[canon] lens advice - standard, telephoto, and macro

I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be "wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing lenses (all
other things being equal like L class lenses, aperture etc) an IS lens can
shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens without IS?

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

Telephoto lenses - I have used a EF 70-200mm f/4L USM on a 20D, but found at
the 200mm it is still not "quite enough" zoom. Considering I will have 105mm
f/4 available with my standard lens, should I splash out on the EF 100-400mm
/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or is that a bit extravagent?

What is the "DO" class lens on the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? Is that
better/equal to L lenses? May be a better option to the 100-400?

What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM? 70-200 f/4L IS
USM?

Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

--
Troy Piggins
Canon EOS 30D body only - need lenses

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing
some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard
lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be
"wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.

Can't answer all of them.

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something
like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

It's worth it but I use my 35mm f/2 much more than the 50. If you have the
budget get both.


What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM? 70-200
f/4L IS
USM?


I use a Kenko 1.4x with my 24-135 Tamron and my 70-200 f/4 L Canon. The
results are great to me.

Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

100mm Canon or 90mm Tamron.

Greg
--
Ticket******* tax tracker:
http://ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html
"Run over your friends in stolen Volkswagens
And tell them I sent you, and tell them I sent ... you" - Mclusky

* Troy Piggins is quoted & my replies are inline below :
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and
just doing some research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many
recommendations for the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty
much sold on that as my standard lens. I'm assuming the 24mm
(with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be "wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing
lenses (all other things being equal like L class lenses,
aperture etc) an IS lens can shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens
without IS?

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting
something like a EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around
AU$125 - worth that?

Telephoto lenses - I have used a EF 70-200mm f/4L USM on a 20D,
but found at the 200mm it is still not "quite enough" zoom.
Considering I will have 105mm f/4 available with my standard
lens, should I splash out on the EF 100-400mm /4.5-5.6L IS USM,
or is that a bit extravagent?

What is the "DO" class lens on the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM?
Is that better/equal to L lenses? May be a better option to
the 100-400?

What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM?
70-200 f/4L IS USM?

Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

Been looking at the macro lenses, and seems the 100mm f/2.8 Macro
USM is recommended a lot. Stupid question - this would be
worthwhile? Better than the 24-105mm standard for macro shots?

--
Troy Piggins
Canon EOS 30D body only - need lenses

Troy Piggins wrote:
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be "wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing lenses (all
other things being equal like L class lenses, aperture etc) an IS lens can
shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens without IS?

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

Telephoto lenses - I have used a EF 70-200mm f/4L USM on a 20D, but found at
the 200mm it is still not "quite enough" zoom. Considering I will have 105mm
f/4 available with my standard lens, should I splash out on the EF 100-400mm
/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or is that a bit extravagent?

What is the "DO" class lens on the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? Is that
better/equal to L lenses? May be a better option to the 100-400?

What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM? 70-200 f/4L IS
USM?

Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

Google POTN and join up
It's a canon extravaganza and all your questions will be answered.

* Smeegol is quoted & my replies are inline below :
Troy Piggins wrote:
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and
just doing some research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many
recommendations for the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm
pretty much sold on that as my standard lens. I'm assuming
the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be
"wide enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.
[snip]
Google POTN and join up It's a canon extravaganza and all your
questions will be answered.

I've been reading there as a guest, and was just thinking about
joining as I read your message. Thanks.

--
Troy Piggins
Canon EOS 30D body only - need lenses

Troy Piggins wrote:
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be "wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Best not make assumptions when considering these expensive lenses. You
could make a costly mistake. 24mm with a 1.6x crop wouldn't be any use
for my style. You should pause for a minute or two before you make the
decision. If you need wide, your option would probably be the 17-40mm
f/4 L. I have one with a 70-200mm, and they cover the range nicely for
my needs. The 30mm gap in the middle doesn't bother me, but it might you.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing lenses (all
other things being equal like L class lenses, aperture etc) an IS lens can
shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens without IS?

Yes. And no. Your basic statement is correct. However, IS isn't the
complete solution - it doesn't freeze moving subjects for example. Only
faster glass can do that. So it depends what you're shooting.

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

Many people swear by that lens, and I bought one based on excellent
reviews. It's certainly sharp, and holds its own even in a collection of
L glass like you're considering, but I hardly ever use it. The very
shallow depth of field from large apertures doesn't work for my style.

Can't help with the rest - long range stuff isn't my forte!

--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing
some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard
lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be
"wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing lenses
(all
other things being equal like L class lenses, aperture etc) an IS lens can
shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens without IS?

Generally yes, but you also have to take into account blur due to subject
motion.


If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something
like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

The EF50mm f/1.8 is small, light and very sharp. Also, the f1.8 aperture
can give you narrow depth-of-field and better background blur.


Telephoto lenses - I have used a EF 70-200mm f/4L USM on a 20D, but found
at
the 200mm it is still not "quite enough" zoom. Considering I will have
105mm
f/4 available with my standard lens, should I splash out on the EF
100-400mm
/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or is that a bit extravagent?

