|
Search this group's discussions
|
Best all-in-one lens for 300D?
|
Can I have my cake & eat it too?
I'm not new to photography...have been snapping photos since
I was a child, but I'm just NOW getting more into the technical
aspects & details [although I must say that even having NO
technical knowledge I think I've produced many a beautiful
shot over the years]...I've owned a few film cameras, but
for the past 7 years have mainly used point & shoot digitals
& have only recently purchased a Canon 300D, my first
DSLR. Because I'm basically a beginner, I'm trying to keep
my costs low, for now. Buying used or finding the best item
within a lower price range is one of my main concerns for
the time being...the reason why I bought an older used
model.
With all of this being said, I'm currently just using the kit
lens that came with the 300D. Of course I'm feeling slightly
limited & am interested in purchasing a new lens, but I'm
feeling completely overwhelmed. I notice many topics about
lenses, but a lot of the more technical jargon is lost on me
[hopefully it won't always be that way] & therefore I need a
bit simpler approach...
I like taking photos of all kinds of things. Flowers & foliage,
people, landscapes, portraits, animals, concerts etc...& so
I'm looking for sort of an all-in-one kind of lens. I usually
carry my camera with me & if something catches my I, I
snap away....it could be anything. I felt like an idiot a few
days ago when I visited a local store & was looking at
the lenses & pretty much had NO clue what any of them
could do. lol! I'm sure the salesman thought I was in way
over my head...but why do I HAVE to know the technical
stuff right away to be able to produce a great photo?
I tried out the Canon 50mm f/1.8 but quickly realized it
wasn't what I was looking for...then he mounted a Sigma
lens, with zoom & macro onto my camera & that seemed
pretty neat, but without much knowledge & being in the
store, I couldn't really get a feel for what it could do & didn't
even get the details of the lens before I left. Slapping myself
in the forehead for that now.
So, after all this rambling...any suggestions for a beginner
like myself? Possibly could you post photos or links to
photos taken with the lens you reccomend...as I stated,
technical words are lost on me.
Posted at 11:38AM, 19 July 2006 PDT
(permalink)
|
|
If you can, rent a variety of mid-range zooms to get a feel for them. Sounds like you need to wait a bit, learn a bit more about what you want and what is available before you buy.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@MissNita: You are completely right you can take wonderful photos with very little technical knowledge. You don't 'HAVE' to know much of anything other than usually the camera works best with the lens cap off.
Knowledge is Good (tipping my hat to Animal House):
That said, learning what you can about the technical aspects is a good thing. This doesn't mean you need to aspire to be a propeller head type, just to understand the basic concepts of photography from a technical perspective. I would highly reccomend reading a book or two about photography to get some of the concepts down.
Check out 'Understanding Exposure':
Specifically I'd reccomend picking up "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. This book is great for giving you a high level overview off all the technical stuff so you understand how aperture, shutter speed, ISO speed and White Balance affect a photo. The book isn't hard to read and is written from a down to earth perspective.
About the Lenses (afterall that's what your asking about):
You will likely have have lots of people reply touting their favorite lens, and suggesting it's the best lens for everyone. Perhaps this is what you want, to be told what to buy...
I'd ask you a few questions... What are the short-comings with your kit lens and in what do you currently lack? I could tell you why the kit lens sucks from a technical perspective, but we will all get a better idea of what you want/need if you tell us what your weaknesses are with your current lens.
Do you want a wider zoom range? Better low light performance? More telephoto reach for subjects that are further away, etc. Think of these things and tell them to the local camera shop, etc. (don't take their word as gospel, but they should be able to make some reccomendations). A good camera shop would likely let you borrow a lens for a short while for you to figure out if it works for you.
Learn More Before Buying: I agree with Richard above, learn more before buying anything... Otherwise you could likley end up spending your cash on something you end up not likely.
Links to Photos taken with a Specific Lens, Not Actually that Helpful: I could show you three photo's all looking almost the same but taken with three totally different types of lenses. A specific photo won't tell you all about the lens or what it can do for you specifically.
BTW: Can you get a great all in one lens that will go from super wide angle, to telephoto and work well in low light... in Short No you can't, don't get hung up trying to find one... Any lens with a super wide range will not have the same image quality that a more limited zoom range.
