Help with lenses, please.

[Aethyr]

Okay, I preordered the DRXT, and I was just chatting with my friend about different lenses for it, and I'm all confused, because I don't know much about advanced photography, including lenses and whatnot. Right now I just have a craptastic 3.2 megapixel Sony Cybershot. I have a lot of learning to do.

I have a couple questions about lenses.

1) Is the kit lens okay for everyday usage or is it just a piece of crap? What kind of pictures are ideal to be taken with it?

2) What is a good lens for a decent price that would be good for everyday photos, to use as sort of a 'standard' lens?

3) Can anyone briefly explain the concept of the lenses to me? As in, what about the picture does the mm control? I can't really form my question so it makes sense so I hope you guys know what I'm talking about.

4) I love to take macro photos. I've seen pictures taken with the 100mm f/2.8 lens and I love the quality. Is there something that will give me results similar to that without having to spend as much, or would I just be better off saving up for that one?

Thanks for being patient with me and answering my questions. :) I really should take a course in photography.

[Sleeping Martyr]

Another question to ask:

along with Tammy's questioning in number 3, what is the major difference between a 50mm lens and a 85mm lens?

[tim]

1) The kit lens is good value and a cheap wide angle lens for the 1.6X crop cameras. I'd get it, see how it goes for you, and if you need more then get whatever you need.
2) Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is what I use, others use the Canon 28-135IS F4 or so
3) mm controls how much gets into the picture. With an 18mm lens you're going to get a really wide angle. With a 600mm lens (which are very expensive) you get something in the distance looking very close.
3b) 50mm is wider angle than 85mm. There's not a lot in it though.
4) Get the Canon, it's great. There are sigma and tamron versions that are meant to be quite good, but the Canon's great.

Once you play with the kit lens, and look at the exif information in the jpgs, things will become more clear to you :)

[defordphoto]

Also see: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752

[Medic1]

I have a couple questions about lenses.

1) Is the kit lens okay for everyday usage or is it just a piece of crap? What kind of pictures are ideal to be taken with it?

2) What is a good lens for a decent price that would be good for everyday photos, to use as sort of a 'standard' lens?

3) Can anyone briefly explain the concept of the lenses to me? As in, what about the picture does the mm control? I can't really form my question so it makes sense so I hope you guys know what I'm talking about.

4) I love to take macro photos. I've seen pictures taken with the 100mm f/2.8 lens and I love the quality. Is there something that will give me results similar to that without having to spend as much, or would I just be better off saving up for that one?



Let me start by saying this: if you are a good independant learner, buy a digital photography textbook. It will really help you learn all about DSLR photography. I have only been using an SLR for about 5 months. To use your words...I was using a craptastic Kodak P&S before that. Now let me try to answer your questions.....if anyone with more knowledge sees something I am wrong on please correct me.

1) If you talking about the 18-55 kit lens that also comes with the rebel, its a decent lens for what it is....plastic mount as opposed to metal, but still takes decent pictures. If you haven't already ordered the DRXT with the kit lens, think about buying the body only and then purchasing the lens separately.

2) If you haven't used an SLR before, then you would probably be happy with the 18-55 for a while, but you will soon want to upgrade. The 300D is now being sold in many places with a 17-85 kit lens that is of much higher quality. For a standard lens, I think I will let someone else handle that, because most of my photography is at longer focal lengths so my standard lens is usually the 70-200 f4L

3) With a lens, the mm is the "focal length". On a point and shoot camera, this would be referred to as the zoom ( 10X etc.) as long as we are talking about a zoom lens. There are two types of lenses: zoom and prime (prime is one fized focal length) I find alot of people who are new to SLR have a hard time understanding that they really cannot look at a lens in terms of overall zoom like they looked at their former P&S camera. I may be wrong, but I think the human eye sees at an average of 15 or 16mm (somewhere around there). So when you are looking at say an 18mm-55mm lens, it is roughly 3X zoom from the 18mm end. The smaller the number the wider the angle...the larger the number, the closer the image in the viewfinder will look and hence the closer you can get to your subject in the final image. Alot of people new to SLR get frustrated when they hear a salesperson say this because then they think....I used to have 10X zoom before, for alot less. You must stop looking at lenses in terms of total "zoom". For now with SLR photography....to get good images, you may need 2 or more lenses to achieve that length of zoom.

