recommendations for lenses for beginners

[nettsu]

It seems a tad strange that I would be describing myself as a beginner :lol:

but my photography has entered a new phase (or it will when I get a CF card)
I've gone dSLR a friend of mine very kindly gave me his old 300d
it has the standard canon 18-55 EFS lens

so I was wondering if you folks had any recommendations as to any other lenses I should be looking at saving my non-existent funds for

thanks ;D

[phunkdust]

EF 50mm f/1.8

OH LOOK somebody is conveniently selling theirs!

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=250069125885&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=015

:P

Cheapest lens in the Canon lineup but is quite good for what you get. Makes for some beautiful portraits (once you start understanding aperture)



There's not that many choices in the Canon range that are worth upgrading to from the kit lens that arent a fair bit more expensive. The kit lens produces a good enough result, it's just the focus mechanism thats sloooow. To find a worthy upgrade from that you're starting to think in the $500-$1500 range.

[nettsu]

convenient that :P

if I had the money I'd bid but I don't so I won't...

:lol:

[phunkdust]

Yeah its a nice little lens, expect to pay $135 new/ $90 second hand or so. Once you grab that theres nothing to think about until you've saved about a grand.

Actually the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is worth checking out. Great little 'standard' lens on a dSLR and could pretty much handle most day-to-day things. Around $500 new.

The best thing to do is shoot a lot of photos and then look back and see what focal lengths you use most... then you can have a better idea of what lens suits you. It's far to easy to have lens "wants" when you dont actually need it.


Also good cheap place to get memory cards is JB HiFi cameras on Elizabeth St. A Sandisk Ultra II should do just fine. I'd get 1GB.

[nettsu]

Also good cheap place to get memory cards is JB HiFi cameras on Elizabeth St. A Sandisk Ultra II should do just fine. I'd get 1GB.

I was going to have a look there during lunch :blush:

I was going to have a squiz at officeworks yesterday but then couldn't be bothered :lol: although I am at the I have a new toy and I want to play stage :rock:

[beagle2]

Depends, what do you want to shoot? Your flickr page seems to have lots of close-up macros and wide angle landscapes, is this what you want lenses for?

[nettsu]

beagle2 - not really sure - won't really change that much I guess - I will just keep using the kit lens and see where I go from there...

phunky - had a look @ bourke street and then realised that elizabeth street would have been closer :lol: but the sandisks will be a goer - just has to wait till thursday :(

[phunkdust]

Just don't get sucked into lens envy ;) I'd grab the EF 50mm because it's so damn cheap it's just worth having to play with... but then just get to know your new kit and see how far you can take it (you can take it quite far even with the kit lens) before you start thinking about upgrades.

If you want to play, in the custom functions menu there should be a setting to let you release the shutter without a CF card installed so you can at least practice handling it.

If you want to manual focus you have to disengage autofocus with the switch on the lens barrel - otherwise you'll hear the lovely sickening sound of grinding gears :lol:

[Ralph Wiggum]

That nifty 50 rocks :blush:

[Bojoe]

I got myself a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM ultra wide angle zoom lens, not really the cheapest of lens but still good for the beginner (me) its a good general purpose lens and has pretty good image quality for a reasonable price.

[Scootie]

oh and don't go to JB HiFi for your CF, go to the computer store just up the road from the JB HiFI DVD store on Lonsdale. very cheap, all good.

I got most of my 4GB cards there, Trancend brand, work like a charm and fast enough, and HEEEEAPS cheaper than JB or anyone else i've found

[phunkdust]

I'm a little nervous buying yum cha CF cards.

[Skat]

Interesting topic Nets... Very relevant to me right now, as i've just aquired a 400D body :D

Lens options that I'm thinking about and would not mind some feedback on if anyone out in ITM land has used them are...