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
fensterbme edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
I can't figure out how you quickly rejected the 50. I mean, I'd recommend that purchase to anybody--not just that it only costs 80 bucks, but the quality is just stinking awesome. I bought the 300D body and used the old kit lens from my film Rebel initially, so the 50mm was technically my first lens purchase. I loved it. Later, after shooting with that for a couple of months, I figured out that the 24-105 f/4 L lens was my dream lens, so I saved up and bought it. I'd suggest to anybody doing the same thing--using the 50 until you can save up for the lens you really want, and believe me, you won't throw away that 50. It is perfect for shooting in low light--in fact, if I know I'm going to be shooting at night, or indoors, I use the 50 over the 24-105 because it's just that good. I'd recommend reconsidering the 50.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Daffodilious: Well the 50mm is optically quite nice, but it's not exactly a very flexible lens and she likely doesn't know enough to understand the benifit of a 'fast lens'. So I could easily see someone pass the lens up.
I'd use the 50mm f/1.8 indoors as well, f/4 is to slow for indoor work (without a flash) and IS doesn't help with subject motion blur.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I understand that I def. need more information & I need to
learn the technical aspects...I'm not looking for someone
to TELL me what to purchase, but recommendations are
nice. I know that a variety of different lenses can produce
a similar effect & that people usually have their own style,
as well...I also get that a lot of people post-process their
photos & can change the look dramatically, so while a
great lens goes a long way, touch-ups & tweaking can
add something more.
I'm planning/hoping to take a photography course in the
fall, but I really don't want to wait two months to take the
course to begin taking the photos I'd like to take. I'd like
to be able to take photos of people or objects that are
far away, without disrupting them or them neccessarily
knowing I'm snapping their picture...I'd like better low-
light performance for concerts or indoor photos...like
I said when I initially posted, I'd like a lens that can do
a lot. I also understand that having EVERYTHING in
one lens is pretty much impossble. But I'm not looking
for every feature to be PERFECT, esp. considering I'm
not willing to spend heaps of money. I'm just looking
for a more versatile lens than the one I currently have
for a decent/cheap price.
As for the 50mm f/1.8...as fensterbme pointed out, it's
not a flexible lens & that is the main reason I knew that
it's not what I'm looking for...right now.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The other piece of this that beginners don't get (and I've only recently gotten myself) is that it's all a process, not an end point.
There can never be a perfect all around lens even for a person who knows what they want. Why? Because as they grow as a photographer their needs will change.
it could be that a nice mid-range zoom fits the bill now but later, a 50mm f/1.4 fits it better. There's no way to know until one has taken a lot of pictures and figured out a personal style of taking pictures.
I went through numerous zooms, buying and selling before I realized I liked working with primes better. It's not that I'm so exacting, it's just a style thing. I had to get the zooms and use them to figure it out.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hey, thanks for that Understanding Exposure recommendation. It looks very interesting and informative.
As far as the 50--you were looking for what folks would recommend, and I would recommend that lens to anybody, that was simply my point.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I realize it's a process...one that I'm at the beginning of.
I know as I photograph more & more & develop a style
I'd obviously prefer certain lenses over others...
I think every single beginner photographer probably
feels a little confused on what their lens needs are,
therefore why not post in a group such as this one
to get some advice on a good lens to start with?
Maybe I too will end up buying & selling lenses until I find
what works best for me...but I have to start somewhere,
& right now that's what I'm trying to figure out... which lens,
besides the kit lens, is the best for me to start with, based
on the kinds of photos I like to take.
Dafodilious: Thanks for the recommendation...I do appreciate
any suggestions. It's just that the 50mm f/1.8 doesn't seem
very versatile to me :/ Maybe I'm wrong.
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
Ani-Bee edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
My favourite all-in-one lens is the Sigma 30mm 1:1.4, which I used for all of my recent vacation photography. I must admit, though, that that's been quite the old-school approach, and on top of it, it's somewhat pricey.
My recommendation would be to not replace the kit lens with something in the same zoom range, unless you know what it is exactly that you can't stand about it. Visit the Kit Lens Losers to see what can be done with the kit lens alone.
