Lenses for dummies :)

[karusel]

I plan to buy a Canon 10D in spring, after selling Sony 717, so I have plenty of time to consider what lens I want to go with it.

After reading oh-so-many reviews, I have definetly chosen the Sigma AF 2.8 70-200mm EX (HSM) (over the Canon EF 4.0 70-200mm USM L) for its superb quality and a very reasonable price (note that it's more expensive and btw. heavier than Canon, but it is faster), also I'm quite sure I'll also get the Sigma X2 extender. After that, I'm pretty clueless. There is NOT a lot more money to flush down the gutter, so I wish to spend it wisely, buying quality lens. First of, I cannot stress quality enough. QUALITY. If I'm buying expensive lens, I want it to be good, because I'm keeping them but will quite surely sell the camera after say, two years.

So, the tele range is pretty much covered. What macro-normal-tele lens should I get then? The Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP seems a good choice hera but I'm tempted to get a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX prime, but then again, since I'm (admitedly) more or less a noob regarding lens and focal lengths and such, I'm not really sure why I would n e e d a 50mm prime. Really. I know it's not particularly good for portraits, so landscapes or what?

For what purpose I need the lens, you ask? Shooting people, like, portraits, but probably more like full body shots / group shots, and very importantly: macro shots of flowers and insects. Is there a lens to enable me to shoot an ant in (more than) full size photo, while focus doesn't touch just about 0.5 mm of the ant's body? Oh, you can suggest one (or more) lenses for each purpose. Please argument WHY you suggest a certain lens.

Also, to make this topic be helpful to others that are getting abord of the D-SLR ship, maybe you can put up a list of lens that make a photographers arsenal complete. I do realize it is virtually an impossible task to perform, but give it a try, after all, I just want your opinion, not a rule.

I'd greatly appreciate your advice.

[phidong]

If you're going to get a 50mm prime, I'd go with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. I'd lean more towards the 50mm f/1.8 because its a better deal. I cannot justify the extra 200$ for one stop of light, but if you can afford it the f/1.4 is a bit better and sharper. The other issue I think is if you're going to shoot portraits you might not even need the extra stop, so its only a bit sharper in comparisson.. something you might be able to live w/o.

The Sigma 70-200mm appears to be a very good lens. If you search around you can get them for sub $600. I myself couldn't afford it.. so I went with the older 70-210mm f/2.8 which I hear has very very similar image quality. Its a good chunk cheaper as well, because you'll have to buy it second hand. I got mine for $350 (great deal) but your milage may vary. Also, its an older lens and MAY need to be rechipped to work. I'm sending it to Sigma today to get rechipped and cleaned (so it'll be like brand new ;) )

You might want something wider as well for group shots.. but I can't really give advice on that. I have my 18-55mm kit lens that came w/ my Digital Rebel.. so ;)

[Canuck]

Hi!
Shall we start a book called "Lenses for Dummies"???

This is a $1380 lens (the Canon L lens), I'm taking it is out or your range??? BTW, I have a 10D!

You might try the Sigma EX series, as I have Sigma EX series lens and it is sweet! The down side is that it is a $1900 lens. There are a few reasonably priced Sigma EX lenses out there, like the one you mentioned and a few others. I can't emphasise how much the quality of the glass will effect your pics. You will be amazed what you can get with some quality glass in front of the 10D!
Also, if you haven't got it already, I highly reccommend Big Ed (BG-ED3) vertical grip. I can give you many reasons to get it and I'm sure we could make an entire topic about it!

