Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 9, 2010, 6:46 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

F2.8 is the widest currently with any zoom lens. And they tend to be more expensive. But in general prime lens with smaller F numbers are more expensive. eg canon ef 50mm 1.4 is about 350 dollars. The canon ef 50mm 1.2L is 1200 dollars. Brighter lenses are more expensive.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2010, 7:56 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
F2.8 is the widest currently with any zoom lens. ...
Olympus makes a 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, but it's $2,500, and the cameras it fits aren't good for shooting sports. Olympus also makes a 14-35mm f/2.0, but it's $2,300.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2010, 8:05 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

We are not talking about olympus, we are talking about canon. Which the OP asked about directly. I do not know of any canon zooms larger then 2.8. Also one that is not a boat anchor to carry around, besides the sigma 50-150.

I know about the oly's F2 lenses, but for them being is the 2k+ category, it would not really be something I would recommend to someone starting out with a dslr. And generally most users that are considering the oly f2 zoom lenses know their equipment pretty well. And most likely have a large investment into an oly system already. And we would not be debating the which lens question with them.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; May 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2010, 8:54 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmp2204 View Post
Thank you for the response ...Forgive my ignorance but what do the #'s in the bold represent?
Hi JMP,

I am not the most experienced photographer on this website, so you really should pay more attention to the specific advice you're getting from the other posters than you pay to me.

What I am about to say is not meant to hurt your feelings or anything like that. But here goes...

When a person does not know what an F-stop (F 2.8, 3.2, 3.5 etc.) that tells me you are a true novice at photography.

Before you spend great big dollars, I think you should spend some time educating yourself on photography. In my opinion, it'll help you greatly in your purchase decision.

For example, on most DSLR (digital single lens reflex) cameras, you have the option of either TV or AV mode. TV is easy, it means Time Value (I think!) but it means that if you select TV mode, then you can set your camera's shutter speed to what you want. Say in hockey you want to stop the action of a fast paced game. So you set your camera to 1/320 of a second. Your camera will then set everything or most everything else for you.

AV mean aperture priority (not sure why it's called AV). But there's this thing called depth of field. (You can learn more about it, google DOF master). Based on your camera, and lens, and how far you are from your subject, there is a front limit and rear limit of what will be in focus. The closer you are to your subject, the thinner the DOF, meaning less stuff will be in sharp focus. As you get further away from your subject and the higher F stop you choose, the more stuff will be in focus.

This is really basic stuff, and if this sounds like greek, then you would really benefit from finding a friend who knows something about photography and spending a couple of hours with them.

The people here can really help you a lot, but it really important to understand the vocabulary of photography.

Last, regarding your question about a fast lens. If a lens can go to 2.0 all the way thru, then you can slow it down to anything you want. But you can't make a slow lens fast. Recently, I used my 2.8 lens at an fstop of 15, just to get everything in focus.

Faithfully yours,
FP
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2010, 9:04 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

FP has a really good point, I would check out steve's knowledge center and I like www.dslrtips.com for new dslr users to get an idea what dslr photography is about. As they have some good youtube video workshops. Also for shots action in low light, it can get really expensive. 1700 dollars for a lens, is really step. Prime lenses are great for low light shooting, but they do have a big disadvantage when you are not in the idea range of the lens. As you can not correct for framing the shot.

Also, there is really nothing else besides a dslr that will give you any good photo in a low light environment when action is concern. But that also take some knowledge of the dslr system to get the shot correct.

Even if you spend thousands of dollars upfront. Without knowledge dslr shooting, you will not get the results you would expect.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 8:15 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
jmp2204's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: ontario canada
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithfulPastor View Post
Hi JMP,

I am not the most experienced photographer on this website, so you really should pay more attention to the specific advice you're getting from the other posters than you pay to me.

What I am about to say is not meant to hurt your feelings or anything like that. But here goes...

When a person does not know what an F-stop (F 2.8, 3.2, 3.5 etc.) that tells me you are a true novice at photography.

Before you spend great big dollars, I think you should spend some time educating yourself on photography. In my opinion, it'll help you greatly in your purchase decision.

For example, on most DSLR (digital single lens reflex) cameras, you have the option of either TV or AV mode. TV is easy, it means Time Value (I think!) but it means that if you select TV mode, then you can set your camera's shutter speed to what you want. Say in hockey you want to stop the action of a fast paced game. So you set your camera to 1/320 of a second. Your camera will then set everything or most everything else for you.

