Need Advice: Time to get good gear

[TheLadySabine]

Hello...

First off, I want to say how much I am enjoying this place, I am so glad I found it!

I've been shooting with a Canon S2, and I am preparing to dive into DSLR. So my questions are many. In my reasearch I was thinking a 40D would serve my needs well and be a good place to start. Sound reasonable?

However I get completely lost once we are talking about lenses. SO... what I have figured out is that having L series IS USM type gear would be very good... but what I don't clearly understand is what mm ranges are best to have. There are so many ranges, I'm quite perplexed by it all. Are narrower ranges more effective than broader ones?

What do you find most effective? :D

I want to be equipped for a variety of situations. From taking shots of eagles a couple hundred feet away, mountain ranges, to the hairs on the back of a bumble bee. So the spectrum of what I want to be able to shoot is about as broad as my questions.

Lenses up to around $1500 each are within my range. Maybe not all at once mind you... lol But in due course. I figure I will get the body, and two lenses to start.

Also... these warranties you can buy... do you find them needful/useful? Also, can warranties be purchased after the equipment? I see some places offer them for less than others.

Thanks in advance for your help!!!


Yours in learning,

[neil85]

first and for most on lenses. what do you typically shoot? if you are using the zoom a lot on your S2 you may want to look into a lens that will get you up to 200mm.

if you are not using the zoom much you wouldnt need to worry about length at first


L glass is great. i personally have the 30D with 28-135mm lens and then a 70-200mm lens.

the mm is the focal range of the lens. the larger the mm number the closer youll be able to make an object appear. (being a longer distance away but taking a "close" shot)

the 40D would be a good camera for you to start with. one thing for you to know is that it is a crop sensor camera. for standard lenses this wont be an issue but if you want to get into ultra wide angle lenses youll be better going with a lens specifically made for the sensor (aps-c is the technically name for the sensor)

[TheLadySabine]

first and for most on lenses. what do you typically shoot? if you are using the zoom a lot on your S2 you may want to look into a lens that will get you up to 200mm.

if you are not using the zoom much you wouldnt need to worry about length at first


L glass is great. i personally have the 30D with 28-135mm lens and then a 70-200mm lens.

the mm is the focal range of the lens. the larger the mm number the closer youll be able to make an object appear. (being a longer distance away but taking a "close" shot)

the 40D would be a good camera for you to start with. one thing for you to know is that it is a crop sensor camera. for standard lenses this wont be an issue but if you want to get into ultra wide angle lenses youll be better going with a lens specifically made for the sensor (aps-c is the technically name for the sensor)

Neil...

First off... I truly thank you for taking the time to respond, it is deeply appreciated.

I do actually shoot a good bit of zoom, I'll push the limits of the glass on my S2, but I won't go into the digital range on it, because without fail, it's a crumby shot. I like to shoot architecture, landscapes, wildlife, people, macros... so pretty much everything.

What is ironic, is that the two lens ranges you listed are the two I am most strongly leaning towards. They seem to be pretty solid proformers for most applications.

Thank you for the FYI at the end, I genuinely have no idea what that means. (My extreme newness is desperately apparent... I have no doubt.) But I'll do some research based on your information, and see what I can learn.

The most important thing, is that whatever I buy can grow with me if I trade up in cameras at some point.

Again I appreciate your time and input.


Kindest regards,

[neil85]

not a problem. im far from smart with all the lingo and know how that youll find/receive on this board.

i did not get real technical in the post as i know others will chime in with more technical info. i just wanted to get you started with some basics.

as far as growing up with you, the EF-S lenses tend to be very nice lenses. many have compared the 10-22 to L series or almost L series (canon will not name an EF-S lense an L lens) as well as i beleive the EF-S 18-55 (dont quote me on that one though)

If i got the 2nd lens right both of them hold their value a lot like an L lens does. the 10-22 is around $680 brand new but still sells for $550 1 yr old to give you an idea.

i love my 70-200. i picked up the 2.8 IS version and im glad i did. i personally have not had but a few times that ive wished i had a longer lens. there are times when down by the lake that it would be cool to have a longer lens but i cant justify the price for how little ill use it. if you tend not to go into the digital zoom im thinking you will like the range of the 70-200.