I have a Canon 16-35mm L lens and man is it sharp! The first day I was in Ely, Cambridgeshire, England and kinda serious and kinda screwing off and was looking at the pics and watching my jaw bounce off the floor. Mind you I had never used L glass and also was doing some family pics for some friends for Christmas pics. I haven't heard back, but I'm not one that likes to comment on my own work, but they asked me and I gave them the I'd like to see what you think before I say anything. Eventually they wormed an answer out of me and I still don't know what they think. This is kinda irritating. I'd like to know for my own info what they thought. I should find out Saturday or Sunday what they thought. I'm almost convinced that high end glass allows anyone to take stunning pics. If you put enough dosh (cash) into it, you will get it right eventually. That is only a sorta-kinda! It is the glass you're paying for and the knowing how to use it and compose great pics that makes it work.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[karusel]

A book really wouldn't be a bad idea. I feel people underestimate the importance of quality glass, like you said - you weren't first - the difference in picture quality between $100 and $1000 lenses is more than just noticeable. However, I cannot justify spending over $1200 since I'm not a pro, if I were, however, no lens I'd buy would be cheaper than $2000 I guess. For an ambitious amateur, the sigma's 70-200 is more than sufficient and I'll gladly pay the price. Please don't ignore my ignorance, I'm still not sure why I would really need a 50mm prime for - I need to know exactly what it's mostly used for, so I can justify paying $$ for it. Also, suggest some other lens, and tell why.

[karusel]

I think I may have a wide angle winner. :)

Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO II 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8

[w10d]

Do consider the Canon 50mm 1.8.
On the 10D you've got a cheap, fast portrait lens (80mm in 35mm terms). If you really want to shoot low light the 1.4 may help, but it's a lot more money for half a stop extra :)

[vvizard]

I've just gotten the 10D with the 50mm f/1.4. I'm saving for a new wide-angle at the moment. To be perfectly honest with you (and others, please don't flame me for my lack of sense :-P) I don't see what's the big deal with a 50mm prime either..

It's not wide enough, nor long enough :-P It sure as hell is bright/fast enough though :) I really love it because of the aparture, but as soon as I get my 17-40 or 15-30, I'm pretty sure this lens won't get much "sensor-time"(tm). According to EXIF-info, it acts as a 77mm on the 10D. According to Math, it acts as a 80mm. For me, that's a focal-length I'm really not very fond of. I don't shoot portraits, but it's probably pretty good for it. At least I've read that the 85mm is considered to be a very good portrait-lens. If so, this lens is almost the same focal-length on the 10D. The Bokeh looks awsome to me (although I have no other lenses to test against). As a bonus, you can snatch pictures in very little light. Combined with low iso-noise on 10D, this makes it possible to do low-light shooting. Have a look at my iso-test to see what I mean:

http://vvizard.net/pics/vvizard/iso-test/

I'm also very impressed by how this setup responds to sharpening. When I read lens-reviews before buying this cam (and yes, it's my first SLR ever), I saw a lot of "things" (cromatic abbrev-something I think it's called) in pictures. And the more the reviewer tried to sharpen the image, the more halo's would show up in it.

With this setup, I can USM (unsharpen mask) my pics in photoshop, straight to the place you don't say out loud, and I've never seen a halo on my shots.. EVER! Of course when sharpened to much, grain will be noticable, but halo's and other "strange" things.. Never seen them.. Have I gotten a lucky sample? Maybe.. I don't know.. But I'm sure is impressed!

http://vvizard.net/pics/vvizard/

[openspace]

Ok. I gotta ask. It seems like oh so very many of us have a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4. But be honest. How much do you really use your 50mm?

Usually the only time I find I mount my 50mm (on the camera that is ;)) is when I choose to limit myself to one focal length for purposes of putting my skills to the test.* But beyond that, it stays in the bag, and I use a 28-70 f/2.8 for all my "normal" shots.

*It has often been said that the myriad tools available to today's modern technology-addicted photographer have stunted our growth as artists. Zooms, auto white balance, and Photoshop have all made photography inordinately easier in many respects, but in many ways, these tools have also become crutches. Why take the time to understand light, form, or framing when we can mount a zoom, crop in Photoshop or adjust levels later?

Do these things still matter? I think so. And so do a majority of "Beginning Photography" teachers. That is why so many of them still start their beginning students out with pinhole cameras, or send them out in the field with a single 50mm lens. Equipment be damned. Anybody can take a picture. But few are true artists. It's not about focusing the lens. It's about developing the eye.

