Help me chose a lens

[martcol]

Some of you out there must have more to offer in advice about choosing a lens.

Have you got a favourite? Are there any Websites that might offer good reviews? I'm about to buy (or at least order) the 10D which will be my first SLR - I currently use the G2. I'm into photography and as such do not have a particular style or preference but am sure this will develop - I'm sort of drawn towards portraiture but even that's not fixed.

I want a good all rounder, and can't afford silly money but would pay for something that will give good results etc. Obviously, I don't want to get something and then regret it.

Anything you have to say will be appreciated.

Thanks

Martin

[beach512]

check out
www.photodo.com

I personally like the Canon 50mm f1.4 for an all around sharp lens on my Canon Elan II. No DSLR yet.
Can't beat it.

Depends on what you need to do. Give more information.

[martcol]

beach512 wrote:
check out
www.photodo.com

Depends on what you need to do. Give more information.


Thanks for that. Mostly, I want to get the best out of the camera. I am a bit nervous about buying 10D a) because of price and b) technical stuff. I enjoy the theory - photodo.com looks fabulous and the technical stuff is challenging but overall, I want to take photos experiment, explore and enjoy.

Obviously, I've got to get the camera with a lens and there's a possibilty that some retailers will do a deal or bundle. It's not easy, not coming from a SLR background to chose something as complex as a lens with so many variables including, price and quality.

I think I want a Zoom lens that's a bit wide-angle and a bit telephoto. I imagine the greater variation means more expense and even compromising on f stops. I also imagine that more telephoto would make the lens difficult to use as an alrounder e.g. needing a tripod especially in low-light.

Then, does it make a difference when you compare a lens between conventional and digital in ways other than the change in focal length? In another posting I read that the difference in two lenses was immaterial because the camera (D60) couldn't resolve any sharper than the lesser quality one anyway.

I'll stop now

Martin

[Dans_D60]

No need to stop….that’s what this forum is all about! You just purchased a world class camera. Don’t cheapen it with bad glass (lens). The best lens fit is about your type and style of photography. The lens on my D60 75% of the time is the 28-70 2.8L (44 – 112 with the 1.6X crop). Super sharp and great in low light. But I focus on portraits so at 100+ offers good perspective. However, if you need to go wider I suggest the Sigma 15-30 DG. Canon just introduced a 17-40 4L that may have a street price similar to the Sigma. Worth looking into. Good luck….Dan

D30, D60, (D10 on order), 50 1.4, 28-70 2.8L, 15-30 DG, 70-200 2.8L, 100-400 IS L
http://www.pettusphoto.com

[Ken Fong]

The Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good multi-purpose lense to own...~$400 for a Japanese-made version with USA warranty (avoid the grey market version.) Even with the 1.6x factor, at 28mm, the angle will be slightly wider than the widest angle from a typical compact digital camera. The IS supposedly translates to an additional 1-2 stops of speed. The Autofocus is very quick and quiet. I would avoid the slower lenses that are usually found in camera packages. Not as high-performance as the Canon 28-70 2.8L, but more compact for travel.

[charlibob]

Pretty much agree with Ken. It will be well worth your while if you can stretch your budget for the 28-70. You will eventually want other lenses, but that is a an excellent start. Otherwise the 28-135 is OK, but if you stick with photography you will want to replace it with a sharper and faster zoom sooner or later.

[Yavor75]

Greetings-
I guess everyone has their ideas on this question. You are getting into a new world with the 10D and it is going to be expensive (and much more complex). Adapt to that idea. Assuming you are on a mortal's budget, here is what I'd do (and what I did). Buy the Canon 50mm 1.8 MkII for about $65. It is the overall best value in the Canon line-up. It is shockingly sharp and is 80mm on the 10D- perfect for portraiture. To get a 10% better lens, you'd have to buy the 50mm 1.4 for $350...not worth it. This might land up being your favorite lens. Secondly, I'd get the Canon 28-135mm IS. It is a great value on a very sharp and versitile lens. Go used...about $330 on Ebay. At 800ASA on the 10D- with stabilization on, you can shoot wonderful natural light shots at 1/30th sec. -handheld. Next I'd snag the Sigma 20mm. It is a great value- sharp and with even better color than the Canons. It is about $250 on Ebay. This is great for candids at weddings (20mm=32mm). Past that- you'll be looking at zooms in the telephoto range...and there are no good cheap choices. The standard 70-210 is not sharp. The "L" series are VERY pricey.
So, have fun..and get yourself a BIG CF card!

