't mind an f/2.8, check out KEH for a Sigma/Quantaray 24mm f/2.8. It's a bit noisy and a bit slow on autofocus but given the used price (76 USD), it's a bargain. You can usually find the EX condition ones for 10 cheaper than that. Not sure how much customs/duty or whatever will be.

I'm looking at replacing my 50mm f1.8D -> Nikon 60mm macro or Tamron 90mm macro
and getting the 35mm f2

[goofball]

I'm looking at replacing my 50mm f1.8D -> Nikon 60mm macro or Tamron 90mm macro
and getting the 35mm f2

If you're ok with full manual controls (exposure included), you could go the cheap way with a BR2-A reversing ring for your 50mm. Henry's has it for $40, I think you can find it cheaper though.

Otherwise, you need to figure out what you will be shooting. Bugs will be tough with 60mm Nikon, as the working distance is very close. The Tamron is the same. I don't recommend anything less than 105mm for bugs. Sigma 105mm is around the same price as the Tamron (even cheaper, I believe). Flowers is fine with 60mm, and it's a nice walkaround as well. My 60mm is on my camera quite often, I normally bring it along with the 35mm f/2D on walks when I know I won't need telephoto.

[TenzoR]

If you're ok with full manual controls (exposure included), you could go the cheap way with a BR2-A reversing ring for your 50mm. Henry's has it for $40, I think you can find it cheaper though.

Otherwise, you need to figure out what you will be shooting. Bugs will be tough with 60mm Nikon, as the working distance is very close. The Tamron is the same. I don't recommend anything less than 105mm for bugs. Sigma 105mm is around the same price as the Tamron (even cheaper, I believe). Flowers is fine with 60mm, and it's a nice walkaround as well. My 60mm is on my camera quite often, I normally bring it along with the 35mm f/2D on walks when I know I won't need telephoto.

I doubt I'll be shooting bugs. It'll be mainly flowers and people (e.g. family + gf). So with those two lens it will be covered. Then again, I will always have my 18-200 for really wide and telephoto needs. First will be 35 f2 then i'll decide on Macro :D

[rubberband]

I'm looking at replacing my 50mm f1.8D -> Nikon 60mm macro or Tamron 90mm macro
and getting the 35mm f2

I have a copy of the 60mm/2.8 macro.

Best lens ever. I love it. Find one used, you won't regret it.

[nfnx]

guys just a noobie question but say u have a 18 - 200 lens... when u shoot at 18 is it wide angle? but as u move to 200 it narrows down?
i thought hte first number was for how wide it is and the second was for zoom...

but i must have the wrong idea cuase when u get these the range is from 18 - 200....

can someone clarify these numbers for me and how they relate to shooting?

[soarlow]

anyone use a grip? I'm looking into getting the Opteka one for Rebel XT... anyone know if it's worth it? Or should I get the original Canon one? (double the price)

[TenzoR]

guys just a noobie question but say u have a 18 - 200 lens... when u shoot at 18 is it wide angle? but as u move to 200 it narrows down?
i thought hte first number was for how wide it is and the second was for zoom...

but i must have the wrong idea cuase when u get these the range is from 18 - 200....

can someone clarify these numbers for me and how they relate to shooting?

eh .... instead of us explaining, do this experiment
1. Pick a subject.
2. Take a pic of the subject at different zoom 18, 35, 50, 85, 105, 200, etc but stay at the same position (e.g. don't move). And you'll see the difference.

[sadhakim]

first off thanks for the incredibly informative thread.. so many photo enthusiast, makes this an incredibly good read :D

i just have two questions, pretty much newbie, but hopefully not dumb..hehe.. I dont quite understand why everyone is recommending the 50mm lens.. if the kit lens is a 18-55mm doesnt that cover the 50mm range.. i know the apperature is probably way slower (dont remember off hand, i think it was 1.8 vs 4), but all that is going to do is help with stopping movement.. if you are taking portrait pictures, wouldnt the person be still anyways??

finally, i'm hoping you guys can help me here.. I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon D80 and the kit comes with either of these two lenses (both kits are the same price) why would anyone buy the 18-70 over the 18-135?