So every once in a while, I go out in the field with nothing but my 50mm and maybe a polarizer to cut glare. No zoom. No external flash. And when I get home, no cropping or adjusting levels in Photoshop. It can be an exercise in humility. But it also gets me back to basics. Just how good is my eye when I remove my "technology goggles"? Give it a try!

[w10d]

Great points in Openspace's post!

Just a little background on the 50mm 'thing', for those who are new to photography...

Every film format has a focal lenght of lens refered to as 'standard', the relationship is between the film format (size) and focal length. For a 6x7 format it's around 100mm, 6x45 + 6x6 around 80mm, and 35mm is around 50mm. The results obtained with such a lens should be natural to the eye when viewed at a normal distance (i.e. relative to print size). Wide or long lenses produce images with an altered perspective (which in turn can make them more interesting).

When a camera has '35mm' type lenses, but a sensor smaller than 35mm format, there is the crop or magnification factor (lets not argue here), resulting in the lens producing results like those of longer lenses on 35mm cameras. The 50mm lens comes out around 80mm, traditionally considered good as a portrait lens, a little longer than 'standard'.

Thought for the day: Think of a zoom as a range of lenses rather than a cropping device - If you like the 'look' of a particular zoom setting, try zooming with your feet ;)

[DaveG]

openspace wrote:
Ok. I gotta ask. It seems like oh so very many of us have a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4. But be honest. How much do you really use your 50mm?

Usually the only time I find I mount my 50mm (on the camera that is ;)) is when I choose to limit myself to one focal length for purposes of putting my skills to the test.* But beyond that, it stays in the bag, and I use a 28-70 f/2.8 for all my "normal" shots.

*It has often been said that the myriad tools available to today's modern technology-addicted photographer have stunted our growth as artists. Zooms, auto white balance, and Photoshop have all made photography inordinately easier in many respects, but in many ways, these tools have also become crutches. Why take the time to understand light, form, or framing when we can mount a zoom, crop in Photoshop or adjust levels later?

Do these things still matter? I think so. And so do a majority of "Beginning Photography" teachers. That is why so many of them still start their beginning students out with pinhole cameras, or send them out in the field with a single 50mm lens. Equipment be damned. Anybody can take a picture. But few are true artists. It's not about focusing the lens. It's about developing the eye.

So every once in a while, I go out in the field with nothing but my 50mm and maybe a polarizer to cut glare. No zoom. No external flash. And when I get home, no cropping or adjusting levels in Photoshop. It can be an exercise in humility. But it also gets me back to basics. Just how good is my eye when I remove my "technology goggles"? Give it a try!



I bought a 50 f1.4 for two reasons. First was the speed. Although my 16-35 and 70-200 f2.8 L lenses are great, they are still 2.8's. A lens of around 80-85 mm (effectively) that opens up to 1.4, gives me a wonderful lens for shooting things like basketball. I get either two stops more shutterspeeds with the 50 or two full stops of lower ISO. Either make a huge difference. For years I made my living shooting inside sports with a Nikkor 85 f1.8 so the 50 on the 10D makes me feel right at home.

The other reason that I got the 50 was to insure consistency in multiple H&S portrait shots. I guess that if I had some disipline, I could leave a zoom lens at a specific focal length and it would accomplish the same thing. In practice though I find that if I CAN tweak the composition I will. This looks good while I'm shooting but later the head sizes vary and that can be a big problem if the client wants to use them on a wall (think salespeople at a car dealership) or in a publication. The 50 just ensures this consistency from shot to shot.

What all of this boils down to is being like a golfer. You select the right club for the specific shot, and I like having the 50 f1.4 in my bag for this exact reason.

[msvirick]

karusel wrote:
I think I may have a wide angle winner. :)

Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO II 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8

What about Tameron 19-35. At about $180 cant beat.