Tamron 17 - 50 2.8

Sigma 30 1.4 -- Had a play with this today and was really impressed, albiet a little heavy for a 50mm equiv

Sigma 18 - 50 2.8

and finally, for nature and concert stuff,

Canon 70 - 200 f4L

Canon 17 - 85 f4is

I was originally just going to get the 400D and the 17 - 85 f4is in the package but a proverbial spanner has just been thrown into the works and other options have been raised.

[nettsu]

If you want to play, in the custom functions menu there should be a setting to let you release the shutter without a CF card installed so you can at least practice handling it.

If you want to manual focus you have to disengage autofocus with the switch on the lens barrel - otherwise you'll hear the lovely sickening sound of grinding gears :lol:

I've been playing :blush:

there's a couple of things that have made me already go wheeeeeeeeeeee and then damn as it would have made a good photo :lol:

Scoots is that the computer place just past Melbourne Central?
I think I know the one you mean
Although Larry is trying to convince me to get CF cards off ebay

And he also took delivery of his EOS300 yesterday
so we've also now got a 28-80m Canon lens and a Cosina telephoto lens (I know this sounds like a dumb n00b question but I am going to guess I need an converter before I can slap the lenses on the 300D).

[phunkdust]

If it's an EF series Canon lens it should fit straight onto the 300D just fine.

You can go to the computer shop iStore its just on lonsdale near hardware lane on the same side of the road as Dasty Food

[beagle2]

You could go with an all-in-one 28-200 or 28-300 zoom, that will cover most shots you might normally take but the downside is that those full-range lenses usually have inferior optics.

I like taking still life and environmental portraits so I shoot a lot between about 50 and 90mm. I have a 28-105 which I just love for its versality in this range. My camera came with a 18-70 and 70-300 but I was getting irritated at having swap the lenses back and forth all the time at the 70mm mark which I frequently oscillated around. So the 28-105 was perfect for me.

Check out www.vanbar.com.au - they have stores in Melb and Syd, lots of pro gear/advice and cheap prices.

[phunkdust]

Vanbar don't really do much of Canon. They're mainly a Nikon reseller

[Scootie]

Scoots is that the computer place just past Melbourne Central?
I think I know the one you mean
Although Larry is trying to convince me to get CF cards off ebay

no. if you walk from qv, down lonsdale, past melb central, past the church, past the two JB hifis, it's the next computer place you come to, you walk down a couple of stairs once you get throug hthe automatic glass doors and they have all display cases with everything, walk to the first counter in front of you and you'll see memory cards at the far side of it


And he also took delivery of his EOS300 yesterday
so we've also now got a 28-80m Canon lens and a Cosina telephoto lens (I know this sounds like a dumb n00b question but I am going to guess I need an converter before I can slap the lenses on the 300D).

if the Cosina telephoto is made for Canon auto focus then it *might* work on the 300D.

Canon lenses come in three models, FD, EF and EF-S

FD is old school manual focus/manual everything, from the time before, the olden days of yore. you'd need an adapter, but there's some good cheap sharp glass if you want to focus manually and set aperture manually (ie: not for us)

EF is Canon's auto focus system, compatible with all the EOS cameras, which it was designed for. Canon has never told anyone how to make compatible lenses, so all the third party companies just tried to reverse engineer it. Some did a really good job, like Tamron, so their old lenses still work, Some did an average job originally, like Sigma, so an old Sigma won't work on a new camera, although the newer Sigmas will work. I don't know what Cosina were like at reverse engineering, so it might work, it might not. :)

EF-S is Canon's system designed for smaller sensor digital cameras (300D, 350D, 400D, 20D, 30D) and are designed to only project a smaller image onto the sensor than a film camera needs, and also tend to have lens elements that stick back into the camera slightly, as the mirror on those cameras is smaller and clears the lens mount with more room than the full size camera mirrors. These lenses don't fit onto the EF only cameras (film EOSs, 5D, 1D) and the simpler/smaller geometry means that they can be made a little cheaper.