4) I don't know a whole lot about macro photography, but there are very good lens review sites out there. But generally its like anything else in life...you get what you pay for. Here are a couple of my favourite review sites for lenses:

http://dpreview.com/

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

Another question to ask:

along with Tammy's questioning in number 3, what is the major difference between a 50mm lens and a 85mm lens?


Its hard to explain things like this fully unless you understand all the terms. The major difference is the focal length......the 85mm lens has a longer focal length than the 50mm......that is the only difference assuming they have the same aperture, glass type, mount etc.


Try searching the internet, there are a ton of online resources to learn more about DSLR photography. Here a link to get you started:

http://photonotes.org/

[tim]

A local photography class would be an excellent start - that's what I did and it was invaluable. If you can find a digital photography class, even better, but the basics are the same whether you use film or digital.

[Aethyr]

Thanks for all the information so far. I understand about lenses somewhat now. Also thanks for that other link, RFM.

I don't have much money to kick around so I suppose I will stick with the kit lens and see how it does for me, and write down whatever walls I come to when using it so I can evaluate what I'm going to need out of the next lens I buy.

Okay, so, if I'm in the back row of a concert and I want to take pictures of the band as if I'm really close, I'd probably want a 200mm lens as opposed to 50mm, and if I'm in the front row and want to take pictures of the band, a 50mm is fine. Or... if I'm holding a 50mm lens 5 inches from an object, and a 100mm lens 5 inches from an object, the picture taken with the 100mm lens is going to appear closer than the picture taken with the 50mm lens. Is that right?

Also, what does f/2.8 or 1.8 mean?

[tim]

Okay, so, if I'm in the back row of a concert and I want to take pictures of the band as if I'm really close, I'd probably want a 200mm lens as opposed to 50mm, and if I'm in the front row and want to take pictures of the band, a 50mm is fine. Or... if I'm holding a 50mm lens 5 inches from an object, and a 100mm lens 5 inches from an object, the picture taken with the 100mm lens is going to appear closer than the picture taken with the 50mm lens. Is that right?


Yes. You might want more than 200mm for that situation, but you have the right idea.



Also, what does f/2.8 or 1.8 mean?

The lower the number, the more light is let in, which means you can use shorter shutter speeds. The shorter the shutter speed the less motion blur. To take photos of people moving you need reasonably short shutter speeds.

We can help you out here, but let me say once again, a photography evening course at a local school (or similar) near you should be quite cheap and invaluable.

[Andy D]

The "f" (or apeture) number refers to tha amount of light the lens will let in. The smaller the number i.e.1.8 the more light, the bigger the number i.e. 22 the less light. More light means faster shutter speed for the situation, it also means a shallower depth of field (front to back focus). The higher number means less light and a slower shutter speed, but greater depth of field. Hope that makes it clear for you.

Also bear in mind that faster lenses (those with an aperture of 1.8 and greater) will tend to set you back more money. For example, the 70-200f4 will cost you about a third of the 70-200f2.8. THey offer the same focal length, but the faster lens is more expensive.

[Aethyr]

Okay, so I definitely want a LOW f number because I love pictures taken in low light.

I guess I have expensive tastes. Damn.

tim - Thanks! I think I'm going to look into taking some classes in photography when I get back into college this fall (going to get my associate degree in veterinary technology). I may even make photography my minor.

[robertwgross]

Okay, so I definitely want a LOW f number because I love pictures taken in low light.

That's OK, but you have to think about this a little deeper.

In very dim light, the f/1.8 lens might let you shoot with a decent shutter speed to avoid shake, but the f/4 lens might give you a lot more problem with this.

The f/1.8 lens might allow you to shoot, but the depth of field will be very tight (the subject might be perfectly in focus, and everything else is blurry). That might be what you are trying to do, or then again it might not. So, having the f/1.8 lens in your set might be handy, but don't expect it to do everything perfectly.