AF-S DX 18-135mm Lens 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens

[goofball]

first off thanks for the incredibly informative thread.. so many photo enthusiast, makes this an incredibly good read :D

i just have two questions, pretty much newbie, but hopefully not dumb..hehe.. I dont quite understand why everyone is recommending the 50mm lens.. if the kit lens is a 18-55mm doesnt that cover the 50mm range.. i know the apperature is probably way slower (dont remember off hand, i think it was 1.8 vs 4), but all that is going to do is help with stopping movement.. if you are taking portrait pictures, wouldnt the person be still anyways??

finally, i'm hoping you guys can help me here.. I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon D80 and the kit comes with either of these two lenses (both kits are the same price) why would anyone buy the 18-70 over the 18-135?

AF-S DX 18-135mm Lens 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens

Good questions

In regards to the 50mm over the 18-55mm, you can "blur the background" (google the term "bokeh") much easier with the 50mm. f/1.8 gives a much shallower DOF than f/5.6, not withstanding that f/1.8 is over 3 stops faster (f/4-f/2.8-f/2.0). That means it lets in more than 8x more light at their widest aperture. So great for low light work and good for waist-up portrait work.

there's more to the lenses than just focal length. The build quality on 18-70 is (debated by some) better, as is the control over chromatic abberations (purple fringing in high contrast areas between objects). Less distortion at the wide ends (both would need correcting but definitely not designed for architecture/pure straight lines). Vignetting is stronger on the 18-135 (dark corners), though it is there on both lenses. Minor point but 18-70 is also a bit faster, though not very much so. Many debate the plastic vs metal mount. I don't see this as being a huge issue unless you're a brute when you mount, or someone else hits the lens or you drop it; though in either case, I'd rather the lens/lens mount break than my camera mount.

[sadhakim]

thanks for the reply :)

arent those minor differences, the speed, the slight increase in problems (i'm assuming they are very slight that the average user would never see).. why would anyone lose out on the magnification for the slight upgrades or is the thought that the 18-70 is much better built... which one would be easier to sell, if i were to upgrade in the future (i know this is not a right or wrong answer, but just generally speaking)?? finally from my understanding neither one of those are kit lenses, they are slightly better then a typical low quality kit lense.. is that true?

[goofball]

thanks for the reply :)

arent those minor differences, the speed, the slight increase in problems (i'm assuming they are very slight that the average user would never see).. why would anyone lose out on the magnification for the slight upgrades or is the thought that the 18-70 is much better built... which one would be easier to sell, if i were to upgrade in the future (i know this is not a right or wrong answer, but just generally speaking)?? finally from my understanding neither one of those are kit lenses, they are slightly better then a typical low quality kit lense.. is that true?

Speed is not minor. You can very easily end up wasting a whole night of shots, especially if you think that you have a decent looking one on the camera LCD but it is very blurry when you get home as a result of having too slow of a shutter speed. When you're on vacation and you come home to find out your beautiful shots are not, that's very saddening. Notwithstanding that fast lenses have better optics (in general, I will get roasted if I don't put a caveat here) and will produce stunning results stopped down to the same aperture as most other zoom lenses. 18-55 at 50mm, f/5.6 is no match for 50mm f/1.8 at f/5.6 in terms of IQ. I also try to shoot at the lowest ISO possible to avoid noise in pictures.

It depends, I can't answer for what an average user will see. Distortion can be pretty evident. Instead of a straight wall, it is curved. Vignetting as well. Shooting a landscape shot with the sky, it is very noticeable as well. Purple fringing, you can usually see this easily with tree branches against sky, or hair as well. I don't consider those to be too minor but I wouldn't call them extremely major either, as most of that can be corrected easily with software.

The 18-70 is one of the better built kit lenses and produces great images (provided the photographer is good). Magnification is one thing but it's not always easy to handhold 100+ mm unless you're in good light and can get high shutter speed (you can increase ISO but doing so will increase digital noise). I'd rather get a sharp picture at 70mm, and crop in, than get a so-so image that might not be very clear/sharp at over 100mm.