[nettsu]

thanks phunky & scoots

as I said I feel like a beginner again
but if the cosina fits on the 300D i might be onto a winner ;)

[Skat]

So I may as well just start a new thread... Heaps of response here. :(

[sneekers]

Interesting topic Nets... Very relevant to me right now, as i've just aquired a 400D body :D

Lens options that I'm thinking about and would not mind some feedback on if anyone out in ITM land has used them are...

Tamron 17 - 50 2.8

Sigma 30 1.4 -- Had a play with this today and was really impressed, albiet a little heavy for a 50mm equiv

Sigma 18 - 50 2.8

and finally, for nature and concert stuff,

Canon 70 - 200 f4L

Canon 17 - 85 f4is

I was originally just going to get the 400D and the 17 - 85 f4is in the package but a proverbial spanner has just been thrown into the works and other options have been raised.

skat i use the 350d with 17-85mm, 50mm f1.8 and 70-200 f2.8L

spend the extra money and get the 2.8 if u go down the 70-200 path, for IS its another grand ontop...

i just posted some pics of the 70-200 lens just then in the creative pic thread, for examples of the 17-85, check my flickr/myspace site

i couldnt be happier with the performance of these lenses, well worth the money, excellent glass

[phunkdust]

Canon 17 - 85 f4is

Not bad. Sharp around f8. Only good for reasonably well lit stuff. With f4 minimum even with IS and ISO3200 it will fall over in a club. Focus is nice and fast as is macro ability.

Good all-around lens that doesn't do any particular job that well.

Kicks the pants off the kit lens.

Tamron 17 - 50 2.8

OK build quality, great performance (far better than the Sigma 18-50) although has an issue with field curvature at wide angle. For the price ($629) it's a fuk'n steal. Outperforms the Canon 17-85 as far as sharpness is concerned. Considering its F2.8 versus F4-5.6 it's even more amazing how good this lens is against the more expensive Canon. Of course the Canon also gives you faster and silent AF, macro, and IS. If you don't need the extra reach of the 17-85 or IS (remember that IS gets you a 2 stop improvement, and the Tamron is 1 to 2 stops faster than the Canon anyway) then definately check it out. It's a real corker wide open AS LONG as you mostly use the middle of your frame. The middle is very sharp even wide open but the borders suffer especially if its in a scene thats going to take a hit from the shitty problem with field curvature. This lens is GOOD but it's made cheaply without a lens element to compensate for the field curvature. If you don't take photos of brick walls much you'll be fine. I think its probably the best affordable "kit" lens to match the 300D/350D/400D and even the 20D/30D if you want to be stingy and spend 3x as much on your body as your lens.

Sigma 30 1.4 Good lens, good price, good weight (weight is good, keeps you from shaking) - Optical performance is very good, consider it an alternative to nifty fifty or it's more expensive brother the f/1.4. Some doubt about quality control though. Price is OK. I found the AF performance average especially if you plan to shoot wide open a lot.

Sigma 18 - 50 2.8

Nicer build and finish than the tamron, feels more secure. But more expensive and not as good. I'd go the Tamron.

Canon 70 - 200 f4L

Good lens, but spend the extra bux for the 2.8. It's a much better performer. Don't bother with the IS version though - expensive and not as good.

[rancho]

Canon 70 - 200 f4L

Good lens, but spend the extra bux for the 2.8. It's a much better performer. Don't bother with the IS version though - expensive and not as good.

:-0 blasphemy. ive never used the non IS to compare, im basing my opinion solely on the countless reviews i read before making my decision. many will claim that the non IS is ever so slightly sharper. many will say the difference is pretty negligable. but its still unbelievably sharp and the IS is very useful. i lub it and imo is definately as good, if not (better based on what ive read ofcourse).

anyway we're talking beginners who arent going to be cashing out on either of these anyway :lol:

[phunkdust]

The non IS is sharper. The IS one has IS. It's also fk'n expensive.

Depends on your needs.