The 50/1.8 is always worth a look, especially for the available-light shots that you're looking forward to. It's not flexible indeed, but it's cheap and will give you f/1.8 instead of the f/5.6 the kit lens offers you at the long end. That's more than 8 times as much light reaching the sensor than with the kit lens. Definitely worth it.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
missnita, You sound frustrated with my response. Not such a nice way to treat people who are trying to help. Good luck.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think (this is merely a suggestion), that something in the 17-70 zoom range would suit you well. Maybe even a 28-105 zoom, or something similar to those two. You can take landscape pictures with the wider end, and use the middle ranges for portraits, animals, etc, and the telephoto end for things that are farther away - like concert-type situations. However, if you're doing a lot indoor concerts, you're going to need a lens with a wider aperture (controls how much light comes in), ideally wider than f2.8 (so, that would be say f2.0, or f1.8, f1.4 etc.), and those lenses are usually pretty expensive.
One thing to note, the 300D has a 1.6x crop factor, which means a 50mm lens is actually 85mm or so, due to the 1.6x crop. So 28mm isn't going to be the greatest for landscapes (but it depends on how much you need to get in the picture).
You can try fredmiranda.com/reviews/ for some lens reviews, to see what others think. I think you'll have to get two lenses, maybe one 17-85 and then one macro/telephoto lens like a 135mm to take pictures of flowers and people (you'd have to step far back to take a photo of a person, but the results are good).
Buy the best lens you can afford!
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
blowout edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
Stopped.: Thanks for the link. I've already been doing some
post-processing & it's def. helped with the photos I've
taken with the kit lens. I don't think the kit lens is as bad
as some people make it out to be...I'll def. be joining that
group though, so thank you!
Richard: I'm not sure why you think I sound frustrated
with you/your response...I was just stating that you are
right & that I too might have to go through a similar
process as you until I find what's best for me...basically,
I was stating your point was dead on correct. Maybe your
first sentence through me off a little...I think sometimes
that more seasoned photographers talk down to 'beginners'
& I will admit that it seemed you were talking ABOUT me,
rather than TO me. But I am not frustrated with you in
the slightest & I'm here to learn & I'm thankful for any
& all advice...
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Aaron23 [deleted] says:
My wife and I each learned on a Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's pretty affordable, gives good results, goes macro, goes telephoto, has IS, etc. I think it's the perfect lens short of buying an L.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@missnitta: You don't have to wait until the fall to get up to speed on photography. I've never taken a class ever... I simply stuck my nose in a book, and on a few web sites and read a lot of material.
Don't Wait Until the Fall, Buy a Book Today:
I'd go out to your local book store and buy the Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson that I mentioned in my original post. Seriously in a few hours of reading you would know much more about things and be able to ask more pointed/educated questions.
Perhaps the Canon 28-135mm:
If I had to tell you to check out one lens I'd suggest looking at the Canon 28-135mm EF lens (which has IS) and would be a medium tele lens on a crop factor camera (such as your Rebel/300D camera). It's a great walk around lens, but won't be steller in low light. For concerts you will want fast lenses and most likley prime/fixed lenses.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why don't you try a mid-range zoom around 25-70mm? On your 300D, it would be around 40-112 or so. It covers a nice spectrum of focal length but if you wanna go wider than 40mm or so (which is essentially normal focal length) then some more expensive lenses would be in order but you don't wanna spend too much now. And if you wanna have a more powerful zoom like 70-200mm or so, then wouldn't be all-around lens and requires tripod most of the time.
All my photos here are taken with Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and there are other really good ones in this focal length range by Canon and Sigma. I like all-around lenses too because I don't miss a shot because of lack of tripod and they're not too wide.
I don't have a good experience with Canon 28-135 IS. I won't go back to it.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Aaron23: Thanks for the recommendation...I'll read up on
that particular lens.
fensterbme: Thanks again for all the info. I currently am
reading a couple of books, including The Joy of Photography.
I live in a very VERY small city, therefore I don't think they'll
have Understanding Exposure at the ONE bookstore in
the main part of the city...but I'll try to look it up on eBay or
amazon.
DigiPhoFan: Thank you. I was hoping that someone
else would like all-around lenses & suggest one they
use...then I could take a peak & their pictures & at least
get an IDEA of what to expect from a decent all-around
lens.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kenneth Armstrong [deleted] says:
There was a time when you bought a camera and it almost always came with a 50mm lens. Personally I think it's a great place to start and a great place to learn. Zooms can make a person very lazy, not close enough to the action? Just zoom in. Too close? Zoom out. It's convenient, but often you're not going to see the best angles by standing still and zooming.
Using a 50mm prime lens (or any prime, for that matter) makes you think with your feet to find the best possible angle to shoot from and I find more often than not the diference between a good photo and a great photo can often be something as simple as the angle from which it was taken, not exposure or sharpness and other factors.