Both 18-70 and 18-135 are kit lenses. 18-70 was the original kit lens for D70 series. 18-135 for the D80.

You seem very obviously sold on the focal length differences. If the length really means that much to you, then by all means, get the 18-135, ignore all the negatives about it, and enjoy it. You may not see the differences that I see.

Having owned both the 18-135 and 18-70, I did end up going with the 18-135mm. Mind you, it doesn't get used very often (maybe once in the past 4 months?). I have other lenses that have made the pictures I get from the 18-135mm seem drab. I'm very much a natural light shooter and the 18-135mm doesn't do it for me, especially indoors and on nighttime travels.

Good luck in your decision.

[sadhakim]

thanks goofball.. really appreciate the feedback..

yeah, i'm really not sure which one to get, problem is i want this lens to last me for a little while, for me its a starter lens to introduce me to DSLRs.. i'm not too concerned with running into problems (that is how you learn).. so i'm thinking its better to have a wider range with problems then a smaller range..

having said that, i'm still a little confused, eventually i plan on upgrading to the 18-200mm, but thats not for a while (anyone have 1k to lend??..hehe)..

what lens would you recommend for a beginner (and trust me after reading 12 pages here and all over the net i realize everyone says it depends what you wanna do..hehe).. basically i wanna take better pictures then what i get with my P&S.. it varies from short range family pics to long range pics of a buddy doing a bungy jump.. but out of the two included which one would you recommend say has more upside to being all rounder?

[goofball]

thanks goofball.. really appreciate the feedback..

yeah, i'm really not sure which one to get, problem is i want this lens to last me for a little while, for me its a starter lens to introduce me to DSLRs.. i'm not too concerned with running into problems (that is how you learn).. so i'm thinking its better to have a wider range with problems then a smaller range..

having said that, i'm still a little confused, eventually i plan on upgrading to the 18-200mm, but thats not for a while (anyone have 1k to lend??..hehe)..

what lens would you recommend for a beginner (and trust me after reading 12 pages here and all over the net i realize everyone says it depends what you wanna do..hehe).. basically i wanna take better pictures then what i get with my P&S.. it varies from short range family pics to long range pics of a buddy doing a bungy jump.. but out of the two included which one would you recommend say has more upside to being all rounder?

18-55 and 55-200mm VR to start with.

18-135 has better range but it's only good as a walkaround in good lighting. Onboard flash is ok if you know how to use it. If you must use it, I recommend something like the Lumiquest Softscreen, it greatly helps in giving a more natural look than just blasting the onboard at your subject.

[thelefteyeguy]

btw...i own the 18-70mm. I hardly use this lens anymore...prob if I am travelling or something...but if you are just getting into photography...the stock lens is great to practice on.

I only have 1 lens on right now and it's the 85mm f/1.4

when money is easier to come by...going to get a 28 or 30mm f/1.4

[goofball]

btw...i own the 18-70mm. I hardly use this lens anymore...prob if I am travelling or something...but if you are just getting into photography...the stock lens is great to practice on.

I only have 1 lens on right now and it's the 85mm f/1.4

when money is easier to come by...going to get a 28 or 30mm f/1.4

Where did you get the Tokina?

That 85mm f/1.4 is a beauty. Cream machine, for real :lol:

[thelefteyeguy]

Where did you get the Tokina?

That 85mm f/1.4 is a beauty. Cream machine, for real :lol:


both from ebay...(seller is from HK...name was daisy or something)

shipping is expensive but i get it in 3 days flat...but here's where you save alot...tariff is like nil, and they declare it really low value...ie $100 so I only pay like less than $20 in taxes :D on each transaction)


btw...i rarely use the Tokina...probably would use it if i was a rural guy...being an urban guy...not much use (in wedding photography I use the Tokina about 5% of the shots or less)

If I had to rethink my buying habits...I would have not bought the stock lens...not buy the tokina...and save up more to have the 17-55 f/2.8 (the TANK!) and the 85mm f/1.4


i would be set for life lol ....

