Newbie here with Lens Questions!

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17558734
There is nothing wrong with shooting AV for landscapes if you want inconsistent exposures. Look at these examples.

And there's nothing wrong with jpg if you know what you're doing. Pros with deadlines do it all the time. For other people, think about this:
Take a RAW + max jpeg shot of the exact same subject. Convert the RAW file to jpeg & look at the two file sizes. One max jpg from my 20D was 2,754 KB. The exact same tripod shot with the jpg extracted from RAW was 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Why throw those extra bits away? Wouldn't they be nice to have if you have to PP an image?
I'll always recommend RAW for beginners because, as they learn more, they can go back & reprocess & possibly salvage a once in a lifetime shot. Most people will try RAW sometime, so why not at the beginning when you probably need it's advantages the most?

i think getting off auto mode is probably more important then figuring out how to shoot raw though...i mean a RAW shot in auto mode with the camera choosing to focus away from the subject isn't going to be better than a shot where the OP chooses what they want to focus on and shoot jpg...i bet the OP already does minimal PP as well

also i don't understand your point about AV giving inconsistent exposure...isn't that more to do with the centered metering instead of evaluative metering?

You can get the same exposure regardless whether you use manual, TV, AV.

Not everyone wants to be a die hard photographer, some people just want to be able to take a descent picture. When I first got a rebel, i couldn't tell you the difference between RAW and JPEG for a long time afterwards. Didn't have a clue and did zero PP work. Any time I was reading newbie questions or asking one, I just glazed right over the "Learn manual and RAW" comments, they provided zero help. I was trying to learn the camera, and with kids/work, not everyone has tons of time to learn everything at once. Sometimes it's gonna take a year to learn the difference between raw and jpeg and even start PP.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17558734
Most people will try RAW sometime, so why not at the beginning when you probably need it's advantages the most?

This!

Just for the record, I generally shoot raw. Using raw is not my bone of contention, here. I do, however, take issue with the implication that you can't get good photos if you don't use raw, or manual mode, or any other fixed parameter. SLRs have multiple choices for just about every setting. That is the entire point of an SLR: choice. Use what best accomplishes what you are trying to do. And yes, I realize two shooters can have the same goal and go about achieving it with hugely different settings.

DreDaze wrote in post #17558744
also i don't understand your point about AV giving inconsistent exposure...

Did you look at the link in my last post? What is so hard to understand about that?

delta0014 wrote in post #17558753
Sometimes it's gonna take a year to learn the difference between raw and jpeg and even start PP.

And then, if you used RAW, you can go back & maybe make a nice image out of one of the "iffy" ones. But if you saved over the jpg, you can't go back to a pristine file & start over.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17558835
I do, however, take issue with the implication that you can't get good photos if you don't use raw, or manual mode, or any other fixed parameter.

It's not about the good images. It's about the never to be repeated grab shot where the sky forced a bad exposure of the subject. It's about things like this: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1284715
And this: Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner

Your camera does not shoot jpg files. It shoots a 12-bit camera RAW non-compressed file. Then it uses the processing parameters that you've set, which is a bit stupid if you don't think that every shot should be processed the same, & converts the RAW file to a smaller 8 bit compressed jpg file.
So the next time that you guys think that maybe you need to upgrade your camera to get better images, try using the full capability of the camera that you have & spend the $s on lenses. ; )

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17558911
Did you look at the link in my last post? What is so hard to understand about that?

And then, if you used RAW, you can go back & maybe make a nice image out of one of the "iffy" ones. But if you saved over the jpg, you can't go back to a pristine file & start over.

It's not about the good images. It's about the never to be repeated grab shot where the sky forced a bad exposure of the subject. It's about things like this: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1284715
And this: Why I love RAW - '53 Ford Sunliner

Your camera does not shoot jpg files. It shoots a 12-bit camera RAW non-compressed file. Then it uses the processing parameters that you've set, which is a bit stupid if you don't think that every shot should be processed the same, & converts the RAW file to a smaller 8 bit compressed jpg file.
So the next time that you guys think that maybe you need to upgrade your camera to get better images, try using the full capability of the camera that you have & spend the $s on lenses. ; )

It may interest you to know that two shots, taken as simultaneously as possible on two different cameras, EVEN USING RAW, will not be the same, even if using the same lens, at the same settings, in the same light. Raw is not a panacea. I am pretty adept at processing using LR 5.7. I'd much rather have a properly exposed JPG shot than a raw shot I've got to heavily manipulate to get a decent result out of. Oh, and I'm pretty sure all of my cameras capture 14-bit raw files.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17558911
Did you look at the link in my last post? What is so hard to understand about that?

Yes I did, I saw differences in exposure due to center weighted metering with AV mode- if you had done evaluative metering like the TV shots there wouldn't have been any differences...your different exposures is the result of metering, not AV mode

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17558933
It may interest you to know that two shots, taken as simultaneously as possible on two different cameras, EVEN USING RAW, will not be the same, even if using the same lens, at the same settings, in the same light.

Where did I say "two different cameras"? Same camera. Tripod & same FOV. Vastly different jpg sizes.

And I'm not arguing against this. I'm trying help someone else.

