(D)SLR lenses newbie help needed!

[PekkaM]

Ok here I go again. I've had my G1 for three years now and have been planning on buying a digital SLR for some time now. Problem is, I'm totally confused by all the lenses available. Here are some questions on my mind:

1. Do I use same lenses on digital and film SLR's? The place where I like to buy stuff (www.technikdirekt.de) has separate lens categories for digital and classic SLR's lenses.

2. I've been looking at Sigma lenses. They seem to have different models for major camera brands. You cannot switch lenses between major camera brands?

3. I like shooting pictures of people, landscapes and some macro stuff (flowers etc.). I don't really need a zoom. What sort of lenses should I buy (like one fixed and one adjustable for wider angles)? Is a "50" a typical lens for normal photos and numbers smaller than that for wider angles?

4. Are the digital SLR's suitable for macro photography (like G1 for example) without special lenses?

5. Please explain the lens naming to me. Example: Sigma DC 3,5-5,6/18-50 C/AF (probably not a good buy if price is any indicator ;)

6. Recommend good starting lenses for me (probably ones you can find at www.technikdirekt.de).

[defordphoto]

Interesting choice of a nickname there...Anyway, I'll answer what I have time for:

1. Yes. Use the same lenses. Any lens that fits a film-based EOS camera will fit your digital EOS. That being said, not ALL accessories will work on all cameras. 99% of them will however.

2. You can switch lenses between major brands, but it takes odd adapters and you lose many of the functions of that lens. It is definitely not advisable to switch lenses between Canon/Nikon for instance.

3. There's a really long answer to that question and your question os not really specific enough. The ideal is to have a nice wide angle lens, a medium lens or two and then a long lens or two. Depends on what you're shooting.

4. No. ALL SLR's require special lenses. Some lenses have macro built-in and you can add close-up adpaters and extension tubes to make a normal lens act like a macro. There is a while new world of macro photography to be discovered when you enter the dSLR world.

5. Ehh...I'll skip this one. Too many odd names between all the manufacturers. I will say that when referring to Canon lenses, "L" means very good, very sharp and very expensive.

6. Not even going there. Too many variables and not enough information supplied. What do plan on shooting with this camera?

Good luck.

[PekkaM]

RFMSports wrote:
Interesting choice of a nickname there...Anyway, I'll answer what I have time for:

Yeah, thanks. My real name is Pekka and I use this nick on more than five different forums :)

3. There's a really long answer to that question and your question os not really specific enough. The ideal is to have a nice wide angle lens, a medium lens or two and then a long lens or two. Depends on what you're shooting.

6. Not even going there. Too many variables and not enough information supplied. What do plan on shooting with this camera?

Let's say one fixed lens for the standard photos of peole taken from ~3m away max (just snapshots). Another one (wide angle) for landscapes, hopefully with some adjustability if possible.

What is really the definition of "macro"? What does a lens with macro function have that normal one does not? Is it just an additional feature of lens or is a macro lens only for macro photography?

[hmhm]

PekkaM wrote:
...
Let's say one fixed lens for the standard photos of peole taken from ~3m away max (just snapshots). Another one (wide angle) for landscapes, hopefully with some adjustability if possible.
...
What is really the definition of "macro"? ...

Assuming a 1.6x crop camera, taking pictures of people could mean 50-70mm for tight shots, or 20-40mm for large groups. Wide-angle landscapes probably in the 15-30mm range, though telephoto lenses can be useful for landscapes, too.

If you're looking for lens recommendations, you should tell us what camera you're planning on buying, and what's your lens budget. There's a $100 recommendation (get the kit lens for the 300d) and a $4000 recommendation (16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200/2.8 IS), and recommendations all in between.

When you see "Sigma DC 3,5-5,6/18-50 C/AF", the part that's "universal" is the "3,5-5,6/18-50". That says that it's a zoom lens that varies between 18mm and 50mm, and that it's widest (fastest) aperture is f/3.5 at 18mm, and it is f/5.6 at 50mm, i.e. that it becomes progressively slower as you shift to telephoto. All the remaining letters are marketing designations, and are specific to Sigma (though I'd guess the AF means auto-focus).

Macro just means "I can take pictures of small stuff". A lens has a "closest focusing distance" that varies from one lens design to another. A macro lens can be placed very close to a subject, and thus can fill the frame with small subjects.

There's no single definition of how small it has to be for it to be macro. Macro lenses are sometimes evaluated in terms of "life size", e.g. something that shoots life size will allow you to fill the frame on a 1.6x camera with a subject that's 22mm wide (the size of the sensor). This level of macro requires custom lenses.