When you say the 50mm doesn't seem versitile enough, I assume you're talking about the fact that it doesn't zoom. But the 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and the 30mm f/1.4 are all much faster than any zoom on the market. If you're shooting in low light without flash these primes can do it better than any zoom and with the 50mm f/1.8 it does it at a fraction of the cost. Now THAT'S versitile, in my opinion.
There is a reason that most people in this thread are chiming in with praise for the 50mm f/1.8 as the first lens to buy, and that's echoed on many other boards as well. You already have a capable zoom lens that came with the camera, I have seen many good pictures taken with the kit lens and it is not a total piece of garbage as some people say. From there it is my recommendation to plunk down the $80 on the 50mm f/1.8 and use it to find the best angles. Down low, up high. Concentrate on composition. Use it to take portraits. Use it in low light. Use it to create pictures with shallow depth of field, stop it down to create pictures that are razor sharp. To anyone who says it's not a versitile lens I totally disagree, it just makes you get more excercise than a zoom does.
For me personally I bought a Digital Rebel a few years back. I used the kit lens and quickly added the 50mm f/1.8. I found that my learning accelerated a great deal with that lens. I upgraded to a Digital Rebel XT and added a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 which is a lens I thought I'd use a lot but I really don't. Then I added a flash, a 1D body and a 24-70mm f/2.8 L. That 24-70mm is about $1200 but stopped down the results at 50mm are pretty much the same in respect to sharpness, the L only really beats it in contrast and colour. My most recent acquisition was a 50mm f/1.4 which I love. It lives on my Rebel XT most of the time and the 24-70mm L lives on my 1D.
It does sound a bit like you've made up your mind that the 50mm f/1.8 isn't good enough, but I think I speak for most people in this thread when I say "give the nifty fifty a chance". It's $80 and I can guarantee you will get the best return-on-investment with that lens over anything else you will buy.
I started off by saying that cameras used to come with a 50mm prime as the kit lens, I just wanted to end by saying that I understand the 50mm on the Rebel is not the same focal length as on a film camera. Personally I would love to buy the 35mm f/1.4 L to fit this need. I rented it once and totally fell in love with it.
Whatever you decide, good luck.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You're welcome. I browsed through your photo stream. You have a good vision. You just need to learn some technical stuff to help you implement your ideas. I won't suggest refusing to learn technical matter. Then take a lot of photos and study them and watch a lot of good photos. Even if you don't buy a book, you can read all you need on this amazing Web.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
rubbergorilla: Well, I def. haven't totally made up my mind
about the 50 f/1.8....I think it'd be silly to completely disregard
so many great reviews & opinions...I also only tested it for
about 3 minutes total, so of course based on that amount of
time I probably couldn't get the best feel for it...but besides
the fact that I am looking for something that I thought would
be more versatile for me, the price here [Canada] is $149...
at least the store I visited the other day. I'm not sure if that's
because they have an exceptional in-store warranty or what,
but I thought it seemed a bit pricey for what I've read.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
18-55 kit lens. No questions asked.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
missnita: the last thing I'd want to do is talk down to you or anyone else. Sorry, I misunderstood your reply.
I'm a prime lens guy. As many have said, and I agree, a great place to start in a lens search is to put a $70 50mm f/1.8 on your camera and start taking pictures. Then you'll know how to prioritize aperture (speed), focal range, and which end of the zoom range you like to hang out at (long or wide). 50 is a bit long on a cropped sensor but it's a wonderful place to start an experiential quest.
Peace and good luck.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wrote a long response that disappeared into the void when FLICKR went belly up. The thrust of it was:
1. I second, third and fourth the recommendation of the 50 1.8. A lot of your interesting indoor shots could have been captured very sharply and crisply with this lens. Using your feet to zoom takes some getting used to but its worth it.
2. If you want something versatile that doesn't duplicate any of the functions of your kit lens, consider a tele-macro-zoom. The best of the budget category of these is the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro. Sigma4less.com sells it for $190 US. It would give you a whole telephoto range you now lack. True it is a bit soft at 300mm but so are all the competitors in this price class. Still very usable though.
AND it allows you to focus very close (half life size), which means you can take great shots of flowers and various beasties from a safe distance. Your photo stream shows that you are quite inventive, I bet you would have a ball with this capability.
3. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 recommended by DigiPhotoFan is a great lens at a reasonable price but it doesnt give you as much new capability as a tele-macro-zoom would. Once you see how wonderful a bright lens like the 50 1.8 is, you'll be hankering for something like this yourself. But first things first. Fill in the tele end of your glass collection and start saving for the wonderful Canon 10-22.
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
MerlinsMan edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
It's hard to find the "best" all purpose lens, because everyones needs are different. But generally you will probably have to go with 2 or 3 lenses to have a complete set that fullfills your needs. These are my favorite sites for lens reviews. They are nice sites to learn about technique too!
www.fredmiranda.com good user reviews, and forum. There is a buy/sell forum if you are looking for used lenses. There is also several C/C forums to post pics and get feedback.
www.photozone.de good reviews all based on lens performance on the Rebel XT. Good tips and technique sections.
www.the-digital-picture.com good reviews of pretty much all current canon lenses. Also has tips and suggestions.
with that being said, don't forget that great lenses don't always = great images. Technique and knowing your lens' limitation are the key. So learn, learn and learn some more! The more you understand about photography and images, the more you will be able to get the most out of your lenses, even the kit lens. You can get decent pics with your kit lens if you stop it down to f8 or f11 and have enough light. Now this limits it to be used for images that don't need large DOF like landscapes etc or if you just need a quick point and shoot image with flash and don't care too much about an artsy pic.
Here is My equipment that fit my shooting style:
Rebel XT
17-55 F2.8 IS--good general purpose. I've started to like the wide angle perspective more and more. If you prefer to shoot at the tele end then there are "longer" all purpose lenses that are good too)
100mm F2.8 Macro--my favorite lens. Great for macros and good for portraits too.
70-200mm--Don't have it yet, but when I save enough, I think I will have a complete set for a while, then I'll look into upgrading the body.
50mm F1.4--good low light performer if needed. I actually returned this lens to get the 17-55 since I don't shoot a lot of moving shots in low light. I'll probably pick one up again once I have more money and after I get the 70-200.
My dream lens would be a 17-100mm F2.8 with True Macro but no one has made it yet.
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
tboh edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
Oh - and come by and visit the Glass Menagerie ( www.flickr.com/groups/glass_menagerie/ ) where you can see for yourself what various lenses can do.
Good luck!
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh and a thing about the 50mm versitilty. Don't forget that you can "zoom" with your feet. With the 50, you get a "normal" perspective, which is good or bad depending on what type of images you are looking for. But the great thing is the low light performance. Lenses with IS you can use in low light, but only if the object is stationary. You can only freeze images with a large aperature.
Even with the zoom lenses, it is fun to "zoom" with your feet instead to get funky perspectives of your image. Wide angle lenses can stretch an image and tele lenses can compact the image. Just shoot and play.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm going to agree with the 50mm 1.8!
(The kit lens is really not bad at all. It's a nice thing to have in your bag, and don't be afraid to use it.)But the 50mm is very inexpensive, and it will really challenge you to work for some really good shots. Just look at some of the stuff in this group:
www.flickr.com/groups/50mmlens/
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Tamron and Sigma 25-70mm f/2.8 lenses are great option and work quite well in low light. They are also way cheaper than the Canon alternative the wonderful but expensive Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L which is one of the lenses I shoot with... It's a greet focal length range and I use it for 90% of my shots, and the other four lenses sit in the bag most of the time.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kenneth Armstrong [deleted] says:
In Toronto the going rate for that lens is $119, but I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing is jacked up on the east coast.
Vistek
Henry's
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Since there seem to be so many praises for 50/1.8, I'll just add my $0.02 into discussion by saying that I had 50/1.8 for two months. Got some nice pictures from jazz concert and christmas concert, but for most of the other purposes it was either too wide or too narrow. Since I had big hole (40-70mm) between my zooms, I wanted to have one lens that would fit between them and bought 50/2.5 compact macro. Now that was fun lens to have. Relatively small in size, can do 1:2 magnification on macros (more than all the zooms, which are supposed to be capable for macro) at decent price.
Since then I sold that 50/2.5 compact macro and bought 100/2.8 USM macro, but occasionally I still miss that little macro lens, which usually has enough magnification for all kind of flower pictures.