as far as landscapes the 28mm MAY be wide enough for you. if not there are a hand full of UWA(ultra wide angle) lenses that would fit the 40D (canon 10-22, sigma 10-20 are 2 main ones)

the canon can be had for $690 new (canon instant rebate currently to make it $640 at participating retailers) and the sigma is $500.


just read up as much as you con on this site. there is truely a large wealth of knowledge and everybody is very nice.

a few things to read up on

focal length
aperature (f-stop)
depth of field (DOF)

im not sure how much you have ventured with your S2 or what settings can be adjusted in it though but those are 3 main settings/concepts to read up on to help you.

as far as the crop sensor part goes, a film camera is a 35mm camera. when you get into digital a DSLR that can take the same image is called a "full frame" camera. there are also 1.3X crop sensors (1Ds series i believe) and then the 30D,40D are 1.6X crop sensors.

this means that if you were to compare a full frame to a 1.6X and you had the same lens on both bodies with them both set to the same focal length, the full frame camera would physically be closer to the object then the 1.6x crop camera to capture the same image.

this is becuase the 70-200mm on a full frame is just that, 70-200. when you put it on a 1.6x crop sensor camera it is essentially a 112-320mm lens.

hopefully others will chime in with maybe a more technical term. there are different sensors (FF, 1.3,1.6) becuase it is cheaper to make a 1.6 sensor then a full frame (FF) sensor

[TheLadySabine]

Neil...

You are a veritable buffet of information. I'm going to digest this and read up on the things you suggested. I will no doubt, come back with more questions.

I thank you for your generosity. :) (I shall try not to strain it. ;))

Yours most kindly,

[tiktaalik]

This may be slightly blasphemous, but while my 70-200 2.8IS produces gorgeous images, I find I hardly use it. It's just not long enough for wildlife, even on a 40D in my experience. You might look at the 100-400L for your eagles.

The 28-135 is a good lens to start with and it was one of my first two lenses. I did replace it with the 24-70L though.

The 28-135 has a 'macro' setting but it isn't a true macro in that it doesn't produce a life size image on the sensor. You need one of the dedicated macro lenses, like the 100mm which I like a whole lot, for that. And don't be fooled by the lack of the L on the 100mm macro - it's a stunning lens.

[PhotosGuy]

but while my 70-200 2.8IS produces gorgeous images, I find I hardly use it. It's just not long enough for wildlife, even on a 40D in my experience. You might look at the 100-400L for your eagles. I thought about the 100-400 a long time. But feel I'll get more use out of the 70-200 f/2.8 & have just added a 2X TC so it converts to a 140-400 f/5.6. The jury is still out, but I think it will be the right choice for me, & maybe for Sabine, too.

[JeffreyG]

I thought about the 100-400 a long time. But feel I'll get more use out of the 70-200 f/2.8 & have just added a 2X TC so it converts to a 140-400 f/5.6. The jury is still out, but I think it will be the right choice for me, & maybe for Sabine, too

You have to be serious about reach to want to lug a lens like the 100-400 to too many places. I prefer my 70-300 primarily because it is portable and sharp.

In low light I use the 135L, sometimes with a 1.4TC.

[Glenn NK]

You have to be serious about reach to want to lug a lens like the 100-400 to too many places. I prefer my 70-300 primarily because it is portable and sharp.

In low light I use the 135L, sometimes with a 1.4TC.

And the 100/400 is a push/pull zoom - something I absolutely detest after using one many years ago. If it used rotation for zooming, it would be my choice.

On the bright side, it was introduced in 1998, so it MAY be due for upgrading soon (fingers crossed tightly).

[JeffreyG]

And the 100/400 is a push/pull zoom - something I absolutely detest after using one many years ago. If it used rotation for zooming, it would be my choice.

On the bright side, it was introduced in 1998, so it MAY be due for upgrading soon (fingers crossed tightly).

Maybe Canon will do a 200-400 f/4 IS like the Nikon. Of course, that lens is even heavier and costs over $4000.

[GTriever]

For shooting eagles, 400mm and up... and that may still be too short. You may want to check out the Bird Forum guys or Andy Bright's web site for lots of info on birding lenses. For the hairs on bumblebees, either the EF-S 60mm or the EF 100mm Macro lenses. HTH.

[JeffreyG]

For shooting eagles, 400mm and up... and that may still be too short.