[KorruptioN]

18-55 and 55-200mm VR to start with.

btw...i own the 18-70mm. I hardly use this lens anymore...prob if I am travelling or something...but if you are just getting into photography...the stock lens is great to practice on.

I only have 1 lens on right now and it's the 85mm f/1.4

when money is easier to come by...going to get a 28 or 30mm f/1.4

I was never at all impressed by the 55-200mm's build quality... but if you must have a telephoto, then I guess why not. The 18-55mm is better in build than Canon's 18-55mm, but still not that great. The 18-70mm is an awesome lens for the range and cost.

The 85mm f1.4 is hot, 128mm and such a large aperture is so useful.

[goofball]

I was never at all impressed by the 55-200mm's build quality... but if you must have a telephoto, then I guess why not. The 18-55mm is better in build than Canon's 18-55mm, but still not that great. The 18-70mm is an awesome lens for the range and cost.

The 85mm f1.4 is hot, 128mm and such a large aperture is so useful.

Fair enough, the 55-200 is not a lens that defines Pro build but the images that come from it can be very very good. For a 55-200 with VR for $300, it's a great deal.

[KorruptioN]

The VR is what makes it a sell-able lens, otherwise it is just a compliment to the 18-55mm, for somebody who wants to hit 200mm for not a lot of money. I can now see people buying the 55-200mm alone.

[twotterdhc6]

having said that, i'm still a little confused, eventually i plan on upgrading to the 18-200mm, but thats not for a while (anyone have 1k to lend??..hehe)..


Once you compare, you will realize that while a 18-200mm range is good as a budget walk around lens, it won't cut it at the extreme ends.

If you're going to be upgrading later on, you should probably be looking at a wide zoom + long zoom combination.
I'd like to have Sigma 17-70 DC + Canon 70-200 f/4L. That would be a realistic cost setup for my Rebel XT :)

Edit: what's with all the Nikon talk here. It sounds like a foreign language to me :p

[KorruptioN]

I'd like to have Sigma 17-70 DC + Canon 70-200 f/4L. That would be a realistic cost setup for my Rebel XT :)

Edit: what's with all the Nikon talk here. It sounds like a foreign language to me :p

If you're okay with a small gap between focal lengths, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a better lens than the Sigma 17-70 DC. Pro-grade build with the Tamron (SP lineup) versus the standard Sigma build quality. f2.8 constant aperture on the Tamron versus f/2.8-4.0 with the Sigma. You'll just need to work with a small gap within focal length, and that's where sneaker zoom comes in!

Join the Dark Side - buy a Nikon :D

[twotterdhc6]

If you're okay with a small gap between focal lengths, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a better lens than the Sigma 17-70 DC. Pro-grade build with the Tamron (SP lineup) versus the standard Sigma build quality. f2.8 constant aperture on the Tamron versus f/2.8-4.0 with the Sigma. You'll just need to work with a small gap within focal length, and that's where sneaker zoom comes in!

Join the Dark Side - buy a Nikon :D
Actually I'm still using the 18-55mm kit lens, which leaves 15mm gap to the wide end of my current 70-300 zoom, but that really doesn't bother me that much.

I actually tried the Sigma hands on, and I think it's a pretty solid build, just as good as the EX series IMO. but yeah, f/2.8 all the way is always nice :razz:

Dark Side? You mean GREEN side :twisted: ;)

[sfu_engineer]

I recommend people who are JUST starting out in DSLR/SLR photograhpy, and have no clue what they want to photography, purchase a cheap cheap kit lens (18-55mm) or a 50mm prime.

After playing around for a bit they can determine what they want to shoot and hopefully will have learned enough about focal length, apertures, shutter speed, and ISO's enough to purchase a higher end lens.

I would highly recommend saving up eventually for the awesome Nikon 17-55 F2.8 or even the Nikon 28-70mm F2.8 lens. But at $1500 its beyond many peoples reach. But I would rather save up for one then waste $1000 on a crappy Nikon 18-200mm.