If you don't like taking images from small items, flowers, etc., but want to have prime, I would probably recommend 35/2, 28/1.8 or 30/1.4 from Sigma. I only have 35/2 from those three lenses, but those lenses are usually regarded as the ones, which provide same field of view as 50mm lens on 35mm film camera. During the dark winter days, 35/2 and 100/2.8 USM macro are the two lenses that I use.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
missnita, thank you for asking this question! I also have a 300D with a kit lens...I added an EF 75-300 USM and had a blast with it. Now that I have had this set up for about 2 years (I'm a slow learner), I feel I'm ready to add additional lenses. These responses have really helped in narrowing down the overwhelming amount of choices. Really great information everyone!
So, I will definitely will pick up a 50mm 1.8...My biggest beef with both of my current lenses is the lack of performance in low light. The flash on the 300D just doesn't cut it in most low light situations.
You can take a peek at my pics and see what you can do with the lenses I have (note: there are also a couple pics that are taken with a pocket Fuji Finepix so check the data). I have to say that the softness on the end of the 300 makes me sad on some of the pics but all-in-all I have been pretty happy with this set up.
Good luck with your purchase!
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have also been wondering what the best all-in-one lens is for my 300D. I want something between 30-130mm for good closeups and decent across-the-street zoom.. I'm travelling plenty, and doing shoots locally, mostly on the streets.. I curerntly have a 2nd hand 28-85 EF from my old Canon Film camera..
The lens I have decided on is the
Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5/5.6 Image Stabiliser USM
I chose this as it has a nice low F. and is EF, so it will work on any of the canon range (yes i have 300D but may upgrade to 20/30D or 5 or 1 if i rob a bank)
Now, I have never ever used a camera with IS and i think it might make me lazy, but it's nice to have a feature there when you need it!
Has anyone else used this lens, does it rock/suck? Some other reviews show that it's a very good versatile lens.. What say ye, professionals and experts? I want one zoom/wide lens to cover pretty much everything.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@mossko: Many people love this lens, it's a great walk around lens... Lots of people are fanatical about it.
One thing to note is that this lens was designed for full frame/35mm camera's. Canon designed a similar lens with the same effective perspective for a crop factor 1.6x camera (Rebel series and the 20/30D). That lens is the Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 EF-S IS which has IS and is quite a bit wider which I like... I used to own the 17-85mm and loved it, my only complaint was that it wasn't an f/2.8 lens. But for the price you can't beat it.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
fensterbme: thanks heaps for your input - I have been reading up on reviews, but there's nothing like having a question answered personally!
From what I understand, only the EF-S range of lenses will be subject to the crop factor 1.6x rule. The EF range of lenses do not suffer the crop factor. It's something to do with the extra length that the EF-S lenses come into the body of the camera (if i'm not mistaken)
My choice on the EF 28-135 (as opposed to EF-S 17-85 which has the 1.6x rule) is that it (should) work the same on either FullFrame (1D) or Cropped body (300D), should I choose to upgrade in the future. This is my understanding. Please correct me if i'm wrong!
Also, the 28-135 is 72mm diameter and F/3.5, and the 17-85 is 62mm diameter and F/4..
More lens diameter = more light = lower F. = clearer pictures? yes?
I am of the understanding that due to the 1.6x crop factor, both the EF28-135 and EFS17-85 are identical for wide/zoom, except the lens diameter and F. values, thus the EF28-135 should be better.. no?
EF-S 17-85 with the 1.6x crop factor = 27-136, roughly the same as the EF28-135..
Thanks very much!!
Sorry to everyone else if i'm asking noob questions :-) Maybe it will prove helpful to others in the future though!
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
mossko edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
fensterbme, it looks you'll be sitting there writing a legthy reply, LOL
mossoko, sorry but most of the things you said are not true.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh no! okay.. I'm waiting patiently to be shreded :-)
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The only thing I can add to the existing comments is not to go "cheap" if you really plan on sticking with it. It's really worth it to save your money and buy a decent lens. That is my only regret looking back on my own purchases. Aside from the 50mm 1.8 which is a great lens.
That doesn't mean you need to buy L glass but at least get something that qualifies as an advanced user lens. For example the higher end (over $300) Sigma line. I spent $180ish on my Canon 75-300mm III and I regret it. It has a great range but I've never got a real sharp photo out of it and it's useless in low light. I just didn't know enough when I bought it. Not to mention the occasonal "blue fringe" I get with it. The bottom line is that I bought it because I thought, "300mm for $180, what a deal". Man was I wrong.