AV mean aperture priority (not sure why it's called AV). But there's this thing called depth of field. (You can learn more about it, google DOF master). Based on your camera, and lens, and how far you are from your subject, there is a front limit and rear limit of what will be in focus. The closer you are to your subject, the thinner the DOF, meaning less stuff will be in sharp focus. As you get further away from your subject and the higher F stop you choose, the more stuff will be in focus.

This is really basic stuff, and if this sounds like greek, then you would really benefit from finding a friend who knows something about photography and spending a couple of hours with them.

The people here can really help you a lot, but it really important to understand the vocabulary of photography.

Last, regarding your question about a fast lens. If a lens can go to 2.0 all the way thru, then you can slow it down to anything you want. But you can't make a slow lens fast. Recently, I used my 2.8 lens at an fstop of 15, just to get everything in focus.

Faithfully yours,
FP
no hurt feelings I thought it went without saying that i was a novice . The purpose of coming to this site was to get informed on whats what. I have found the info i have recieved so far very valuable and i really appreciate all the comments that have been posted. Obviously the members here are very good people and more than willing to help a out a newbie .....that makes this a good site!!!! . Now back to Camera talk . do you think my choice of camerra (t2i ) is a poor one?Is there something else i should be condering based on the info i have provided for its use? Thanks
jmp2204 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 8:21 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The T2i is a excellent camera. But if HD is not a concern save a bit of money and get the T1i and put that money toward lenses. Either camera will work well as you get more and more experience. And neither will leave you lacking performance. Both have great low light ability. Great AF systems for tracking action. Only thing is that they are not the fastest in burst rate, at sub 4fps. But that still works out well. To get a faster burst rate you will need to move into a larger and heavier camera like the 50D or 7D at allot higher price.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 12:28 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
jmp2204's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: ontario canada
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The T2i is a excellent camera. But if HD is not a concern save a bit of money and get the T1i and put that money toward lenses. Either camera will work well as you get more and more experience. And neither will leave you lacking performance. Both have great low light ability. Great AF systems for tracking action. Only thing is that they are not the fastest in burst rate, at sub 4fps. But that still works out well. To get a faster burst rate you will need to move into a larger and heavier camera like the 50D or 7D at allot higher price.
well the video is an added bonus, i find now with my s5is i rarely pick up my camcorder for the kids birthdays and stuff. Locally right now a camera shop has the 50d on for the same price as the t2i ,so i would jump on that if not for the video....
jmp2204 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 1:16 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 627
Default

jmp,

If I were in your shoes, I'd buy the Ti2, (it's about $100 more than the Ti1) but considerably less than the 7D.

Then I'd look at a used Canon 70-200 2.8 EF USM IS lens. I bought a version myself and am thrilled with it. I bought the lens for less than $1000. The glass was clean, and there were a couple of minor scratches to the outside of the lens.

The Ti2 is NOT a full frame camera. There's a really technical way to say this, but I'm picking the easy way. Because of the way this camera is built, each lens you put on it will perform as if it were 60% longer. So if you put a 100 mm telephoto lens on this camera, it will have the reach or magnification of 160mm.

So the 70-200 lens will perform as if it were 112mm - 320mm. That built in magnification will serve you well while photographing a hockey match.

I use this lens all the time and love it. It is really versatile. But remember this, it is a very heavy lens. It weighs about 4 lbs.

www.keh.com sells used gear and has decent reputation. I did not buy my used lens there. I'm fortunate to live near a large retailer that often has good used gear at reasonable prices.

Best of luck!
FP
FaithfulPastor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 3:15 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

a couple notes:
1) 70-200 2.8 lenses. For sports work, you wont get any benefit from IS. The only benefit will be to non-sports work. So, you really need to be sure you'll NEED IS before you actually pay for it. If you don't have a burning need for IS then the sigma 70-200 2.8 is an excellent choice. I used one for years shooting sports and it's a good performer. About 90% of what the canon version is. You'll want the extra 50mm over the 50-150 in my opinion.

2) On video - with the DSLRs today you do NOT have auto-focus during video. So it is actually more difficult to do video with a DSLR than it is with a digicam. I'm sure future generations of DSLRs will work through this, but you should be aware of the limitation before you count on the benefit of video.
JohnG 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 9:44 PM.