[KorruptioN]

I would highly recommend saving up eventually for the awesome Nikon 17-55 F2.8 or even the Nikon 28-70mm F2.8 lens. But at $1500 its beyond many peoples reach. But I would rather save up for one then waste $1000 on a crappy Nikon 18-200mm.

Tamron offers two excellent lenses to cover those focal lengths for half the price. Both are around $500 and offer good build quality and sharpness.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp)
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp)

[thelefteyeguy]

I recommend people who are JUST starting out in DSLR/SLR photograhpy, and have no clue what they want to photography, purchase a cheap cheap kit lens (18-55mm) or a 50mm prime.

After playing around for a bit they can determine what they want to shoot and hopefully will have learned enough about focal length, apertures, shutter speed, and ISO's enough to purchase a higher end lens.

I would highly recommend saving up eventually for the awesome Nikon 17-55 F2.8 or even the Nikon 28-70mm F2.8 lens. But at $1500 its beyond many peoples reach. But I would rather save up for one then waste $1000 on a crappy Nikon 18-200mm.

so agree...those things (18-200 f/3.5) were so hyped during it's release...now I am seeing so many on craigslist it's silly.

[KorruptioN]

so agree...those things (18-200 f/3.5) were so hyped during it's release...now I am seeing so many on craigslist it's silly.

Demand is still high on the 18-200VR.

[nfnx]

from the advice on this thread ive gotten a lot better with the use of lens. i bought the 50 mm 1.8 because of its hype, used it, and loved it becuase it taught me about the importance of the fastness of the lens.

althoguh i dont use it anymore cause its not handy for me, it was still usefull for the learning experience and i am now selling it for anyone interested. they dont lose value so it was worth it.

now i use the tonika 12 - 24 as my wide angle lens and the tamron 28 - 75 2.8 for now until i can get my hands on the 17 - 55 IS.

still need a telephoto lens but its not really handy for me right now. that 17 - 55 is my primary target as a walk around.

[mattchoo]

i'm waiting for the Sigma 18-200 OS for my Canon XTI. Has anyone heard anything about this yet? Availability? Image Quality, etc?

Does anyone have any other suggestions for an "all in one" lens?

[Patrick]

hey,
I was wondering if anyone owns the Canon EF 28-105mm/3.5-4.5 USM Lens, if so is that as sharp as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. I was planning to return my prime lens to get the zoom one.

[hytong]

http://www.photodo.com/products.html?mountid=18&name=Canon+EF+USM

Canon USA also has the chart
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=7306

[najibs]

i'm waiting for the Sigma 18-200 OS for my Canon XTI. Has anyone heard anything about this yet? Availability? Image Quality, etc?

Does anyone have any other suggestions for an "all in one" lens?

It's available now.

[TenzoR]

I would highly recommend saving up eventually for the awesome Nikon 17-55 F2.8 or even the Nikon 28-70mm F2.8 lens. But at $1500 its beyond many peoples reach. But I would rather save up for one then waste $1000 on a crappy Nikon 18-200mm.

IMO, for most "average" people there wouldn't be a point getting such high-end lens. It's definitely nice to have but not worth it. The "crappy" Nikon 18-200 is fine for us "average" folks who just want to have fun and take pictures of our love ones, vacation photos, and etc. Some of us understand the limitation, some others don't but it doesn't matter, as long we are having fun. Sure I dream of getting the 28 f1.4, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 vr, 105 f2 macro, etc but realistically even I have money I doubt I'll get it. The 18-200 does everything I wanted. I know it's limitation just as I know the D50's limitation. I'll pop in my prime for macros and portraits but for any other times 18-200 stays on my camera body.

[KorruptioN]

hey,
I was wondering if anyone owns the Canon EF 28-105mm/3.5-4.5 USM Lens, if so is that as sharp as the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. I was planning to return my prime lens to get the zoom one.

Not a lot of zoom lenses will be as sharp as a good prime lens. They're way more usable though.

[najibs]

Not a lot of zoom lenses will be as sharp as a good prime lens. They're way more usable though.

In general, Canon's L lenses are about as sharp as primes, or as close as you can get in terms of IQ.