Whether a general-purpose is "macro enough" for you depends on what you plan to shoot. Full frame shots of very small insects will require a special lens, flowers or big butterflies might be okay with a general-purpose lens. You need to look at the specs of the lens to determine how macro it goes.
-harry

[PekkaM]

hmhm wrote:
If you're looking for lens recommendations, you should tell us what camera you're planning on buying, and what's your lens budget. There's a $100 recommendation (get the kit lens for the 300d) and a $4000 recommendation (16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200/2.8 IS), and recommendations all in between.

I'm currently planning on bying EOS300D (900-1000€) and hopefully no more than same amount on lenses. Is that Canon 1.8/50 II lens that goes for about 100€ good for just snapshots (I really don't need zoom at those moments)? I'd really like a wide angle, a tele is an option maybe at later time.

Is the focal distance in my G1 comparable to lenses bought for EOS300D if I multiply G1's focal distance by 1.6?

What are the most popular well received general purposes lenses?

When you see "Sigma DC 3,5-5,6/18-50 C/AF", the part that's "universal" is the "3,5-5,6/18-50". That says that it's a zoom lens that varies between 18mm and 50mm, and that it's widest (fastest) aperture is f/3.5 at 18mm, and it is f/5.6 at 50mm, i.e. that it becomes progressively slower as you shift to telephoto. All the remaining letters are marketing designations, and are specific to Sigma (though I'd guess the AF means auto-focus).

I found out that C stands for Canon.

There's no single definition of how small it has to be for it to be macro. Macro lenses are sometimes evaluated in terms of "life size", e.g. something that shoots life size will allow you to fill the frame on a 1.6x camera with a subject that's 22mm wide (the size of the sensor). This level of macro requires custom lenses.

So the designation 1:1 on some lenses means that?

[gsmx2]

PekkaM wrote: I'm currently planning on bying EOS300D (900-1000€) and hopefully no more than same amount on lenses. Is that Canon 1.8/50 II lens that goes for about 100€ good for just snapshots (I really don't need zoom at those moments)? I'd really like a wide angle, a tele is an option maybe at later time.

From what you describe and with a $1000 budget here's what I would do:

1. Get the lens kit 18-55 zoom with 3.5-5.6 apeture. As good starting point.
2. A 50 mm primary is a very good lens for your portraits. Canon offers three models:

50 mm 1.8 = $80.00. Good basic lens...but for you, you may want to move up to either their 50 mm 1.4 USM lens OR their 50 mm 2.5 Macro lens for about $300 or $250 respectively. The choice is dependant on whether you will shoot more in lower light or want to add Macro into this lens. 1.4 can focus to .55 m. Macro version can focus to .23 m (lens to sensor)

Now I would go shoot for a couple of weeks and find out where my equipment was limiting me? Did you wish you had a better flash in a number of circumstances? Do you love macro and now want to spend some of your lens money on extension tubes? Tripod not stable enough to support $1200 worth of equipment? Find that 90% of your shots are taken with a focal length of 32 ("normal viewing")? Want a little more zoom? Need more compact disk storage space? Need a portable device to download your photos.

That's when you can decide how to get the most bang for your buck for something that works for YOU. $700 isn't unlimited funds, so you don't want to squander it.

If you still want to use it to purchase glass, you'll have a better idea what glass YOU will use in a month.

Good luck and congrats on the camera.

gsm x2

[CyberDyneSystems]

I agree totally with all that's been said.

If you get a 300D,. do get the kit lens,. it is a bargain at another $100.00 or so to the price.

Gsmx2's recomendation for the 50mm f/1.8 prime at about $75.00 is one you will hear repeated all over these forums. It is a must have lens for a steal.

After that you willl be loooking for something a little longer as you will be limited to the 50mm range with both lenses...

But I suggest use those two leses for a while. See what you feel of the quality and see what your style and subject matter is. You may want to get a mid range zoom lens like the 28-135mm IS (a great "all purpose" lens) but you may find yourself immediatley wanting a longer telephoto...

Also the 18-55mm and 50mm f/1.8 will be great benchmarks for you to see what kind of glass quality you require.

[morenoar]

EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE. Since I too am new to the world of photography, why would you recommend the 50mm f/1.8 if the 300d comes with an 18-55mm lens? Is there a HUGE difference in the way the 50mm takes photos? I am only asking cause I like the way the kit lens takes shots. Please enlighten me (yes this is a new word for me this year. I told myself I will use 1new word every month in my vocabulary)

Thanks

[proximo]

The kit lens has a minimum aperture of f/3.5 making it relatively slow. You'll find the 50mm f1.8 lens much more useful in low light situations, particularly indoors.