In normal focal lengths, like 50mm, the f/1.8 lens is pretty small, lightweight, and inexpensive. However, if you get up to long focal lengths, like 400mm, then anything beyond f/2.8 is almost impossible. In the long lengths, small aperture numbers mean big pieces of glass lens, and those are not cheap, and they are not lightweight.

---Bob Gross---

[Aethyr]

Okay... so how would I go about taking pictures like this? http://www.livejournal.com/community/kittypix/5003870.html#cutid1

This person used a Rebel.

Edit: It sounds like the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM EF would be the perfect lens for me to save up for as my next purchase, and then after that get the 100mm or 200mm f/2.8.

[HJMinard]

Okay... so how would I go about taking pictures like this?

They likely used a tripod ... an absolute necessity for low light and no flash.

[tim]

Okay... so how would I go about taking pictures like this? http://www.livejournal.com/community/kittypix/5003870.html#cutid1


That person used a fast lens (ie low F number) to get a narrow depth of field. The F4 28-135 lens couldn't do that. They also did some creative lighting, which I can't help with because i've never tried it.

Perhaps get the 50mm F1.8 lens, it's good value at around US$70, lets you play with narrow DOF, and it's good for low light.

[DocFrankenstein]

I know you're all excited, but IMO you should get your rebel first, and experiment with it for at least... 2-3 weeks.

Then you'll feel like you understand what you want from a lens and will be able to make a more intelligen decision.

Cheers :cool:

[Medic1]

Okay, so, if I'm in the back row of a concert and I want to take pictures of the band as if I'm really close, I'd probably want a 200mm lens as opposed to 50mm, and if I'm in the front row and want to take pictures of the band, a 50mm is fine. Or... if I'm holding a 50mm lens 5 inches from an object, and a 100mm lens 5 inches from an object, the picture taken with the 100mm lens is going to appear closer than the picture taken with the 50mm lens. Is that right?



Make sure you check the minimum focusing distances of your lenses before you buy them. You talk about macro photography in your original post and you talk about taking images from a 5 inch distance in this post.

Some lenses, although they have the same focal length as others (i.e: 100mm) cannot be used at such close range unless the minimum focusing distance will allow it. If your looking to use a lens for Macro, make sure you get a Macro lens. Anyone who does alot of Macro work can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the closest you can get with a normal Canon macro lens is 0.8ft (around 9 inches).

As said a couple of times already...there is a learning curve involved if you want to make educated purchase decisions. Just because 2 lenses have the same focal length does not mean they will perform the same functions. There are alot of factors to consider in your purchase. You should take a course....and if you do not want to do that, at least put some time in reading some basic photography (either text or on the net).

[Aethyr]

^^Awesome, thanks for the info. There is so much about photography I don't know. I'll definitely be taking a course this fall. There's just so many factors to take into account, and that's not even getting into the manual functions and possibilities available with SLR cameras. If I'm going to spend $1k on a camera, I'm going to want to get the most out of it.

DocFrankenstien - I know, that's what I'm planning on doing, but I wanted to know more about lenses so I can make an educated purchase when I'm ready for my next lens (which probably won't be for another year at least anyway, since I don't have much money at the moment). I guess this thread was jumping the gun a little, but getting my DRXT is all I can think about lately.

Perhaps get the 50mm F1.8 lens, it's good value at around US$70, lets you play with narrow DOF, and it's good for low light.

Thanks, I can afford that, so I might buy one relatively soon after getting my Rebel. All of my friends tease me about taking close-up pictures of my soda cans and random objects. I think it looks neat. I like to see texture in photographs. It makes them more interesting IMO.

[KevC]

I know this may seem obvious, but don't be mistaken about the aperature size (f/whatever). That's the maximum aperature, hahaha. When I was starting out I was getting worried cos I thought f/1.8 was the ONLY aperature I could shoot at.

Just to summarise, there are 4 main parts of photography. Aperature Size, Shutter Speed, ISO Value, Focal Length. There are other things like bracketing, colour white balance, and metering but that's a little more complicated and you could worry about that later (to tell you the truth, I don't even think about all that when I shoot).