[KorruptioN]

In general, Canon's L lenses are about as sharp as primes, or as close as you can get in terms of IQ.

About.

I've seen some poor 17-40L's here and there. Shooting only primes is awesome but gets cumbersome quickly.

[2000fordfocus]

btw...i own the 18-70mm. I hardly use this lens anymore...prob if I am travelling or something...but if you are just getting into photography...the stock lens is great to practice on.

I only have 1 lens on right now and it's the 85mm f/1.4

when money is easier to come by...going to get a 28 or 30mm f/1.4

Same here, I rarely use my 18-70mm now....

I do use my 85mm (f1.8 only, luck you!), but not never as much as my 35mm f2~!

But for someone starting out, the Nikon 18-70mm is really a bang for the buck! you can probably get one for like 250 used!

[2000fordfocus]

IMO, for most "average" people there wouldn't be a point getting such high-end lens. It's definitely nice to have but not worth it. The "crappy" Nikon 18-200 is fine for us "average" folks who just want to have fun and take pictures of our love ones, vacation photos, and etc. Some of us understand the limitation, some others don't but it doesn't matter, as long we are having fun. Sure I dream of getting the 28 f1.4, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 vr, 105 f2 macro, etc but realistically even I have money I doubt I'll get it. The 18-200 does everything I wanted. I know it's limitation just as I know the D50's limitation. I'll pop in my prime for macros and portraits but for any other times 18-200 stays on my camera body.

A friend of mine recently bought the 105mm f2 VR, damn it is a really nice lens! You should you would get it? LOL

[TenzoR]

A friend of mine recently bought the 105mm f2 VR, damn it is a really nice lens! You should you would get it? LOL

I just recently sold my 50mm, looking for the 35mm f2 and the 60mm f2.8 macro/90mm macro from Tamron :)

god I love cheap fast primes

[goofball]

I just recently sold my 50mm, looking for the 35mm f2 and the 60mm f2.8 macro/90mm macro from Tamron :)

god I love cheap fast primes

I have those 3 lenses (35mm, 50mm, 60mm Micro) and they are all awesome, though the 50mm sees minimal use now being sandwiched between the 2.

[2000fordfocus]

My go to lens for portrait are 35mm and 85mm... Lately, I am thinking of going all zoom by selling my 35mm for a 35-70mm f2.8(new)... But the thing is too damn ugly~ Just couldn't do it yet...

[TenzoR]

My go to lens for portrait are 35mm and 85mm... Lately, I am thinking of going all zoom by selling my 35mm for a 35-70mm f2.8(new)... But the thing is too damn ugly~ Just couldn't do it yet...

save up for the monster, 28-70 :D

[goofball]

save up for the monster, 28-70 :D

Actually, the nickname for this is "The Beast" :D

Optically, the 35-70 is pretty damn close to the 28-70. Very nearly identical in IQ.

[TenzoR]

Actually, the nickname for this is "The Beast" :D

Optically, the 35-70 is pretty damn close to the 28-70. Very nearly identical in IQ.

btw do you think 60mm is good enough for macro? I can't decide between that or maybe the 90/105mm ;)

[goofball]

btw do you think 60mm is good enough for macro? I can't decide between that or maybe the 90/105mm ;)

Depends. Working distance isnt' great with it. The lens body extends during focusing as well. If those bother you, get the 105 VR instead, which is a great portrait lens as well.

[2000fordfocus]

save up for the monster, 28-70 :D

That is the lens I would love to have! Just couldn't justify the cost~

[Patrick]

Not a lot of zoom lenses will be as sharp as a good prime lens. They're way more usable though.

Alright thanks, I think I will keep my prime lens and grab another long range one.

[rubberband]

btw do you think 60mm is good enough for macro? I can't decide between that or maybe the 90/105mm ;)

The 60mm/f2.8 Micro Nikkor is one of the best lenses they've made. I absolutely love mine. The only drawback is for 1:4 or closer you'll need to be very, very close to whatever you're shooting. I do lots of plants/flowers/rusted stuff/things that don't run away and it's great. It would probably suck for insects or stuff that wouldn't like a big lens in its face though. :)