(D)SLR newbie, question about lenses

[vvizard]

First off, sorry for this long post. I'm a pretty fresh photographer, and after having my first digital camera, a Minolta DiMage 7i, I feel I've outgrown it. So now I have sold it, and ordered the new EOS 300-D. I have no previous experience with SLR-cam's (not film-based either), and have some questions about lenses if anybody would care to help out a newbie.

I ordered the kit which include 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I somehow think that I might wan't another lens pretty soon. The aperture-value is far worse than on my minolta, which had a 28-200mm f/2.8 (at wide). Although I've seen shot's from the EOS, and the EOS can safely be shot at _far_ higher ISO-values than the minolta could. But what lens do you recommend? Money is a big factor here. But before you say "yeah, go with the cheapest", remember that if I soon find out I don't like the cheapest, and have to sell it and get a new, that's wasted money, compared to spending a little more in the first place.

You guys think the 55mm f/1.4 pricetag could be justified for me as the primary lens? Or is this to expensive compared to how much I can enjoy it given that I'm pretty fresh at photography?

I also want a tele-lens, but have to settle on a zoom-lens for echonomical reasons (I'm a student). I enjoy taking pictures of dragraces, standing at the side, approx 50 meters away. The minolta handled this quite well with it's 200mm, but while I'm at it, I would really love a 300mm. Any you would recommend? Remember that price is a big factor, and if it exist, I would prefer if it's less than $500.

And what would you consider to be my topmost priority? A new good 50mm lens, or the zoom-lens? Remeber that I'm buying the 300-D kit, so I get a lens to use in the 50mm area, but is it good enough that I want a zoom-lens before I spend additonall money for another lens in this focal-area?

I've seen devices to mount between the house and the lens which will double the focal-length. Would this ruin a good picture if used, or will the quality be pretty much the same? How much aperture-value could I expect to loose from it? And what's it named? I couldn't find it in any norwegian online-store I looked in.

And a last question about the crop-factor/focal-multiplier of the EOS-10D and 300D. It's stated to 1.6x. But what exactly is it? Should it be considered a focal-multiplier, or just a crop-factor? Will a 300mm actually perform like a 480mm, or is this mostly bull? I've heard both..

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you get a 50mm prime and cost is an issue at all get the venerable 50mm f/1.8 for $75.00

It is every bit as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4, it just lacks some of its durability features and that .4 on the aperture.

But with 50mm allready covered I would think you would want to see how the included lens perfroms before you get that over another zoom. After your 28-200mm on the Minolta you will be desperatrely seeking more telephoto I surmise. So you may be looking into a telephoto zoom.

The Cheap way to go is a 75-300mm. But you may want ot jump right up to the big boys and get a 70-200mm f/4 "L" or even an f/2.8

[vvizard]

I'm looking at the "70-200mm f/4 'L' USM" now. The price is.. High but achievable (on my next salery that is). But for all I know the 300-D can be delayed, and maybe if I save a lot of money, I can have a decent amount of money to spend when it arrive. The 70-200 f/2.8 is totally out of the question at nearly double price. I'm looking at norwegian prices for new equipment, but I might as well check out ebay as well.

What exactly makes the "L" lenses so good? I see they're white, but the switch from black to white doesn't justify their money imho =) Of course that was just a joke, but is there anything "special" about them? Or is it just that they give better image-quality, less distortion etc?

[DaveG]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
If you get a 50mm prime and cost is an issue at all get the venerable 50mm f/1.8 for $75.00

It is every bit as sharp as the 50mm f/1.4, it just lacks some of its durability features and that .4 on the aperture.

But with 50mm allready covered I would think you would want to see how the included lens perfroms before you get that over another zoom. After your 28-200mm on the Minolta you will be desperatrely seeking more telephoto I surmise. So you may be looking into a telephoto zoom.

The Cheap way to go is a 75-300mm. But you may want ot jump right up to the big boys and get a 70-200mm f/4 "L" or even an f/2.8

Uh, the difference between f1.8 and f1.4 is ONE stop not .4. f1.8 is a manufacturer's ad copywriter who thinks that they will sell more f1.8 lenses than if they were f2's and they're right. But f1.8, f1.9 and f2 are all the same. However f1.4 is a real stop and one stop faster than f2.

And if it wasn't all that important I wonder why I spent all that money on a 300 f2.8 when I could have had that f4 so cheaply.

No I'd buy (hmm, I DID buy) the 50 mm f1.4, both for the speed and the metal lens mount.

[vvizard]

But what about the 2x "magnifier" (what is the real name) that they sell for canon lenses. I found it now. But how is the quality of this? Is it easy to see a difference in quality between a shot taken with a 200mm + the 2x magnifier and a 400mm (with somewhat similiar quality as the 200mm) without it?

[Belmondo]

vvizard wrote:
What exactly makes the "L" lenses so good? I see they're white, but the switch from black to white doesn't justify their money imho =) Of course that was just a joke, but is there anything "special" about them? Or is it just that they give better image-quality, less distortion etc?

You're right---it's not just the white paint. There's a red ring around all 'L' lenses. This is very important. If you don't have the red ring, you're not cool.

Actually, 'L' lenses have seriously good glass in them. Optically they are much, much better than standard lenses. Also, the build quality of the 'L' lenses is higher. In short, they are designed to provide the performance required by professionals as well as the ability to stand up to the abuse a professional will give them in daily use.

I recently read an interesting article in one of the photography magazines describing the equipment a professional photographer took with him as an implanted reporter in Desert Storm. It was an amazing amount of gear, but what stood out was the fact that every lens he carried was Canon L. It can't be coincidence.

[CyberDyneSystems]

As far as the 2X and 1.4X "teleconverters" they only work on certain lense. If you check the Canon web sitre it tells you specifically which ones. In a nutshell,. they only work on "White" "L" telephoto lenses. They won't work on any of the 50mm's or the included lens.

Dave, I would kill or die for a 300 f/2.8!!! Don't get me wrong.

What I meant to say was that you would be hard pressed to see a differenvce in the images from the two lenses on the same camera. For $75.00 the 1.8 is amazing.

But I must say that I am confused as to why the .4 difference from 1.8 to 1.4 is so hige but the .2 difference between 2.0 and 1.8 os nothing at all? Oh well.

Nor did I ever refer to the .4 as being .4 of a stop. Quite frankly I still have no Idea when a change in number equals a full stop,. a half stop or what. It makes very little sense to me. So I would never claim to know when a .4 or a .2 or a 1.4 equals a stop or not. I just know that most of the time I don't shot so wide open anyways.

[robertwgross]

As you change from one f-stop to the next higher f-stop number (smaller aperture) the factor is 1.4, which is approximately the square root of 2. That is, unless you want to repeal the Laws of Physics.

---Bob Gross---