Aperature size is how big or small the hole is in the lens. The smaller the f stop number is, the bigger the hole. f/1.8 is huge. From now on you should say "big aperature" not "small number" hehe. The biggest aperature I've seen is f/1.0. The crazy huge lens from Canon. Things to remember about Aperature Size. Bigger (or Wider) the aperature, the softer the lens is. Also, the shallower the Depth of Field (DOF) is. DOF is mainly influenced by two things. How close you are to the subject (Once I shot a friend really close with my 50mm @ f/1.8 and her nose was in focus but her eyes weren't!) and how wide the aperature is. Regarding the softness, this is just a technical issue. Lenses are sharpest stopped down a few stops. What's this mean? Basically, bigger number, narrow aperature. However, a single "stop" isn't just going from f/1.8 to f/2.0. There are technicalities since these numbers actually represent something. The numbers represent the ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of the lens diaphragm opening. That's why it's called an f(ocal)/number. The designation "f/2" means that the diameter of the aperture is 1/2 the focal length of the lens. As you can see, it gets complicated, so I wouldn't really worry too much about it now.

Shutter Speed is exactly that. How long the shutter stays open for. As you can imagine, the longer the shutter, the more prone the picture it is to camera shake. A general rule is make sure the shutter speed is the inverse of the focal length. (1/50 if you are shooting @ 50mm) That's for handheld of course. However, every photographer should have a tripod. With a tripod, you can shoot @ longer shutter speeds and get all those cool effects. In general, a shorter shutter speed (bigger number... all these are inverses... 50 means 1/50) will freeze action, while a longer one will blur action. You can also pan to freeze a moving subject while having the background blurry.

ISO is basically how light sensitive the film or sensor is. Always try to shoot at the lowest ISO possible. Less noise. Better quality. I always used to shoot at ISO100, but then there were tons of limitations. ISO100 required twice as much light as ISO200 to shoot at the same shutter speed and aperature value. Your camera will go up to ISO1600 (every increase in value 100->200->400->800->1600) will be twice as light sensitive and introduce more noise. However, as many people say here, it's better to have a noisy image than an unusable one. There are many software titles out there that will help you reduce noise. Don't worry about shooting at high ISO, just use the lowest you can! Oh, and the noise performance should be awesome on the XT, considering it's using the same technology as the 20D.

Lastly, focal length. The number with the mm on it. Probably the simpliest one. Anything less than 50 is considered wide angle. More than that is considered telephoto. This is how wide or narrow your field of view is. Basically like how much you are 'zoomed in'. As a previous poster had said, it's sorta like zoom, but not. A 'zoom' lens is one that has more than one focal length. A 'prime' lens is one that's focal length is fixed. I prefer primes. Sure, they don't have the versitility, but I believe in a good pair of shoes. :) Primes are less expensive to manufacture with higher quality (at the same price). I love my 50mm f/1.8, and my next one will be the 85mm f/1.8.

Wow, I typed a lot. If you got this far, I thank and applaud you. I hope you've learned something, haha. Yes, go out and read some books! The library must have tons. However, stick around here. You'll learn such amazing things. Oh, and experiment experiment experiment! In the digital world, film is cheap. Shoot as much as you can. Play with lighting! Most of all, HAVE FUN!

[Aethyr]

^ Okay, so, what I got from that was that the first lens I should buy is the 50mm f/1.8, and keep my kit lens for a while if I'm taking pictures outdoors when low light won't be a problem, because it will produce sharper pictures since it's f/3.5-5.6. Right? Also the kit lens would be a "zoom" lens and the 50mm is a prime lens.

This is sooo confusing.

Here's my B&H Wish List: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=WishList&Q=showFreindsWishList&wl=16DC1C264A&O=wishListEmail

[KevC]

Hehe. Yeah, it's extremely confusing when you don't have an actual camera to play with. When you get your Drebel, you'll quickly understand. I know it!