Serious (and I do mean serious) birders use supertelephoto primes almost exclusively. This is for the reach, the sharpness and the ability to use teleconverters while retaining AF and good sharpness.

But this is headed down a very expensive path. 500 and 600 primes cost like used cars and then they require very expensive tripods and heads to use.

If you are "sorta" into birding the 100-400 might be an OK alternate, or look at one of the slow primes like the 400 f/5.6

A slow 70-300 like mine is only adequate for the birdfeeder.

Keep in mind that I'm discussing adequate here far and away beyond what a superzoom digicam can do. My 70-300 probably starts one step better for birding than an 18X digicam. The 100-400 is better yet and the serious guys are as described above.

[tonylong]

Sabine, if you are still checking on this thread,

First, welcome from a fellow resident of the Pacific Northwest! I've never been to Grapeview, but I can see that you are in a very scenic part of our region, so you have great opportunities abounding! I need to get up to the peninsula more! Weather be damned!

Second, on with your questions! A 40D would be a great camera to launch into the world of DSLRs with. Your S camera is a great "learning tool" because it has manual and semi-manual controls, so if you are used to having more control using that camera then the 40D will feel like you've taken a Big Step Forward! At this point, I'd spend a lot of time getting the fine points of your S2 IS camera down -- learning how to work with Manual, Tv and Av will be the key to success with a DSLR.

As far as lenses go, here are some ideas:

First, when you are using your S2, your focal length range gives you a "field of view" that ranges from normal but not "wide" to a nice telephoto. So, it gives you, on the wide end, a field of view similar to what a 24mm lens would give to a 40D and on the long end similar to what a 300mm would give you on a 40D.

So, the key question is, where to you want to start? I have a list that, since you mentioned a reasonably high price-per-lens, I would recommend as great lenses that you won't likely regret. This is bearing in mind that I and others have bought lenses made for the full-frame cameras because we assumed that we would eventually move to full-frame (and I do have two cameras that can't use EF-S lenses) but I am a stickler for wanting best of class:

First lens, hands-down, is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This lens does not have the build quality of an "L" lens, but for the 40D class of camera is simply the greatest thing since, well, whatever. This lens will enable your camera to be all that it can be, and if in the future you want to upgrade to full frame, you can sell this lens at a great price or keep the 40D and this lens as a backup.

If you do get this lens (or another less expensive "normal/wider angle lens) you will note that a whole new world of wide-angle photography opens up to you that the S cameras are not capable of. If you find wide angle photography tasty, the EF-S 10-22 lens, when used with a tripod, will get you pics that are, well, way cool!

You mention two fields that are a bit demanding: hairs on a bug, and eagles at a distance. For these kind of shots you need to specialize! For hairs on a bug, you need a "Macro" lens, or some special adapters that allow good "normal" lenses to act as macro lenses. "Macro" means that you can get something little, like a bug, to be focused accurately through your lens onto your sensor either at the same size or close to the same size as the subject is in real life. This takes special lenses or lens combinations. The "favorite" in this forum for this is pretty much the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 lens because, well, it gets the job done. Go to the Photo Sharing section to see some incredible work that this lens can do, as well as what you can do with a good non-macro lens and extenders or close-up adapters. I use all of them!

Finally, in the wildlife/telephoto department, this is where the big bucks comes in. take it from me, there's never enough! You can start in two ways: less on the money or the best. Either way works.

Logical is less for the money: with your 40D get a 70-300mm lens and play around. Stay in the f/6 to f/11 range to keep maximum sharpness, but I'll predict that you, like me, will not be happy with lens slowness/softness. That's when you look at the better/more expensive stuff.

Here's the lenses that I now use for wildlife, but figure for them a long-term investment:

70-200 f/2.8 IS for a walk-about nature photography lens that can "get it" more than any other zoom lens -- believe me, this is true! More than $1k, but if you can get it into your hands, you will understand...

100-400 for a walk-about lens that is not for the most critical sharpness but has the most versatility (wider zoom).

A prime lens (I use a 300mm f/2.8 IS) so that I can score the best of the best! Prime lenses are the most accurate if they are 2.8 or faster, and tend to be sharper, but they cost way more than $1k. This would come only after your camera and first lenses are in and paid for!

Sabine, if, after reading this essay, you are still paying attention, well, answer back!