You get what you pay for.
@Mossko
Your question about the EF-S vs. the EF lenses regarding crop factor. There is no difference between them. An 18-55 EFS is the same as an 18-55 EF on a 1.6 crop factor camera body. The difference is that the EF-S lenses won't fit on film camera bodies or some Full Frame bodies because of the way it fits in the camera. It obstructs the mirror movement because the mirror is larger on those cameras.
On a 300D/350D/20D/30D that 28-135 will behave like a 45-216mm. The 17-85mm would be more like 28-135 on a 1.6 crop camera. So if you have a 300D and want the 28-135 range, buy the 17-85. Does this make sense?
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
Gary Lowell edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
mossko -> Both EF & EF-S lenses would be subject to a 1.6 x crop when used on a Digital Rebel / 350D
The difference between the two is that an EF lens can also be used on regular 35mm SLRs as well as full-frame DSLRs
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks fwgroove and hawkeye. Yes, I'm looking at investing into one good quality lens and possibly buying a 50mm fixed lens for night/macro shots. I will be going Canon as most reviews recommended the Canon lenses.
Makes sense, I will check back over the articles that I read and digest the info again
So all lenses on a non-FF body will be subject to the 1.6x crop factor.. okay.
And what about the lens diameter, wider = lower f. = better, yes? Or are there other considerations that I am missing (Apart from number of internal lenses)?
Thanks everyone for your help (and patience)
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
mossko edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
Ok, let's get it straight: EF-S lenses only fit on 5 bodies: Rebel (aka 300D), Rebel XT (aka 350D), 20D, 20Da, and 30D. EF lenses fit on all Canon digital DSLR bodies and most of film bodies with exeption of some really old bodies. Here's my proof and good thing to read.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount
EF-S lenses can be made smaller than EF and hence the lower price.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@mossko: Your wrong on just about everything you said... but that's okay a year ago I was where your at now.
Crop Factor, It's the Camera Not the Lens:
Lenses don't suffer from 'crop factor' camera bodies do... Any lens you have on a RebelXT/350D and or the 20/30D will change the 'efffective' focal length or perspective. So regardless of which lens you buy you will have to deal with the crop factor.
On EF vs. EF-S - Much About Nothing:
You are correct EF-S lenses won't fit on the full frame bodies. That said most people will likely not ever own a full frame camera (or at least for quite a while). Since EF-S lenses can be smaller they are both somewhat cheaper and lighter than their full frame counterparts. Weight doesn't bother me but if I can have something lighter I will take it. Last night I went out shooting with my bag full of glass (Canon 24-70mm, 70-200mm f/2.8IS, 10-22mm, 35mm, 50mm and a 580EX flash) and by the end of the evening my shoulder is a bit sore.
Lastly, lots of people thing they are going to upgrade to full frame and are holding out and buying only EF lenses. I think there are a few issues with this and it's becoming a pet peeve of mine.
1.) I think far less people will *actually* go full frame than think they will. Come of folks full frame body starts at $2,700 that's to salty for most.
2.) In some focal lengths you have to go EF-S to cover your bases, specifically the Canon 10-22mm (face it folks the 16-35mmL isn't that ultra wide on the RebelXT/30D) which I bought myself and love.
3.) This is the biggie... Lenses retain their value camera' dont. If you end up buying a full frame camera sell your EF-S lenses and you will get 80% of your money out of them (or more like 95% if your smart enough to buy used lenses originally) so it's not buying EF-S lenses means your wasting yoru money.
Lens Diameter and f/stop:
As far as lens diameter don't pay attention to that... your ideas about lens diameter are actually what aperature does for you. Larger aperature (which has a smaller f/stop number btw) means better low light performance. But larger aperature doesn't mean clearer/sharper photos. Lenses actually look sharper when stopped down a bit... Wide open lenses are bit softer, but are usually fine. They just aren't the sharpest wide open. So on my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L I can let the most light in when shooting at f/2.8 but if I want the sharpest photo I should stop down to f/5.6-f/11.
Read the Wiki on F-Number. Don't worry about the number of internal elements and diameter those don't mean a thing (to you, effectively) your aperature is what limits you (you know the little thing with the blades that opens and closes like your eye).
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just to chime in...
I also own the 300D; I would love to upgrade. However, I'd rather spend the money on good lenses right now.
