Total novice seeking lens advice

[Claire]

Hi,
I'm really new to photography and I know nada about lenses. I've read heaps of lens threads, but still confused (plus it's too much to read).

I'm considering a telezoom (ehm, if that's what you call 'em... :oops: ). See! I don't even know the right vocabulary!

I want to be able to have a decent zoom but no clue what to look for. As my budget is fairly tight I can't splash out too much cash. What would be a decent zoom for a relativel cheap price?

Mainly want to take portraits, snapshots and the like. If someone has the time to explain the different types of lenses too, then I'd be eternally greatful.

/Claire

[Jesper]

Here is an interesting website which explains a lot about the Canon EOS system. There's also a section about Canon EF lenses and the different categories they fit in: http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

Unfortunately, with lenses, "more expensive is better" is true most of the time, with the exception of the EF 50 f/1.8, which is a very small, cheap (about $ 70 in the USA) but very good lens, and good for portaits especially on cameras with an 1.6x crop factor (the 300D and 10D).

[robertwgross]

That's kind of a broad question.

Start from the assumption that on a 35mm camera, a 50mm lens is considered standard. In other words, it gives you a perspective like what the eyeball sees. For the time being, let's ignore the fact that a typical digital camera has a 1.6 factor hidden in the body, so the 50mm standard lens presents an 80mm view.

So, if 50mm is standard, then anything in lower numbers than that is a wide angle lens, and anything in higher numbers than that is a telephoto lens.

If you were trying to shoot the Grand Canyon, you would want something like the 15 or 20 or 25mm lens for wide angle.

If you were trying to shoot wildlife, then it depends on the distance and size of the animals. For example, for an African elephant at 50 yards, then maybe a telephoto at 100 or 150mm will do. If you were after a hummingbird at 10 yards, something like 300 or 400mm would be necessary. Many birders use 500 or 600mm.

Still assuming that 50mm standard, then a lens that zooms from 50 to 100mm would be a 2 times zoom. One that goes from 50 to 200mm would be a 4 times zoom. One that goes from 25 to 100mm would also be a four times zoom. Often, non-SLR cameras are described in zoom factor this way. Normally though, interchangeable lenses for a DSLR are simply described in the focal length or focal length range, like 100-400mm.

Lenses also are described with their wide-open aperture, such as f/2.8 or f/4 or f/5.6. The lower the number, the more light it is able to gather. As a general rule, the lower the aperture number, the more the lens costs, but the better it will be for shooting in dim light, or to allow the greatest control in depth of field.

---Bob Gross---

[Persian-Rice]

For beginners buy the 50 1.8, it speaks for itself. L quality'ish images but all that for $70

Listen to Mr. Gross thats some good info for a beginner like yourself.
Maybe ill add some small notes. A Prime lens is a lens that has a fixed focal length while a zoom lens has an adjustable one.

Prime = 50mm or 80mm etc etc
Zoom = 50mm - 100mm or 100mm-400mm etc etc

So a zoom lens can cover anywhere from the first number to the second number... so a 50mm-100mm 50,51,52,53,54..............95,96,97,98,99,100

The general rule of thumb is, primes usually have very good optical quality, especially sharpness, compared to zooms. The downside is, they obviously have zero zooming capability. Thats not to say they always have better quality, but they usually do.

I will also elaborate on the 1.6 factor Mr.Gross stated. That is based on the senor of the camera. I wont go into too much detail, but on the Rebel and 10D there is a 1.6x crop factor. Meaning that whatever lens you have, you multiply the focal length by 1.6. Thats what the camera is actually seeing.