Bob

[Slow]

If money was no object for you, I would suggest that you get Canon's 200mm f1.8L as it is a truly fabulous lens! The best lens that I have ever used!

[martcol]

Thanks for all that really useful stuff. At the moment the 28-135 3.5 IS USM seems to represent good value for an all-rounder to start me off. I also like the sound of the Sigma 20 mm that Bob sugests.

Two questions more: USM? and, in practical terms, what difference does it make if a lense is 3.5 or 2.8? Is it the depth of field issues or is it about light? How will that impact on where/how you use the camera?

Martin

[Ken Fong]

martcol wrote:
Two questions more: USM? and, in practical terms, what difference does it make if a lense is 3.5 or 2.8? Is it the depth of field issues or is it about light? How will that impact on where/how you use the camera?

Martin

USM - Ultrasonic Motor (Canon) for the autofocus. You might find these faster and quieter than the Sigma Hyper Sonic motor (HSM), but they're both good.

The difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is 1 f-stop I believe...2.8 lets in twice the amount of light than 3.5 (somebody please correct me if I am wrong). A fixed 2.8 aperture lense is a lot heavier than a fixed 3.5 aperture lense because it has more glass and, as you mentioned, lets more light in...you should see a big price difference between the two. In practical terms, you will appreciate the extra stop of light from a 2.8 in a low light situation...versus using a flash, your photo will look better by using natural light.

Also, when they say the IS (Image Stabilizer) buys you an extra 1-2 stops, I think they mean on the shutter time side...your hand can afford to be a little more shakey for low light shots.

[Sharokin]

If you really want to get maximum quality out of your 10D for reasonable amount of money, get a couple of really sharp fixed lenses. I would buy a Canon 24 2.8 for less than $300 and a very sharp 85 1.8USM for about $330. Combined, those two lenses would be sharper than any zoom lens, including L lenses.
Another good combo if you have to have one good all around lens, would be the canon 28-135 IS, and the 85 1.8USM.
Good luck

[Slow]

sharokin wrote:
Another good combo if you have to have one good all around lens, would be the canon 28-135 IS, and the 85 1.8USM.
Good luck


I thought this was 2 lenses? (sorry, couldn't resist)

[droosan]

martcol wrote:
... what difference does it make if a lense is 3.5 or 2.8?
Martin

The difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is only half a stop. It is not a big difference. However if you're talking about a zoom marked f/3.5-5.6, that f/3.5 is only available at the short end. At the long end your maximum aperture is f/5.6. The difference then is 2 stops and that is significant.

Also, it is usually at the long end that you want the large aperture. If you are pointing the camera at a stage, that 2 stops means being able to take the picture at 1/60 second which is just doable at 70mm, versus having to take it at 1/15 second which is not, except maybe if you have IS. Also for portraits you want a large aperture at the long end so you can have a sharp subject and a blurred out background.

Among Canon-made zoom lenses, the difference in optical, response, and build quality of the lenses /2.8 vs /3.5-? is substantial. Of course so is the price.

If you have to have a zoom, and can't afford the 24-70/2.8, I would go for the 28-135IS.

In general, lenses are not the place to skimp. Nothing affects your end result as much as the lens. If you can't afford good zooms, get primes.

By the way, people new to photography, including myself about 7 years ago, tend to think they need zooms. After using a couple of cheap zooms on my Rebel for 3 years, I purchased a 50/1.4. (It was a whim. I don't remember why.) I was blown away! My pictures were suddenly stunning, for many reasons beyond the scope of this post. That 50/1.4 awakened my interest in photography, like nothing had up to that point.