I had the kit lens and liked the versatility the range gave me. I think it is a nice starter zoom. First, I added the 50mm1.8. Next, I added the 70-200L f/4. Would the 2.8 be nice? Sure. However, I would only use that long of a lens outside so it isn't really necessary.
Finally, I sold my kit lens and purchased the 17-40 L. It is another f/4 but it suits me just fine and it lives on my camera now. I've read in several places that the three lenses I selected make a nice collection at a reasonable cost.
Consider what you are going to shoot. Is 2.8 necessary? If not, you may want to consider the two L lenses I mentioned. Plus, I can't imagine any Canon shooter being without the 50mm. :)
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Kenneth Armstrong [deleted] says:
Also, for a little inspiration you might want to look at _rebekka's photostream. She lists only the Rebel XT, kit lens, EF-S 10-22mm and the 100mm f/2 for her equipment, yet her results are fantastic. Proof that you don't need a 5D and L lenses to make interesting photographs, and puts a lot of people to shame who spend the money thinking they'll get better by just throwing money at their hobby.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@rubbergorilla: that might have been situation, but according to discussion in her latest photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/194136146/) she went and bought 5D + 17-40/4L, but your point is still valid in a sense that her older pictures are taken with the camera gear that you listed in your message.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I recently bought a 18-200 f3.5-f5.6 macro Promaster from the local photo store for $400 plus tax and a uv filter. Total was $450. The range from wide angle to telephoto is really great but the lens is not as good as my 3 Canon lens that I would need to cover the range of view. Of course the 3 canon lens cost me about $3000 including the uv filter. The uv filter runs about10% of the total cost. Does it make sense to put a $30 UV filter on a $1600 lens? I am quite happy with the Promaster even tho it does not do as well as the more expensive lens. In fact I would have been upset if it had ... why had wasted all that money. I call the Promaster my vacation lens since I will take it on excusions that I would reluctant to carry 50 lbs of equipement. However, If I go to a sports activity then I would prefer my more expensive L lens. Promaster buys lens from other manufacturers and put their brand on them ... local camera stores get a better mark up on them (I think) I believe this is a Tamron lens but not sure.
This lens will only work properly on dslr. You will get black corners on a full frame slr at the wide angle setting. That is what I understand, have not tried it on my 10D but the documentation does not exclude it. Canon dslr only lenses wlll not work on the 10D.
Originally posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
fotobydave edited this topic 71 months ago.
|
|
|
fensterbme Thanks for setting it straight, i really value your input!
I guess it will be the EFS17-85 for me! :)
I just had a look at my two current lenses, the stock EFS 18-55 and my old EF28-80 and can really see the difference in rear size of the lens
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@missnita - Thanks for posting a great question; I loved this discussion.
Two comments :
1. I feel that 17/18 mm is pretty much the minimum focal length needed on a 1.6 crop factor sensor for scenic work. I have a 17-40 and bump into the lower limit a lot.
2. IS really works for low light. It can make a lens effectively 2-3 stops faster (ignoring depth of focus effects). It's spooky watching it work through the viewfinder.
Someone early in this discussion suggested listing the shortcomings you find with the lens you have. I'm curious about that.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@flyingmoose: if I read you correctly, what you are saying is that you need a lens at least as wide as 17mm for scenic work. I agree but would have said at least as wide as 12mm. This shot for instance was at 14mm on a 1.5 crop sensor:
I'm forever bumping into the 11mm limit of my Tamron superwide.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you're looking for a good all-in-one lens, I suggest that you try the new Sigma 17-70, which might have been the one lens that you tried in the camera store. Slightly longer range than the kit lens, better image quality, much closer focusing distance, and fairly reasonable price. You can do just about everything you mentioned with this lens.
I had the 28-135IS and was never satisfied with it. Always had to stop down to f/8 for decent sharpness, uninspiring colors, and not wide enough to be a one-lens solution.
For me, my love of a lens is inversely proportional to its usefulness i.e. the more specific and less "all-in-one" a lens is, the more I like it. If you're interested in flowers, think about getting the Canon EF-S 60mm macro. If you're interested in portraits, think about the Canon 85/1.8. etc.
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Is the EF 50mm 1:1.8 II that's on my Canon EOS Rebel X
is okay to use on my 300D?
Posted 71 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
Canon DSLR User Group /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Canon DSLR User Group discussion threads