[Canuck]

karusel wrote:
I think I may have a wide angle winner. :)

Tokina AT-X 270 AF PRO II 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8

Yes, this is all well and good, but try the Canon 16-35 F2.8L lens for wide ange and you will have a 25.6-56mm
F2.8 L lens on the 10D, but the downside, of course as with L glass you pay dearly for it but is it ever sharp! Now the next question is how Sigma EX series do comparatively speaking. I can vouch for the Sigma 120-300mm EX F2.8 lens!

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[robertwgross]

What the others have written can be valid, but I have a slightly different set of priorities. I try to do a lot of nature photography, and I typically cover a lot of ground as I hike along looking for landscapes, flowers, wildlife, or whatever. As a result of the distances and terrain, it is rather impractical for me to carry along a whole selection of perfect lenses for this or that. I mean, I have tried that and just gets to be a no fun experience to carry all of that crap along with a heavy tripod.

So, I spend some preparation time in trying to equip myself with the most versatility in the least weight. For my D60 camera, I often go with only a single Canon 28-200mm zoom. Since it goes from wide to long in the one lens, it can cover almost everything. With it I will have one polarizer to fix the sky, and I will have one extension tube to allow semi-macro shots of the insides of flowers. Only on some occasions will I augment that with the monster wildlife lens (Sigma 170-500mm zoom) or with the wide Canon 20-35mm zoom.

Of course, if I were shooting in a studio or at a wedding ceremony, then none of this applies.

---Bob Gross---

[DaveG]

robertwgross wrote:
What the others have written can be valid, but I have a slightly different set of priorities. I try to do a lot of nature photography, and I typically cover a lot of ground as I hike along looking for landscapes, flowers, wildlife, or whatever. As a result of the distances and terrain, it is rather impractical for me to carry along a whole selection of perfect lenses for this or that. I mean, I have tried that and just gets to be a no fun experience to carry all of that crap along with a heavy tripod.

So, I spend some preparation time in trying to equip myself with the most versatility in the least weight. For my D60 camera, I often go with only a single Canon 28-200mm zoom. Since it goes from wide to long in the one lens, it can cover almost everything. With it I will have one polarizer to fix the sky, and I will have one extension tube to allow semi-macro shots of the insides of flowers. Only on some occasions will I augment that with the monster wildlife lens (Sigma 170-500mm zoom) or with the wide Canon 20-35mm zoom.

Of course, if I were shooting in a studio or at a wedding ceremony, then none of this applies.

---Bob Gross---

I guess there two ways to look at it. You can go for a walk and you can take some pictures while you're at it. Or you can go take pictures while walking your gear in.

I'm planning on getting the LowePro Nature Trekker II AW backpack over the next couple of days so I CAN carry all of my Canon stuff into the field.

I went on a 10K hike in a national park back in October and it was very frustrating to have to pare my gear down to basically my 10D and the 24-85. I saw macro shots and wildlife shots and other scenes that cried out for things that that lens just couldn't give me. I didn't have a tripod either and that always makes this little voice yell in my ear "You don't really care about this do you?" and I HATE that voice!

I looked at and almost bought the LowePro Mini Trekker backpack. I rejected it in favour of the larger Nature Trekker simply because I wouldn't have to leave stuff behind. I want to own different lenses because they do different jobs. Then I want them, and other accessories to be with me since they don't do any job at all when they're left at home.

[robertwgross]

I have the same LowePro pack, and I find it too large for most of the human-powered things that I do. A smaller shoulder-style pack works better for me. Sometimes, I carry the camera and single lens in a holster, and that is all.

Carrying a lot of gear over a long distance in one day can be very tiring. What is worse is to have to carry it up a huge elevation gain. There was a big hike on Nov. 8, and one version of it was 24-25 miles with 11,000 feet of elevation gain. Needless to say, about twelve ounces of bare digital camera was the maximum that was carried.

If we are carrying far too much "stuff", then we can't really concentrate on the nature subjects.