DreDaze wrote in post #17558934
Yes I did, I saw differences in exposure due to center weighted metering with AV mode- if you had done evaluative metering like the TV shots there wouldn't have been any differences...your different exposures is the result of metering, not AV mode

Oh, great! Now lets confuse Karen with metering modes, exposure compensation, & whatever other esoteric info that you'd like to pile on her?
We've gone far beyond the original question, & I'm done with this thread.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17559002
Where did I say "two different cameras"? Same camera. Tripod & same FOV. Vastly different jpg sizes.
...

Exactly. You will get two different images WITH THE SAME CAMERA, whether you use manual, Tv, Av, B, P, or GreenBox. What is Manual adding to the process, here? 1/200, 800 & f/4 are the same settings, no matter how you arrive at them. The point is that no matter what camera, or settings, you use, you will get variable results. How is one of them better than the other?

KarenS wrote in post #17557887
Hi all!

I take pictures and do not claim to be a photographer. I really like my friend "Otto" aka Auto and admit that most of my pics are taken in that mode. I used an Olympus E510 for years but sadly, it developed focusing issues and because of it's age, I felt replacing it would be best. After a lot of research, I wound up with a Canon SL1 with the kit lenses. Those lenses are adequate but I'd like to add a nice lens which would be suitable for landscapes.

Should I consider a wide angle lens?

Would a prime lens be best (I've always had zoom)?

I do use the vid feature with the SL1 and have the 18-55mm IS STM. The other lens is the EFS 55-250mm IS.

I've been reading and researching but get lost in the tech speak. I've read good things about the EF 35mm f/2 USM IS but also have read that the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is good for landscapes. While I don't mind paying a little extra for a nice lens, I don't feel my photography skills warrant a top of the line lens.

I'd like to find a decent macro lens too so am open to suggestions for it too.

I'm looking forward to your advice and hope that sometime I'll be in a position to contribute to the forum.

Thanks!

Use the lenses you have! The STM lenses are recent technology and have excellent sharpness. What you have now covers wide angle (18mm) to normal (around 30mm) to pretty decent telephoto for sports and wildlife (250mm).

You can add even more versatility by adding the 10-18mm STM - a difficult lens to use but very exciting.

Older generation lenses like the 15-85mm and 17-55mm are very expensive but despite their fine reputation (earned years ago but no longer current) won't perform any better than what you already have - unless you particularly need wide aperture glass.

Keep it simple and use the excellent gear you have.

Archibald wrote in post #17559025
...
Older generation lenses like the 15-85mm and 17-55mm are very expensive but despite their fine reputation (earned years ago but no longer current) won't perform any better than what you already have - unless you particularly need wide aperture glass.

Keep it simple and use the excellent gear you have.

Now I know why my 15-85 isn't selling. I guess I just never looked at it like that.

Very good advice in that last sentence. Most of us gear-hounds would do well to heed that wisdom.

KarenS wrote in post #17557887
I've read good things about the EF 35mm f/2 USM IS but also have read that the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is good for landscapes. While I don't mind paying a little extra for a nice lens, I don't feel my photography skills warrant a top of the line lens.

I'd like to find a decent macro lens too so am open to suggestions for it too.

A couple things to add:

The 35mm and 50mm lenses you mention were designed for a larger format camera than you have. They will work fine on your SL1 but more than half the image from these lenses will be cropped away and be unusable. These lenses still have uses for your size of camera, though. They have wide apertures that make them very useful when light is dim (such as indoors) and for isolating your subject (by blurring out the background). But the large apertures are usually of no use in landscape photography, because usually we use small apertures then.

As for macro, that is a specialty area that is a lot of fun but quite difficult for the novice. Lens choices are relatively simple compared to selecting (or designing) light sources. If I were you, at this stage, consider adding extension tubes to the lenses you already have to enable them for close-up work. Another real neat way to get into macro is to buy a Canon 500D closeup lens (sometimes called a filter). It will work well with your 55-250mm lens, and let you easily get good closeups of bees and so on. Example below, shot at 250mm and the 500D.

KarenS wrote in post #17557887
Hi all!
....

Should I consider a wide angle lens?

Your 18mm is very wide, you can get wider. If you feel you would like wider the Canon 10-18mm is one very good affordable option

There are good primes and good zooms. Most primes are inherently sharper wide open, and can allow in more light with a lot less bulk/weight than a zoom counterpart. None of this is really important in a landscape lens where you may want to stop down, and zooming helps with composition.

Of the two I'd strongly look at the 35mm. 50mm on an APS-C will give you a rather narrow, almost telephoto field of view. If you want prime, look also at the 24mm f/2.8 pancake. Used for a little over $100.00 new for about $200.00, it's a hard to beat value!

Now were at longer focal lengths, usually around 100mm Might want to use your 50-250mm for a while?

Sorry if we tend to get so far off topic when we reply, often we forget that a question or two was asked and instead we focus on sparring with the reply above

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17559088
Your 18mm is very wide, you can get wider.

Don't forget she is using a crop sensor camera. The horizontal field of view @ 18mm is only 64 degrees. (would be 90 degrees @ full frame)

vk2gwk wrote in post #17559100
Don't forget she is using a crop sensor camera. The horizontal field of view @ 18mm is only 64 degrees. (would be 90 degrees @ full frame)

18mm is plenty wide. What it would be on some other camera system is not relevant here.