If you have some time, go through this site/faq, it covers everything you need to understand the basics.Just start at the top an read though, it will take a couple days............
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/

[ron chappel]

Hi claire :D
I'm abit sick right now so i'll jsut say which lenses and explain more about them later if i can


Telezoom is indeed the correct word by the way :D

I have used most of the available cheap'ish telezooms and found the following to be good

Canon EF 80-200 II An underated little lens.Really quite good!
Most ignore it because it only goes to 200mm but if that's what you need then this is THE bargain.A step up in sharpness from the 75-300

Canon EF 75-300 (now up to version III but they are all the same optically) This is the cheapest i would recommend in the x-300mm zooms.It does have faults but at least you can get quite good pics with it occasionally.
My website has some on it-have a search around there
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_3.htm

Canon 100-300
This one is either alot better or not much better than the 75-300 (depending who you talk to).Mine was much better at 300mm than any of the 75-300's i've used.
Well built,sharp,nice contrast,very fast focus,etc
it's all good.I highly recommend it

Sigma 70-300 APO macro super II
Havent used this one but owners do tend to say it's abit better than the canon 100-300.

Ones i've tried and DON'T like :shock: :
Canon 90-300 -has strong contrast but low sharpness(?) i just couldn't cope with it.I only got one sharp pic out of it when i had it

Sigma 100-300 DL
This one is super cheap and i must admit i got some allmost ok pics with it.
Basically it just isn't something you would want to keep though

[Claire]

Thanks a bunch guys! I'm going through the faq now. Gonna print out the stuff I'm interested in and read when I get home.

:)

[Canuck]

Stay away from the Sigma 70-300mm F4.5-5.6...it is a really crapppy lens!

Failing that, the rest of the lenses I would recommend are from $600 up.

[yallcome]

If someone has the time to explain the different types of lenses too, then I'd be eternally greatful.

/Claire

All I can say is, you're very brave to ask for input on this hot subject from this bunch of folks!! :lol:

You will get some good advice, though. It just takes a lot of sifting. Remember that 50% to 75% of the fun is in the research and learning.

[Persian-Rice]

To say that there are an abundance of lenses to choose from is an understatement. You can even put a Nikon or Pentax Lens on your camera if you wanted to.

To keep things simple, stick with Canon, Tamron, Sigma or Tokina. The last three are considered the top aftermarket lens makers.......

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

They have reviews on a bunch of products, they also accept input from other users, so you get a broad range of reviews, pros, cons and comments. Check it out, Fred Miranda's site is one of the more popular photography sites out there. They don't have every lens listed, but they have some of the prominent ones.

BTW what is your budget?

[catastrophe]

Great thread! Persian-Rice mentioned that primes are good for beginners? Out of curiosity, is there another useful prime I should get after the 50mm f/1.8 II that is comparable in quality and price? I've done a fair bit of reading and no one seems to mention the other (non-L) primes that are good ones to have.

[DocFrankenstein]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36696&highlight=

This is something you may find worth reading ^^^

I also wanted to get a cheap zoom at the beginning. Then I decided to save some money and go for the nice 70-200 L IS

Gonna be a while while I save up for it though :D

http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/PageDisplay?dest=frames.jsp&currency=CAD&storeId=1 0001

[Persian-Rice]

Catastrophe, it's not that primes are good for beginners, any lens is good for a beginner, zoom or prime. It's the fact that its 70 bucks but has extremely high quality. IMO, there is absolutely no reason not to have one in your bag.

If you have a kit lens, I would suggest buying the 50 1.8 as a starter. It wont put a dent in your wallet let alone a scratch, but it will give you the feel of what is possible with a quality lens. Just don't expect to find many lenses with that quality again in lenses under 200-300 bucks. The next "best bang for the buck" lens is probably the 70-200 f4L, for $550. It performs better optically (in many cases and comparisons) then its $1200 and $1700 cousins the 2.8 L's. Its a little bit slower then the 2.8, but its still very very usable.

As far as I know, there aren't many or even maybe any that compare to the 50 1.8 when it comes to bang for the buck for something under bah $200.