[Skat]

Thanks for the response guys :) :thumb:

I dont think that I'll use the IS that much, Most of the stuff that would warrant the IS I'll have a tri/mono pod anyway.

[tecks]

Just to add to the phunk's mini-review of the 17-85 IS, while the focusing is generally fast and quite accurate, it sucks in low-light indoors situations, just not enough aperture there to get a good lock. for my trip round europe where i only wanted to take one lens it was great, but I want to get something better now. keep in mind it's f/4-5.6, not f/4 right through. really not that good.

[phunkdust]

The AF sensors in a DSLR are not like the system you find in a live view camera.

An SLR AF system usually comprises of micro CCD sensors. They attain focus by looking for areas of contrast.

If you are trying to get focus lock in low light it doesnt help at all if your AF point is hovering over a flat surface. Try and find an edge so that the contrast detect system has something to work with.

As long as you're not in servo mode you can attain focus this way then recompose while holding that focus.

The middle sensor is far more sensitive than the others, in low light switch to this one.

Hi-gain mode is enabled on lenses I think f/2.8 and faster.

[tecks]

something new everyday hey :P

i'm sure i've read in several places that most DSLR's won't be able to focus with lenses slower than f/whatever, so i assumed the wider the aperture, the better the low-light focussing.
anyway the troubles i had were mostly in very poorly lit cathedral's and whatnot, really a tripod situation, but i still got a few decent shots handheld.

[Spectrum]

re: (D)SLR auto focus.

I always focus via the centre AF point, lock, then recompose.

Am I right from my long-forgotten understanding, the centre AF sensor is [+] shaped, and therefore recognises changes of contrast on both a vertical and horizontal plane, thereby greater increasing the accuracy? Whereas, the top/bottom sensors are shaped [-] and the left/righthand side sensors are shaped [|] and therefore limit their ability to read contrast changes in one direction (horizontal or vertical, respectively)? Could be completely wrong there. :)

Also, my camera body (EOS30) offers Eye-Control-Focus that, amazingly, tracks your eyeball's movement to the closest AF sensor in the viewfinder. Look at a AF point, and it'll focus on that part of the scene. Quite remarkable, and it really does work.

Having said that, there's a slight response delay, plus I prefer the quick, gunsight-action of sticking to the centre sensor.

[Spectrum]

re auto-focus on small apertures (high f/stop values).

I've got a teleconverter (2x) and it makes a real mess with autofocus, especially on my 100-300mm, regardless of how careful I am with being in brightlight, scoping the scene for sharply defined areas of high contrast.

It also makes a real mess with sharpness, so is rarely used. Helped me get close to a fruit bat's doodle once. Funny to see something that points down when erect. :lol: Ahem. :|

[rancho]

The non IS is sharper.

have you personally compared the two? link to online comparison? thats a pretty bold statement to make with no backup i must say :stroke:

[phunkdust]

www.photozone.de

[Spectrum]

www.photozone.de

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
Coming soon:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS (re-test)

;)

Going back a few years, I too was under the opinion that the general concensus was that the IS model wasn't as sharp. Perhaps there's been a revision, hence the re-test underway?

EDIT: Just spotted:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
Verdict
At this stage I will not provide a final verdict due to the sub-standard MTF results which seem to originate in a bad sample of the lens.

[phunkdust]

I think that it's something to do with the change in the lens design required for IS.

[Scootie]

yeah, I would imagine in theory that they would add a specific element for the IS component, rather that using an existing element in the Lens design, and as such there's one more piece of glass between reality and the camera, so there's the potential for some loss

having said that, I suspect that both lenses are quite sharp, and it's just that the IS is very very sharp and the non-IS is extremely very sharp :)

[ghettro]

It's nikon not canon but they are more or less the same. I got a nifty 50/1.8 AF-D nikkor recently. best gig lens evar! I tend to shoot a lot of gigs in low light so the speed is a real help. It's the cheapest lens in the catalogue, very sharp, no distortion, very little chromatic abberation.