You're right, the kit lens is a zoom. The 50mm is a prime. However, you're a little confused as with the f/stops. The f/stops listed are [b]MAXIMUM[/] aperature. As in the widest the lens can get. You don't even have to worry about sharpness for now. But lenses are sharpest stopped down a few stops. That means the kit lens at 18mm is sharpest at around f/5.6 or narrower (since it's maximum is f/3.5).

But then again, if that's the look you are going for... then go for it! ;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=59810 <-Those were some photos I was playing with the nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8). Notice how they're 'soft'?

The wish list is nice, however, the bag seems a little expensive. I'd look into Lowepro and Tamrac for a bag you might like. I'd hit up a local library before buying a book. The tripod may be a little cheap. A good tripod is always a good invest, but they can get $$$. There's tons of information on tripods here, but I don't know about them at all. I have a cheap one like that one, but it doesn't have nice features like a quick release plate and the ability to shoot sideways or upside down (which is really useful for macro shots). A good tripod is $100+, but luckily... you can always buy used. Check out the marketplace!

[Aethyr]

Hmm. So even though it's f/1.8, you can take photos at 2.8 or 3.5?

[Andy_T]

Yes. This is referred to as 'stopping down'.

Normally most lenses can be stopped down to f/16 or f/22.

And as every lens will be a bit sharper when 'stopped down' a bit, a photo from a f/2.8 lens used at f/4.5 will nearly always be a lot better than a photo of a f/4.5 lens used at f/4.5.

If you use the kit lens at f/11, it will be very sharp. However, it will take in only 1/32 of the light
that you would get at f/2.8. This means, if you can use a shutter speed of 1/125 at f/2.8, you will need 1/4 second at f/11 ... not possible without a tripod.


In addition, a prime will always be a lot sharper than a zoom in the same focal length at similar prices. Similar prices means that the top-of-the-line 1200$ 24-70/2.8 zoom lens will maybe be sharper than the 75$ 50/1.8 prime ... I think you get the picture.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Andy

[Aethyr]

OH! Actually that helps a lot! So, the 50mm f/1.8 is the only lens I'll need for a while, since I can just stop it down if I'm taking pictures with enough lighting so they'll be sharper. If I stop the lens down I need more light... the more I stop it down the more light I'll need -or- I need a tripod so it doesn't get blurry due to a lower aperature. Right?

[Andy_T]

Right.

There is some old 'rule of thumb' ... if you want to have sharp pictures, you should select at least a shutter speed of 1/focal length (on 35 mm film).

The 50 mm focal length of the 50/1.8 is equivalent to 80 mm focal length on 35 mm film, so when you take a photo with the 50/1.8 on a 20D, you should select 1/100 s (or faster) to get sharp pictures without so-called motion blur.

It's a ruld of thumb ... your mileage may vary. If you have years of experience with rifle shooting or the likes, you might be able to hold it steady at a slower shutter speed and get great images at 1/50 seconds, if you're 80 years old and suffer from Parkinson's desease, you should maybe use 1/200.

All that said ... I still think that the 50/1.8 as only lens might be a bit limiting. The 18-55 kit lens will allow you to also take wider shots (e.g. group shots, landscapes)

Best regards,
Andy

[Aethyr]

Well yeah I meant besides the kit lens, the best lens to get would be the 50/1.8.

[shopout]

I used to sell cameras, and being an honest salesman made me rather unpopular with my coworkers. As far as generic lenses are concerned, I am only familiar with Sigma lenses, and I always thought that they are a great value. They are also more profitable to the retailer [and thus in many cases the salesperson]. That's why some camera stores push them so hard. The point is if a salesperson badmouths Canon or Nikon etc. in favor of Sigma or Quantaray etc., do not trust them. In fact salesman should never badmouth such brands.

The cost of the item does not reflect how much profit is involved. For example, in my day, I made more money selling a $500 Minolta SLR kit than a $1500 Nikon body.

I once overheard a salesman tell a customer that Canon point and shoot cameras broke down more than Minolta point and shoots. He even mentioned something about Canon failing a "drop test". He was lying, because he made more $$$ selling the Minolta P&S kit than he did on the comparable Canon.

The Minolta was not necessarily a bad choice, but it was not inferior to the Canon.