[Canuck]

Here is hopefully a very quick rundown on optical quality...
The consumer grade lenses to include the one that comes in kit with the 300D is not very good at controlling chromatic abberations. The sometimes insanely expensive Canon L lenses are due to the fact that they are designed with either UD (ultra low distortion) lenses and as you go up you see CaFe2 (Calcium Flourite) lenses which really are awesome, but cost a few arms and legs. Basically in a lens you want a prism, but a very tight one. The prism that scatters all the light is cool to look at, but as you look closer, all the colours get muddled and murky and start blending. This is why consumer grade optics can be really crap for taking pics as I showed in this test: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36757 and towards the bottom is where I imbedded 3 pics all 100% crops from the original pics. Note how the Canon L lens is sharp, even at F3.5 and the Sigma one is left in the dust? That is because the Sigma makes a huge rainbow; the Canon makes a very tight one. For more info here's some info straight from Canon...well they used to have a section on describing the technology. I can't seem to find it. I like the way the setup was before.

This again is an incredibly detailed topic and it can take a long time to explain. If you have had a physics class, I could go deeper as to indices of refraction and so on. That is where I will either loose you or it will make more sense. I actually did a thread on that to the effect of "Physics and Photography" some time ago.

There are 2 sides to this coin. 1) Get the really awesome glass now and pay for it up front and realise what you can do immediately; 2) get the cheaper glass and see what a difference can make when you step up in the world and it will no doubt make you appreciate the higher end glass later. I went with option 2 and it took me finding out how bad they were after mounting them on the 10D.

I have never used the nifty-fifty as it is called, but I have heard no complaints and I will be adding it to the arsenal in a few months. It may well be the best value for money lens out there.

Now to start sorting thru the 1,024 pics taken this past weekend at the Fairford airshow...Farnborough is this weekend and I expect to crack 10,000 pics sometime this weekend.

Hope this helps you.

[ron chappel]

Great thread! is there another useful prime I should get after the 50mm f/1.8 II that is comparable in quality and price? I've done a fair bit of reading and no one seems to mention the other (non-L) primes that are good ones to have.

No one mentions any other primes in particular because they are all VERY good and there are no particular bargains-nothing like the 50/1.8II anyways :cry:
I'm sure if you started a thread specifically with that question you would get some good resposes though.I have heard many mention the 28/2.8 as a pretty good deal for example.

[ron chappel]

Claire,as you can see,there are alot of people here prepared to talk you into buying a super expensive lens :D :D :D
Those lenses are indeed fantastic but don't feel pressured
The 'cheap' lenses do still take good pics most times :)

[Canuck]

Claire,as you can see,there are alot of people here prepared to talk you into buying a super expensive lens :D :D :D
Those lenses are indeed fantastic but don't feel pressured
The 'cheap' lenses do still take good pics most times :)

I beg to differ, somewhat...
Sigma 28-80 F3.5-5.6 and Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 both non APO are absolute crap of the highest order. See the link in the post I made above for the 28-80 at F3.5 vs the Canon at 3.5 and I think you will see. If you want more proof, click on the ones I didn't imbed and the EXIF is there for all shots.

[catastrophe]

Catastrophe, it's not that primes are good for beginners, any lens is good for a beginner, zoom or prime. It's the fact that its 70 bucks but has extremely high quality. IMO, there is absolutely no reason not to have one in your bag.
Thanks for the info. I'm just waiting for the UPS guy to hand me the 50mm 1.8 I ordered. :)

No one mentions any other primes in particular because they are all VERY good and there are no particular bargains-nothing like the 50/1.8II anyways :cry: ...I have heard many mention the 28/2.8 as a pretty good deal for example.
I was afraid of that. Thanks for the info... 28mm f2.8 you say... Hmmmmm.

[Mike H]

Great thread! Persian-Rice mentioned that primes are good for beginners? Out of curiosity, is there another useful prime I should get after the 50mm f/1.8 II that is comparable in quality and price? I've done a fair bit of reading and no one seems to mention the other (non-L) primes that are good ones to have.