[defordphoto]

PekkaM wrote:
RFMSports wrote:
Interesting choice of a nickname there...Anyway, I'll answer what I have time for:

Yeah, thanks. My real name is Pekka and I use this nick on more than five different forums :)


Okee dokee. The reason it's so interesting is that our forum owner is also named Pekka. Anyway, welcome! I see many have followed up on your question, es expected, and you should be well on your way to making a lens selection. Good luck.

[PekkaM]

Well, then it would seem that my needs would be best served by Canon 1.4/50 (the less flash the better in my opinion) and one of the WideZoom-lenses listed here: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/zoom_intro.htm (the ones with fixed petal shape hood are probably a bad idea since I like to use filters every now and then?)

Is the only macro option a lens with macro feature or can it be achieved by some extension or closeup lens (or whatever those things are called).

[gsmx2]

morenoar wrote:
EXCUSE MY IGNORANCE. Since I too am new to the world of photography, why would you recommend the 50mm f/1.8 if the 300d comes with an 18-55mm lens? Is there a HUGE difference in the way the 50mm takes photos? I am only asking cause I like the way the kit lens takes shots. Please enlighten me (yes this is a new word for me this year. I told myself I will use 1new word every month in my vocabulary)

Thanks

morenoar,

Good question. There are a couple of reasons that I really like this lens despite the fact that I have the kit lens.

1. As mentioned, it is much better in low light situations.

I don't want to pass this off as a great shot, it isn't. It was shot handheld at 1/13 of a second in a candid situation at a campfire. ISO was pushed to 800, F-stop was 1.8. It's a shot with a mood and it survived "the cut." A month before I took similar shots with the kit lens. I deleted them all because they were way too fuzzy shot at nearly a second.
http://www.avenuecable.com/~gsmx2/Cach03screen017.JPG

2. I also like the 50mm primary because it forces ME to move to fill the lens, and when I move, I take better photographs. It's too easy to ZOOM to fill the lens, and zooming in and zooming out with a lens does do more than just fill the frame. I also find that I think more about the composition when I am moving rather than just zooming.

This lens isn't kept on the camera...but it's definitely nearby at all times. For the price, it is very very useful.

gsm x2

[hmhm]

PekkaM wrote:
Well, then it would seem that my needs would be best served by Canon 1.4/50.

If money isn't an object, many people go for the 50/1.4, which is half a stop faster (e.g. you might be able to do shutter speeds of 1/90 second at f/1.4 vs. 1/60 second at f/1.8). It also has more rugged build quality, and is slightly sharper at most apertures.

But on a budget, I don't think that's necessarily the best place to spend the money.

At $80USD or so, the 50/1.8 is almost always a reasonable addition, holding the role of "fast lens". Add the kit lens for another $100USD. On the telephoto end, you might consider the 70-200/4 or 28-135IS. I don't know that I'd bother with an ultra-wide zoom, given the 300d kit lens.

Consider saving some money for additional "stuff", like flash cards, a bag, extra batteries, maybe hard disk space for your PC, CD-RW (how are you going to archive your shots), printer, etc., etc.
-harry

[PekkaM]

No worry, I have bunch of CF-cards, a DVD+RW-drive, 400 gigs of HD and all the other stuff already. I'm not on a really tight budget either (if need arises). The orginal sum was just a guess to give some direction.

I'm in no hurry to buy anything though so maybe I'll wait for better weathers anyway (it's really freezing here) now that I have the basic idea what I'll need.

[PekkaM]

Oh, one more question: What kind of lenses would cover the same focal lengths as G1? The lens says "7-21mm 1:2.0-2.5".

[hmhm]

PekkaM wrote:
Oh, one more question: What kind of lenses would cover the same focal lengths as G1? The lens says "7-21mm 1:2.0-2.5".

The G1 is 34-102 in 35mm equivalent. That range corresponds to 21-64 on a 300D (or any 1.6x crop camera). The apertures of f/2 through f/2.5 apply equivalently to the 300d.
-harry

[PekkaM]

hmhm wrote:
The G1 is 34-102 in 35mm equivalent. That range corresponds to 21-64 on a 300D (or any 1.6x crop camera). The apertures of f/2 through f/2.5 apply equivalently to the 300d.

So to get same widest angle as G1, a 300D would need a 21-lens?

I've been looking at wide angle lens 17-35. Would those extra 4mm give me a much wider angle? How does one calculate the effect of change in focal distance?

[Belmondo]

You can get part of your answer here:

http://www.sweeting.org/mark/lenses/

[PekkaM]

Oh well. It seems there are NO EOS300D's available in Finland at the moment, even the official importer has no idea when they'll get more. :(

(well I found one with kit lens and 512CF for 1495€ :shock:)

German store doesn't reply to my queries of availability...