[Medic1]

Here's my B&H Wish List: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=WishList&Q=showFreindsWishList&wl=16DC1C264A&O=wishListEmail

Good wish list. As said by KevC, you might want to look into a Lowepro or Tamrac bag instead. I originally bought a Canon "gadget" bag and quickly upgraded to a Lowepro all weather bag (much nicer, heavier construction...gives you a little more peace of mind). Also, look into getting a Manfrotto tripod, or something of the like. You will wish you had gotten something a little sturdier once you start acquiring bigger (heavier) lenses.

[Andy_T]

You might also think of replacing the Sandisk Ultra II 1 GB with the Sandisk Extreme III 1 GB.

They used to be the same write speed, but with the new release of the UltraII, the read/write speed is now about 20% slower than the ExtremeIII on a 20D ... take a look at Rob Galbraith's CF database (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-7303). Chances are that what you will receive is the 'NEW Sandisk Ultra' card.

Important: On the 'old' DRebel, there was not much difference between these. There are no data for the DRebel XT available yet, so I don't know whether it will make much of a difference.

Your choice, it's 20$ difference.

Best regards,
Andy

[chris clements]

For a relative newcomer on a budget, no way can a 50mm prime be considered the ideal first purchase.
It's gotta be a zoom that increases shooting options: go for the Canon 28-135 if you can.
Likewise, the speed of the CF card isn't really an issue - buy the cheapest Sandisk/Apacer on offer.

[Aethyr]

^ Yeah but it's a difference of $70 versus $400. I'll probably get the 28-135 next year with my tax return, and use the kit lens to get used to a zoom lens before buying a second zoom lens.

I updated my Wish List.

Medic - The tripod on my wish list holds 11lbs... is that not enough?

[chris clements]

Just get out there, take heaps of pix and enjoy the camera.

You must fight the impulse to turn into a sad tecchie geek like most of us in these forums.

When you've got 10,000 frames under your belt, then you can start worrying that the new Ultra VII card is 0.05% slower than the Extreme IV !

[Aethyr]

Well, yeah, but why spend money on the Ultra now if I know I'm probably going to spend money again in a little while for the Extreme? My theory - spend money on something good once so you won't have to upgrade later.

And I'm not new to photography, just new to SLR cameras. I feel like I've got the talent, just not the knowledge.

[chris clements]

Apologies: I intended no put-down.

My point was that posters here often get far too engrossed in the technical detail and forget the end product - it's the enthusiast's disease.

Whilst a valid topic elsewhere in these forums, IMHO an abstruse discussion about Ultra & Extreme cards has no place straying into your thread.

You or I (or anyone outside a very small coterie of semi-pro sports photographers) will never notice any practical difference between the performances of any CF cards from the reputable manufacturers. Any money saved is better put towards glass.

[Aethyr]

That's true I suppose, but my boyfriend is the one buying me the card, so I might as well get him to buy me the best, right? LOL.

I kinda invited the card discussion when I posted the link to my wish list, so I don't mind that. I don't mind off topic posts in threads either. Makes things more interesting. :)

[Andy_T]

For a relative newcomer on a budget, no way can a 50mm prime be considered the ideal first purchase.

Well, as so often, opinions vary.
Everybody's entitled to have one of his own:wink:.

According to the opinion of the forum members of the Canon Digital Photography forum (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56747), it is the most useful lens for a beginner, followed by the Canon 28-135 IS and the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

Best regards,
Andy

[daveh6700]

Hi Aethyr,

You are on the right track in learning as much as you can before you set out. Remember, there will be a setting on your new camera that will let the camera pick out the best f/stop, shutter speed, ISO speed and so on. All you need to do at first is move the zoom in and out to frame your picture and take the shot! Read the manual a few times before setting out.

After you have taken a few hundred shots you can go to your computer and look at what settings your camera chose. Then you can go out again and try Aperture priority - where you choose the f/stop and the camera does everything else automatically. Try taking the same picture with f/3.5 and again with f/16 (or even f/32). Then go back to the computer and look at how the pictures turned out. Remember, now pictures are "free" - you can take a hundred and erase them later.