This really depends on what subjects you photograph. Do you shoot scenics, portraits, sports, stage, or something else? If you ask about which primes to use for particular subjects we can be of more help.

Having said that, if you're an all-arounder, have a look at the 85/1.8 lens. It's more expensive than the 50/1.8, but so is every other lens that I know about. For about $325, you get a fast lens (works in low light) that is well made, focuses quickly and accurately, and produces sharp images. It's great for sports, stage, scenics, and portraits. A nice thing about the lens is that the quality is so high that you'll keep it even after you strike it rich and start buying L lenses. Mine is here to stay!

I hope this helps.

Mike H

[Claire]

I've gotten through probably a fourth of that FAQ document. Read it during lunch break. hehe

In all honest I have no budget! Going for my friend's wedding in Minnesota next April, so saving for that now. I'm just trying to learn about lenses so I have plenty of time to do research and maybe understand it all better. With a bit of luck I'll be able to save some cash to buy a tele sometime next year. Remind me to put down money on my Christmas wish list! Money and a 512MB card...

Hm, naturally I won't go without spending something more on photography this year. I'm trying to figure out if I should get a tripod or not right now. Broke the dirt cheap one I had a while back. As I don't use tripods very often, but feel I should have one, I'm looking at something light, decently sturdy and not too expensive. Found a Velborn one I'm considering so far.

The lenses mentioned here, are they good allround lenses?

/Claire

[robertwgross]

The average beginner gets a lot of use out of lenses from about 28mm up to about 80mm. Oddly enough, that is about the right range that is used for weddings, also.

But then, if you want to try to photograph Minnesota wildlife, you may want something that goes longer, like 100-200mm.

---Bob Gross---

[Persian-Rice]

If you want to shoot at a wedding, you will do all of it handheld. Since umm carrying a tripod around in a dress is not the coolest thing to do hehe.

You might want something that can handle low lighting situation, less chance of camera shake causing a big problem, something with a wider aperture. I'm pretty sure the person covering the wedding won't like having a big flash disrupting his lighting...........

Minnesota , as mentioned, has an abundance of areas great for shooting wildlife. So a longer focal length might be the remedy. If you really have the cash by then, 50 1.8 for shooting almost everything, and a zoom that can go to 200mm-300mm for everything else a 100-300 or 70-200..........

Again, I would research it down to the bone before buying something. Some pros and cons are more important to some then others. I don't care if a lens is big and heavy, some people cant stand it, y'know?

Al ot of times, things you are wondering about are covered in past threads, searching through the boards is also a very useful tool.

Cheers.

[ron chappel]

In all honest I have no budget! /Claire

Er does that mean you haven't decided how much you want to spend or you have so little that the word budget isn't applicable or you have so MUCH that you wouldn't bother with the word budget? :D :D :D :P

'scuse my silly sense of humour :oops: :)


Hey if you're going to minnesota next year it might be a good time to consider buying any big cost items,as the USA is the cheapest place to buy :) (you live in sweden at the moment ?)


The lenses mentioned here, are they good allround lenses?

/Claire

Would you like a description of the good and bad points of each lens?

[ron chappel]

Persian rice your sig line is hilarious 8)

[SENster7]

Speaking through my experience of being an owner of a Digital Rebel for only 5 months now, I have a few regrets on how I went about purchasing my lenses. I enjoyed doing the research on the lenses, but I enjoy learning by doing even better. I've always had P&S digital cameras, and I never took the time to learn more about shutter and aperture, this was my biggest mistake, had I learned more about shutter and aperture, it would have helped me making my lens purchases. I also wish that I read this forum deeper, I've learned so much from this forum in 5 months.