---Bob Gross---

[DaveG]

True you don't want to carry too much stuff. But I come to the Canon DSLR world from carrying a Toyo Field camera, film holders and five lenses - plus "stuff" - so the Nature Trekker and the Canon gear - 16-35, 100 mm macro, 50 mm 1.4, 24-85, 70-200 f2.8 L, the 1.4 extender an Elan II, a 550 flash and a Gitzo tripod doesn't seem all that much.

[openspace]

DaveG wrote:
True you don't want to carry too much stuff. But I come to the Canon DSLR world from carrying a Toyo Field camera, film holders and five lenses - plus "stuff" - so the Nature Trekker and the Canon gear - 16-35, 100 mm macro, 50 mm 1.4, 24-85, 70-200 f2.8 L, the 1.4 extender an Elan II, a 550 flash and a Gitzo tripod doesn't seem all that much.

Wow. That is a lot of stuff! I'm with Bob on this one. When I have 45 pounds of backpacking gear on my back and a 2500 foot climb ahead of me, I do everything I can to minimize my camera gear weight.

Most of the time, I take a Tamron 28-200 LD Aspherical, and a Tamrom 90mm macro, polarizers and neutral densities, one 10D body, a lightweight Bogen 3205 tripod and medium ball head - I use it as a walking stick - plus a remote release, extra batteries, cleaning supplies and of course CF cards. I carry all of this in a SunDog Action Telezoom case and one SunDog lens case.

No, the Tamron 28-200 isn't as sharp as my 28-70 and 80-200 f/2.8's, but generally I can make up for this with USM in Photoshop. I'd love to take my pro lenses, but I just can't justify the weight or the pack space. As is, the 10D is twice as heavy as my old Elan IIe, and when you're backpacking at 3500 meters, every ounce does count. A good 17mm wide angle prime would be a nice addition though.

[Longwatcher]

openspace wrote:
Ok. I gotta ask. It seems like oh so very many of us have a 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4. But be honest. How much do you really use your 50mm?


I use my 50/1.4 for two things.

Infrared pictures and when I need that bit extra aperture because of low light. Other then that it stays in the bag, but then that is why I got it and well worth it too.

between my 16-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8, I have the important focal length range covered, but every once in awhile the f1.4 sure comes in handy to avoid uping the iso above 400 which I hate to do and sometimes even with that lens I have had to go to 800 or 1600. Aperture is why I got "L" glass and the 50/1.4, otherwise I would have been just as happy with my 28-135 and 75-300 IS. [okay a bit of exaggeration as the "L" glass is slightly sharper and way faster on the auto focus]

[CyberDyneSystems]

DaveG wrote:
True you don't want to carry too much stuff. But I come to the Canon DSLR world from carrying a Toyo Field camera, film holders and five lenses - plus "stuff" - so the Nature Trekker and the Canon gear - 16-35, 100 mm macro, 50 mm 1.4, 24-85, 70-200 f2.8 L, the 1.4 extender an Elan II, a 550 flash and a Gitzo tripod doesn't seem all that much.

I hike with two lenses only. (and some T-cons)

A 500mm f/4.5 on a tripod,. :)

..and a Canon 17-40mm f/4 in its little bag hanging under the 'pod.

I can't carry much more than that! :D

[robertwgross]

openspace wrote:
Wow. That is a lot of stuff! I'm with Bob on this one. When I have 45 pounds of backpacking gear on my back and a 2500 foot climb ahead of me, I do everything I can to minimize my camera gear weight.


In the old days, we would be carrying 45 pounds of backpacking gear, which left us to carry only a lightweight camera. Then I spent some years learning lightweight techniques, and that allowed me to carry more camera gear. On one trip in July, I had only 20 pounds of backpacking gear and about 20 of camera gear. However, this is getting off the main topic.

---Bob Gross---

[openspace]

Yea, but I gotta have my Exhaustive Compendium of Platonic Philosophy, a couple six packs and a box of ding dongs. I just gotta. ;)

Twenty pounds of gear is doable for about 3 nights, but if I'm headed above timberline, I won't mess with a flimsy tent or a superlight sleeping bag. Chalk it up to one too many August snowstorms.