Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 28, 2003, 3:14 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 25
Default lens help

Should I aim for 1 good wide angle lens and then a standard zoom lens or should I aim for an all in one approach? I don't think I'll be shooting a lot of zoom pictures. I do a lot more landscape and stuff. I also shoot some animal pics in action so I really don't know.
Size and wieght is also a factor as well. I don't want anything to heavy.

Any lens recommendations would be great for what I want to do
55% landscape
15% sports
15% people/animal
15% night photography

thanks
recca is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 28, 2003, 3:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Quote:
Any lens recommendations would be great for what I want to do
55% landscape
15% sports
15% people/animal
15% night photography
Most landscape photos lend themselves to wider angle lenses, but are not limited to that in any way. Each photographer has their own style and thoughts.

You've listed night photography as one that you might do on a limited amount. Are you talking strictly long exposure or are you meaning flash photography? Sports photography calls for faster, longer lenses to capture the action and fill the screen with the desired image.

You didn't mention what lenses you might already have, but I could suggest the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di as a very good, but reasonably priced wide angle zoom that should cover many, but not all, on your list. If your intent is strictly landscape and you want the best possible image, I would strongly consider a prime lens of 28mm or wider to capture the panorama of the scene. Again, it's hard to lump all of your requirements into one nice little lens, which is why they give us so many options.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2003, 10:47 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 25
Default Hmm

The current lens that I have came with the rebel kit. I'm not sure how good the quality though. Some people say the kit lens is horrible, others say that it's not so bad and some have said that it's an average quality lens. THe kit lens is 18mm - 55mm so it sounds pretty wide. The max aperature at F18 is only F3.5. It sounds like a pretty good lens for landscapes if you disregard the unknown quality of optics. The only reason why I would want to swap out this lens is because of the lens quality. If the lens quality is good then I would just invest money into a good zoom lens.

As for night photography, it will probably be for long exposures since most of my night photography will be landscape based. There will be moments where I will be doing flash photography such as group shots but I don't think it will be as often as the landscape kind.

As for action shots half will be with pets suchs as dogs/cats and the other will be stadium related such as football, baseball etc..

Couple of lenses I was thinking about:
Ef-24mm F/1.4L USM - wide angle lens
Ef-28mm F/1.8 USm - wide angle lens

As for zoom lens I didn't find any that were F2.8 or belew unless it was on a fixed focal lens. The none fixed ones were all F3.5 - and up for maximum aperture.

But all the lenses I mention cost at quite a lot. But then again I'm not sure how fast of a shutterspeed is decent for sports/animals. I've seen some pics where the Fstop was F4.5 while others were as low as F1.8.

That's why I'm here

Correct if my assumption here is completely wrong.
Why have lower apertures for a wide angle lens. Usually when you use a wide angle lens your aperature is going to be pretty high cause you want good DOF. So you can have sharp focus and a wide panorama view. Even for night photography you would want an aperture that would give you a good DOF. The only time you won't is if you want a particular subject to be in focus while the background blurs. If that's the case then why would you use a ultra wide or wide lens for anyway? You would get a subject so tiny and a blurred background. I mean if i'm shoot the skyline of a city using a aperture of f1.4 I would get a very shallow dof right? If my object is to get a sharp pic then you would use a higher aperture right? Unless I'm confusing sharp pics with DOF. Am I confusing sharp pics with DOF?

thanks and sorry for the long post
recca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2003, 2:05 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

recca...i would venture to suggest that the kit lens that came with the rebel is better than the photographers trying to use it. Is it a high end lens? NO...can it take some pretty good pictures? YES

You're correct in your DOF questions. Normally with a landscape scene you will want to be shooting with smaller aperatures for maximum DOF. This is exactly the reason any photographer worth his salt will have the camera on a tripod -- so that you can take advantage of the smaller aperatures and not have to worry about the shutter speed being 1/4 second. If you want maximum sharpness from whichever lens you're using, use a tripod, be meticulous in your exposure settings, use a remote shutter release, and avoid using the lens at the maximum aperatures. Most lenses perform best around f/8 to f/11.

Don't underestimate that kit lens. Buy a good tripod and use the existing lens. Learn to work with it. Having the fastest L lens won't make you a better photographer -- but learning to utilize the equipment you have will!

Shutter speeds for sports and animals is critical. 1/500 sec for most stop action, sometimes even 1/1000. You need lots of light and a fast lens for this. Are you familiar with the sunny16 rule? Do a search on google (or whatever search engine) for sunny 16. It's a good thing to know and understand.

Good luck!
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2003, 2:20 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 30
Default Kit lense quality

I have the kit lense and bought the new Canon 55-200 USM and the 50MM f/1.8. The 18-55 kit lense falls short relative to both the 55-200 and the 50MM. While I was not surprised at the weak comparison to the 50MM (the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the best quality lenses especially for the price), the difference between the 18-55 and the 55-200 was bigger than I expected. The 18-55 is muddier at 55mm (at 55mm f/5.6 for the 18-55 versus f/4.5 for the 55-200) and less crisp generally.

The 18-55 is ok. Color is good especially at the wider end. But it is not very sharp. I figure, if you are going to go to the trouble of moving up to the Digital Rebel, give the camera what it needs to best Sony's F717 and F828. I moved up from the F717. Canon cameras beat Sony's in color easily. However, the improvement in resolution on the kit lense did not justify the trouble of moving up.

I have been searching for a good everyday lense. The best I have seen is the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L but that cost more than camera. I have yet to test the Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 pro which ranked just behind the Canon 24-70 on the photozone web page but for much less--around $300 versus the Canon's $1100.
fsm2i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2003, 1:38 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 25
Default lens

The 50mm F1.8 lens isn't very wide though. Is it good for landscape photography? Add in the 1.6 mutipler on the D-rebel and you would end up with a picture similar to something that was taken by an 80mm lens with no multiplier.
recca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 30, 2003, 4:27 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 60
Default

I'm going through the process of stocking my lens kit for the DRebel as well. After a pile of research, I ended up with the Sigma 14mm f2.8 for wide stuff. It ends up looking like a film 22mm. I've had it a little over a week now and I believe I'll be very happy with it. FWIW, it can be found for less than $700 if that's in your price range.

I also purchased the Canon 50mm 1.8 and consider it one of the best bargains in decent optics for shapshots and portraits.

In general I'm happy with both purchases and plan to add a zoom in the range of something like 24-70 sometime in the future. FWIW, I doubt I've mounted the kit lens more than 3 times since I got my new ones.
NLAVD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2004, 7:46 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 25
Default hmm

The sigma is a little bit expensive for me, I was hoping to get something near 500 and below. I might consider the 50mm 1.8 from canon as it is a medium zoom lens. Not great for landscapes but I guess it'll be okay for portaits and for close up action shots of my pets.

How sharp is 50mm 1.8 vs the kits lens?

Thanks
recca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2004, 8:35 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default Re: hmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by recca
The sigma is a little bit expensive for me, I was hoping to get something near 500 and below. I might consider the 50mm 1.8 from canon as it is a medium zoom lens. Not great for landscapes but I guess it'll be okay for portaits and for close up action shots of my pets.

How sharp is 50mm 1.8 vs the kits lens?

Thanks
The 50mm is not a zoom lens. I think you mean medium telephoto. Zoom refers to the ability of the lens to change focal lengths. The 50mm is a prime lens and perfect for portraits given the 1.6 factor.

It is far superior to the kit lens for sharpness.
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:45 PM.