Looking back, and hindsight is always 20/20, I would have never purchased the Digital Rebel with the 18-55 kit lens, I would have just purchased the Digital Rebel body and purchased two lenses separately, the 50 f/1.8, and I would have purchased a 28-135, instead of the 28-105 which I purchased later. Out of the few lenses I own, I love my 50 f/1.8 the most. I love my 50 f/1.8 the most because it is light on the camera, sharp as a tack, and under $70. The 18-55 kit lens is slow, very limited range, and not that sharp. I recently purchased my first "L" lens, the 70-200 f/2.8L, it's no doubt a beauty, but it is very large in size, and not always practical to use. I tried the Sigma non-APO 70-300 and it was horrible, I returned it, I did hear some good results about the APO version though. I am now looking at getting the 24-70L, and possibly the 17-40L down the road to make up for the 18-70 gap that I now have, and I am also looking at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as well, but of course nothing compares to the Canon "L" series, and I would look into getting them because it is an investment. Everyone has a different way of getting to the lenses they ultimately get, but I must add that this forum will definitely be a great help, and I've learned so much from it!

[Claire]

Bob,
How much would a 28-88mm cost in the US? If I go into a store, that is. I don't want to buy online.

I am not that much into wildlife photography so probably wouldn't need a lens that goes for that stuff. I'm not the kind of person who'd like to lug around a huge lens.

Most likely I won't be able to afford the lens in time for the wedding. I'll have to do with the kit lens, but so far I've managed well with it. I'm such a beginner so I'm a happy bunny. :) I only want a macro, a tele, a bigger memory card, tripod and most of all - studio lighting. :D

Ron,
I wish I had enough money so I didn't need to have a budget! Unfortunately I don't have a buget because I am saving for that trip. I'm normally unemployed (doing summerjob now) and been subsitute teaching in spring. That money went for the 300D. The money I earn on the summerjob now will go towards the MN trip. You have no idea how much money it'll cost me! Travel, accommodation, dress, gift, hen party and sight seeing... :shock:
On the other hand, I get to be a bridesmaid, see MN, meet my best friends and will hopefully come home with tons of pics! :D

/Claire

[robertwgross]

Bob,
How much would a 28-88mm cost in the US?


Uhh, Canon makes the 28-85mm, which sells for about US$310.
There is a Canon 28-90mm, which is cheap.
There is a Canon 28-105mm, which is $230 or so.
The Canon 28-135mm with Image Stabilization goes for about $395.
The Canon 35-80mm is cheap.

---Bob Gross---

[danphoto1]

Just to add to the mix. I use the Canon 24-70 and it is the extreemly sharp and give good contrast. It is great when working with available light as well as flash fill,. Remember you will more than likly have your lenses for life but may change cameras several times I have used a number of Sigma lenses and still use some primes.I now try to use only Canon Glass. I think that you are better off to buy one grat lens and use it to it's fullest capacity. You leaarn every aspect of that lens L lens are very expensive but the results is so much better. I also found that The technogy the Sigma's did not workwell when I bough a new camera I had a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the gears inside the lens brok down in less than a year. It wouldn't focus. I had to get it repaired and shoot with another lens that wasn't as good. I also use the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and love it as well as the 14mm Prime 2.8 and 20mm1.8. Good luck because lens selection is the very important. again that 50mm prime or the 24-70 2.8 Canon for portaraits.


Dan

[Canuck]

Just to add to the mix. I use the Canon 24-70 and it is the extreemly sharp and give good contrast. It is great when working with available light as well as flash fill,. Remember you will more than likly have your lenses for life but may change cameras several times I have used a number of Sigma lenses and still use some primes.I now try to use only Canon Glass. I think that you are better off to buy one grat lens and use it to it's fullest capacity. You leaarn every aspect of that lens L lens are very expensive but the results is so much better. I also found that The technogy the Sigma's did not workwell when I bough a new camera I had a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the gears inside the lens brok down in less than a year. It wouldn't focus. I had to get it repaired and shoot with another lens that wasn't as good. I also use the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and love it as well as the 14mm Prime 2.8 and 20mm1.8. Good luck because lens selection is the very important. again that 50mm prime or the 24-70 2.8 Canon for portaraits.

Woo-hoo! Another Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX user. What do you think about it?

Dan