Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

On 7/9/2013 3:17 AM, David Taylor wrote:

snip


You are right about focussing on (at least the Nikon) 18-200 mm, at
close distances. These lenses behave as if they had a shorter focal
length, and do not provide the magnification you might expect. You
would need to check this aspect carefully. For a Nikon DX camera, the
40 mm macro lens looks to be excellent value for money, if the working
distance is great enough for you.



The short working distance and narrow DOF creates lighting issues, as
well as problems of scaring any little critters you want to photograph.
I look at that as a serious drawback.

--
PeterN

On 09/07/2013 14:50, J. Clarke wrote:
[]
You have it backwards--the crop-frame lenses can't be used on Canon Full
Frame DSLRs--there are some that will physically interfere with the
mirror.
[]

Thanks. As you will see, I already corrected that error. It's not an
issue for the Nikon range, though.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 09/07/2013 17:31, PeterN wrote:
[]
The short working distance and narrow DOF creates lighting issues, as
well as problems of scaring any little critters you want to photograph.
I look at that as a serious drawback.

I used to have the Nikon 55 mm f/3.5 (IIRC) macro lens thirty years ago,
but I was never interested in live subjects. The problem with that lens
was that you needed an extra ring ring to get 1:1 reproduction, and I
never bought that.

The 40 mm DX micro lens sounds like a great lens, perhaps for document
copying, but with the problems you mention if you need 1:1 reproduction.
Are the DoF issues different with different focal lengths? I'd always
(wrongly) associated longer focal lengths with less DoF in distant
photography.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
: 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,

: What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
: And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
: they're much faster than f/2.8.

Not much for FF, but that's not the point.

So a 50-150 FF lens doesn't make much sense. QED.

A FF 50-150 is well within Canon's
design capability, so why not?

Does it sell?

Then at least the lens is still available if I
buy it for my 7D's but decide later to go FF. As a potential FF wannabe, I
made a conscious decision to stop buying APS-C lenses, and I doubt that I'm
alone in that.

You could as well have bought a 70-200mm and a 50mm prime.
Or upgrade to FF right now and buy a 70-200mm anyways.


: but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.

: That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
: a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
: and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
: than f/2.8.

And they're not constant-aperture zooms. One can usually live with that for
landscape and architecture photography, but for indoor event photography it's
a deal breaker.

Nope. The deal breaker is that the long end may be dark.

But then --- a 20D went to ISO 1600. From f/2.8 to f/5.6 means
you need ISO 6400, which is well inside the capabilities of
more modern cameras.


: I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
: it's very heavy

: A 50-150 would be much the same.

It could (and should) be noticeably lighter.

Not as a FF f/2.8 "L" lens.
Try f/4.


: and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
: usually do.

Which is the real reason I'd like a 50-150. It wouldn't leave a gap above my
17-55 (Canon's standard APS-C walkaround lens), like the 70-200 does.

The gap between 55 and 70 is quite small. The usual steps
are ..., 35, 50, 85, 100, ...


: In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
: not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
: Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.

Besides not being a CA lens, it has a bit longer range than I prefer a zoom to
have.

That only matters if it impacts your images.

I'm already resigned to carrying two cameras at events (I've been doing
it for several years), and ideally the two lenses should overlap, but only by
a little.

Ideally you'd use a really fast lightfield camera.


: Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
: the 24-105

I've thought about it, but I need the extra stop.

At ISO 12,800?


: or even the 24-70 f/2.8,

If I could afford it. But anyway, neither of those lenses is wide enough on a
7D. At the events I do, there's always a group picture to be taken, and that
means going below 24mm.

So you maybe really need a FF camera to put the 70-200 on,
and keep your 17-55 on the crop camera.


: and switch to the 70-200 only when needed.

My events (awards ceremonies and the like) usually don't offer many
opportunities to change lenses.

Preplan.


Let's face it: I don't expect Canon to pay much attention to my argument for
the 50-150 (and certainly not as a FF lens). But I thought I might as well
throw the idea out there.

Ah, trolling for comments ...

-Wolfgang

Ghost-Rider wrote:
Le 07/07/2013 17:04, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :
J. Clarke wrote:

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

Image quality (sensor size)
Choice (change lenses on occasions where it matters)
Focussing speed (PDAF)
Seeing what you shoot (Optical viewfinder)
Expandability

As concerns the Nikkors 18-200 and 18-300, fuzzyness is unknown to me,
my photographs are crisp even at long end and full aperture.

You need to compare that with, say, a 200mm or 300mm prime lens
(of Canon make, if possibly) --- and compare at wide open, not
only f/8 and f/11.
http://tinyurl.com/papx8nl
http://tinyurl.com/q5kpsau

:-)

-Wolfgang

David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2013 12:40, Neil Ellwood wrote:

David - Canon EF lenses can be used on all Canon dslr cameras - it is the
EFs lenses that can only be used on the crop senser cameras.

Yes, that makes sense - not having Canon kit I'm unfamiliar with their
designations. Fortunately, Nikon doesn't have this restriction

Which only means their DX lenses can't use the advantages of
a shorter mirror box.

- DX
lenses can be used on FX cameras, and FX cameras may have a built-in
"crop-sensor" mode.

A great idea: buying a FX camera instead of a DX camera,
so more pixels can go to waste.

-Wolfgang

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
On 7/7/2013 1:26 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
says...
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,

I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.
[...]
But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?
[...]
My 18-300 is not the best lens, but it beats my old 18-200. I use it as
a walk around lens, on my D800.
However, something is missing in your logic. If you are not aware of the
optical performance of a lens, how can you cay one is better?
Doesn't all depend on use?

What leads you to believe that I am "not aware of the optical
performance of a lens"?

You claimed the 18-200 and 18-300 were "a fuzzy superzoom".
Are you aware of the performance of that lens or not?
Are you also aware of the lens performance of (all/most)
bridge zoom cameras?

And if you come back with a snarky response
instead of a reasoned analysis of the sentence which you misintepreted,
into the killfile you go--I'm getting sick of dealing with people who
would rather argue "you said this" and "you said that" than the idea or
object under discussion.

A straight "Yes" or "No" will suffice, but feel free to
perform a reasoned analysis of the lens qualities.

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:10:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

However the extension tube set gives one a lot of flexibility, with no
loss of quality.

A 40mm macro lens is fine if you want a paper-thin depth of focus.

What sort of focal length would you say a macro lens should
have to not have a paper-thin DOF?

-Wolfgang

On 10/07/2013 17:21, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2013 12:40, Neil Ellwood wrote:

David - Canon EF lenses can be used on all Canon dslr cameras - it is the
EFs lenses that can only be used on the crop senser cameras.

Yes, that makes sense - not having Canon kit I'm unfamiliar with their
designations. Fortunately, Nikon doesn't have this restriction

Which only means their DX lenses can't use the advantages of
a shorter mirror box.

... but they can still be more compact, lighter, and lower cost.

- DX
lenses can be used on FX cameras, and FX cameras may have a built-in
"crop-sensor" mode.

A great idea: buying a FX camera instead of a DX camera,
so more pixels can go to waste.

-Wolfgang

It means that you can continue to use any DX lenses you purchased when
(and if) you buy an FX body, whereas Canon's approach requires you to
see those EF-S lenses and buy new ones.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , david-
lid says...

On 10/07/2013 17:21, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2013 12:40, Neil Ellwood wrote:

David - Canon EF lenses can be used on all Canon dslr cameras - it is the
EFs lenses that can only be used on the crop senser cameras.

Yes, that makes sense - not having Canon kit I'm unfamiliar with their
designations. Fortunately, Nikon doesn't have this restriction

Which only means their DX lenses can't use the advantages of
a shorter mirror box.

.. but they can still be more compact, lighter, and lower cost.

- DX
lenses can be used on FX cameras, and FX cameras may have a built-in
"crop-sensor" mode.

A great idea: buying a FX camera instead of a DX camera,
so more pixels can go to waste.

-Wolfgang

It means that you can continue to use any DX lenses you purchased when
(and if) you buy an FX body, whereas Canon's approach requires you to
see those EF-S lenses and buy new ones.

For certain values. I doubt that I'd be using the 10-22, which is my
only EF-S lens, on a full frame anyway.