There is a "thing" called EXIF. When you look at your pictures on your PC you will see the option to look at the EXIF. What that contains are the settings your camera had when the picture was taken. It contains the f/stop, the distance, the lens mm, the time and date, the shutter speed and so on. Looking at the EXIF information is how you learn how the settings affect your pictures.

Here is a link to some sample pictures taken with the Digital Rebel XT (DRXT) with the "standard" kit lens. As you can see the pictures are excellent. The lens is a GREAT lens for the price and will serve you well for many years. Of course you may want to add other lens later, but the kit lens is a good one to start with.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page11.asp
The camera review at this link is well worth reading.

Dave

[Medic1]

Medic - The tripod on my wish list holds 11lbs... is that not enough?

I guess it really depends on what you anticipate your use of it to be. You have said previously that you will do alot of low light/indoor shooting....so this tripod may be fine. If you are ever planning on taking your gear outdoors to do landscape etc. you have to factor terrain and wind into your purchase. You also have to look at the size of the legs, how sturdy the support is and how the base extends to provide a solid foundation.

I by no means am an expert on tripods. But a friend of mine has a tripod rated for the same weight as my Manfrotto, but I would not trust my camera body alone on it, let alone my camera and a heavy telezoom lens. Put it and my Manfrotto tripod side by side and it would be apparent even to a non-photographer which one is going to be more sturdy/reliable just by looking at them.

I guess what I am saying, and you have said it already in a previous post, if your going to buy, it might as well be the right purchase the first time. Think ahead, read reviews and make an educated decision. I, like you, was going to buy a tripod rated well as far as weight goes, but on advice from others in this forum decided to spend a little more and get one that was even higher quality than what I was looking at. I haven't looked back, and have never regretted it......you could probably get a comparable Manfrotto tripod for similiar (probably a little more) pricing

EDIT: I tried searching for some Sunpak 3300 tripod reviews and it took awhile and I only found one person who had reviewed it online......not exactly a glowing review either

see here:

http://geek.pricegrabber.com/rating_getprodrev.php/masterid=770788/id_type=masterid

[Andy_T]

Tammy,

believe me ... a good tripod does make a lot of a difference!
Visit a camera shop and take a look at some of the basic Manfrotto tripods.

Best regards,
Andy

[Aethyr]

Cool, I will do that! Might as well make a good investment up front for something I'll get my money's worth for.

[Bsmooth]

Very similar journeys were on I see.I am also getting ready to purchase a DSLR and was leaning towards the 20D,although the new Rebel XT keeps on tugging at my sleeve to take a look.I've been researching now for some time and the advice here is terrific.

My thoughts on a tripod are twofold and its from experience.I have a Bogen 3021 which is a great tripod,but I must admit I don't bring it along often because its not exactly a lightweight.If you don't bring it you can't use it the old adage is.I have been looking at the Bogen 724b,which is just under $100 and includes a non removable ball head. It would seem to me that its better to not have to carry all the weight around and this one is just over 3 lbs.
As far as lenses I like the 28-135IS too and that will be great for later on when you have the money.But for now the 18-55 I'm sure will be fine .I'll put in my two cents worth here and say the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR Di (http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_28_75.html) is also a great lens.As said before you can't go wrong with the 50 1.8 for just over $75 its a bargain.Might also want to look into the Canon 70-200F4 along with a 1.4 teleconverter at least down the road anyway.Its a great combination and a good value also believe it or not.As far as bags go you might want to check into the Velocity series bags by tamrac,depending on what you want to carry.
Bottom line is go out and take pictures whatever camera you have,oh yeah it sure is fun ... and its soooo hard to wipe that big grin away!

[Medic1]

I second the opinion to go out and look at some tripods in the camera shops....be careful though, I had one camera shop try to sell me on the Manfrotto digi series, which isn't overly supportive for an SLR.

Once you start taking the pics, you will learn quickly. I was like you...not new to photography, but new to SLR photography. P&S and SLR are worlds apart, but you will have fun making the transition. I know I have!!!

Good Luck