If you can afford it, the 100-400mm is an overall excellent lens, but
sharpness is not as good as the 70-200mm f/4 (and the 400mm f/5.6).


What is the "DO" class lens on the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? Is that
better/equal to L lenses? May be a better option to the 100-400?

The 70-300DO lens is very compact, good for travelling, but the performance
is not on par with the L zooms (70-200, 100-400).


What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM? 70-200
f/4L IS
USM?

The 1.4X extender will get you close to 300mm with little loss in optical
quality. With the 2X you will likely lose autofocus and there is some drop
in optical quality.


Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

If have only used the 100mm f/2.8 macro and it is plenty sharp. Another
option is to get the 500D macro adapter for your 70-200mm.


--
Troy Piggins
Canon EOS 30D body only - need lenses

Troy Piggins wrote:
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be "wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Well, you have used cameras previously, so you should know
your preferred length.

The 24-105mm (38-168mm equivalent) is probably a bit long
for a standard lens, personally i find 38mm too long for many
occasions (say indoors or architectural). For example, the
following shot was made with 17mm (27mm equiv) --- there was
no space for me to back away further, and I didn't have a
wider angle, hence the castle does appear falling over
backwards:
http://weissel.smugmug.com/photos/162111911/800x800.jpg


Just got some questions to ask for now.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing lenses (all
other things being equal like L class lenses, aperture etc) an IS lens can
shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens without IS?

No.
Above shot was exposed for over a minute from a tripod (and no,
it's not a HDR). IS would have had zero impact.

IS is, basically, a short-time automatic tripod-like feature,
that reduces camera vibrations. It does not freeze subjects
(actually, in above picture, 3 people walked past in front of
the castle ... not a trace of them visible in the shot.)

Where IS shines are longer focal lengths, where you are not limited
by object movement, but by camera shake. There IS is worth it's
weight in gold. However, IS can merely complement, not replace,
fast lenses:
- IS doesn't improve the autofocus
- IS doesn't reduce the depth of field
- IS doesn't stop subject movement

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

It's well worth it, though I prefer the haptics of the (several
times more expensive) 50mm f/1.4. If you are interested in
available light, you want fast fixed focal length lenses.
(50mm (80mm equiv.) makes a nice portrait length (though the
f/1.8 is said to have harsh bokeh), something around 30mm would
be a normal lens ... )

These very fast lenses will still autofocus when other lenses
have long given up.

Telephoto lenses - I have used a EF 70-200mm f/4L USM on a 20D, but found at
the 200mm it is still not "quite enough" zoom. Considering I will have 105mm
f/4 available with my standard lens, should I splash out on the EF 100-400mm
/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or is that a bit extravagent?

If you want a f/5.6 280mm, a 1.4x converter will do.

If you need exceptional qualities, T have heard good things about
the 300mm fixed focal length (available as f/4 and f/2.8). The f/4
should weight in at about the price of a 100-400mm, and offer
exceptional 300mm f/4 and 420mm f/5.6 (with an 1.4x converter).

Alternatively, there is a 400mm f/5.6 (no IS, though) available
from canon, which should be in the same price range. From
what I read, it also is a very nice lens.
It will not AF with extenders on your 30D.

The 100-400mm, however, is (I read) regarded by some as "it
gets the work done, especially when shooting for reporting duty,
but it's not the finest lens there is".
It also will not AF with extenders on a 30D body.

What is the "DO" class lens on the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? Is that
better/equal to L lenses? May be a better option to the 100-400?

DO stands for Diffractive Optics, which should allow lighter
lenses. I understand the green "DO" ring is meant as a
'quality" sign like the red "L" ring, but not at quite as
high a level as "L". If it is

What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM? 70-200 f/4L IS
USM?

Extenders (or converters) ... they cut out the middle of the
image and enlarge it. Thus it really depends a lot on thee
quality of the lens in question. I understand that 1.4x
converters are ususally no problem with a good fixed focal
length lense, and will work satisfactor with very good zooms
(luckily, the 70-200 is regarded as such).

Converters do not impair IS functionality.
Use high quality converters.

1.4x costs you one full stop (f/2.8-f/4, f/4-f/5.6) and
give you 40% more reach (100mm-140mm, 200mm-280mm)
thus exarbating the handholdability problems.
AF fails on the 30D if the original lens is slower than f/4.
They are usually regarded as no big problem.
2x converters are, ah, only usefull with very good or
exceptional lenses to begin with. They cost two full
stops (f/2-f/4, f/2.8-f/5.6), doubling the reach.
In other words, you need 3 more stops (10x) light to
handhold a lens with a 2x converter than without.
Additionally, your lens needs to be no slower than f/2.8
to archive AF on the 30D.
3x converters are generally regarded as gimmicks and help image
quality the way smearing liberal amounts of vaseline on your
front lens does.

Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

Depends on your budget.
Cheap: Use a close up lens. Alternatively, a mechanical
retro adapter and a wide angle lens. (Do read up the
problems first). Alternatively, any old macro lens for
cheap with a mechanical adapter.
medium: any EF-macro lens, including 3rd party manufacturers.
Lighting as needed. Tripod as needed.
dear: Whatever macro lens and/or bellows system (as needed combined
with retro-adapters with electrical connection) fits your
needs best. Remember: the crop factor does _not_ count in
macro, and the focal length determines how many centimeters
you have between lens and object. Depending on your use, the
MP-E may be a good choice. Tripod-system with a gear to shift
the camera in sub-millimeter steps forwards and backwards.
Specialized macro-flash system. Software to combine hundreds
of shots into one with a DOF or more than a mm.

-Wolfgang

"Troy Piggins" a écrit dans le message de
...
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing
some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard
lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be
"wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Just got some questions to ask for now.

I understand the IS can be "worth" 2-3 stops, so when comparing lenses
(all
other things being equal like L class lenses, aperture etc) an IS lens can
shoot 2-3 stops slower than a lens without IS?

IS can help as long as the subject does not move, it can be a lifesaver for
handheld shots at slow speed, but a tripod does a better job.

If you were getting the above lens, would you bother getting something
like a
EF 50mm f/1.8 II as well? They're only around AU$125 - worth that?

I also bought one of those lenses and never use it, I loaned it on a semi
permanent basis to my son in law. While the quality is high up there, the
focal lenght is not good for indoor shots, just a bit too long. It does a
great job as a portrait lens at 80mm equivalent focal lenght but nothing
that can't be done with the 24-105. At close range and fully open, the
focus range is so shallow that the lens must be closed down unless a
portrait with eyes in focus but the nose and ears out of focus is what you
are looking for all the time. A better choice for me was the 28mm f1.8,
very close to a 50mm on a 35mm camera, it does a very capabe job as a travel
lens, covering 90% of situations and not so big and heavy, so far the 24-105
has replaced it very well at a slight weight penalty.

Telephoto lenses - I have used a EF 70-200mm f/4L USM on a 20D, but found
at
the 200mm it is still not "quite enough" zoom. Considering I will have
105mm
f/4 available with my standard lens, should I splash out on the EF
100-400mm
/4.5-5.6L IS USM, or is that a bit extravagent?

While the 100-400 gets good reviews, it is a BIG lens, something to consider
if you want to travel with it. I bought a 70-200 f4 and a 1.4X TC, light
enough for travel and sharp enough for my tastes. Sure longer would be
better, I like long lenses but I can't carry the heavy ones all the time. I
have a 300mm f4 L IS and a 70-200 f2.8 L which I take along when I know I
will not be carrying them for weeks on end. Both work very well with a 1.4X
TC.

What is the "DO" class lens on the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM? Is that
better/equal to L lenses? May be a better option to the 100-400?

I had a bad experience with a 70-300 DO lens, not sharp enough for the price
it goes for, if you want to carry a longer zoom than the 70-200, get the
70-300 f4-5.6 IS (non DO), cheaper than the DO and (to me) sharper than the
DO lens.

What about extenders? May be an option with a 70-200 f/4L USM? 70-200
f/4L IS
USM?

It is for me, 1.4X though, one stop loss is enough. Canon's extenders can
only be used with some lenses, check out the ones you plan on using the
extender on before buying.

Macro lenses - what is a good starter/beginner macro lens for
non-professionals?

The 24-105 focus is close, not macro close, but close enough to get some
detail, if you want better macro capabilities, then a dedicated macro lens
will do a better job. I have a friend who is a macro freak and her setup
with a Canon MPE and macro twin light flash produces stunning shots but
expensive and bulky.

Check out the pictures on http://www.pbase.com/ , you can search for
pictures taken with the different lenses you plan on buying, while it is not
scientific, it can show strenghts and weakneses in a real world situation.

Jean

Derek Fountain wrote:
Troy Piggins wrote:
I am buying a 30D (body only) in the next couple of weeks, and just doing some
research on lenses to suit it. I've seen many recommendations for the EF
24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and I'm pretty much sold on that as my standard lens.
I'm assuming the 24mm (with crop factor taken into account, 38mm) will be "wide
enough" for now, and will see how I go.

Best not make assumptions when considering these expensive lenses. You
could make a costly mistake. 24mm with a 1.6x crop wouldn't be any use
for my style. You should pause for a minute or two before you make the
decision. If you need wide, your option would probably be the 17-40mm
f/4 L. I have one with a 70-200mm, and they cover the range nicely for
my needs. The 30mm gap in the middle doesn't bother me, but it might you.

I'm thinking about getting rid of my 10-22mm Canon and 24-135 Tamron and
picking up the 17-40 because I'm finding the same thing. I don't use
the wider end of the 10-22 nor the longer end of the 24-135.

Greg

--
The ticket******* Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky