If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Second/additional lenses (and general advice) for digital rebel
Hi everyone,
I'm getting a digital rebel 300D and I'm shopping around for a second lens. I've done some light 35mm SLR work in the past, and mostly have been working on improving my framing and composition with a digital Elph S230 over the past few years (http://www.electrictao.net/gallery/portfolio). I like landscape, scenery, architecture, astro and people photos. I don't generally do any sports photos, though my fiance is an equestrian so I guess I'd better start learning how to clean horse muck off my camera. I also like taking macro shots of flowers and insects, but I feel these tend to be less challenging tests of composition. I'm really excited about exploring photography more with the DR, but I suspect that the kit 18-55 isn't quite what I'm looking for. Though I like the idea of an 18mm wide-angle, I'm worried about distortion and sharpness at the 18mm end. Also, I'd like to have more of a 25-125 zoom for walking around. I initially was looking for more of a 70-200/300 telephoto, but I figure I'm only going to use that much telephoto for a small percentage of shots (i.e. wildlife shots), and having a more compact, optically sound lens with smaller range was a better option. I know that I will get a Canon 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) and possibly a 20mm wide-angle prime at some point down the road. I'm also probably going to get a mid-range telephoto zoom at some point (100-300mm), or I'll just rent a 400mm prime from the local camera place for weekend wildlife trips. So the big question is, what to get as my second (first non-kit) lens? Here's what I've been looking at: 1. Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5; Pros: great reviews, great price, USM; Cons: less zoom, no macro 2. Tamron SP 24-135 f/3.5-5.6; Pros: more range, sharp at 24mm, macro; Cons: more $$, not so great above 90mm 3. Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6; Pros: big lens with lots of range, less $$, macro; Cons: would still have to swap lens for 35-50mm range shots, is image contrast and sharpness sacrificed for the zoom range? 4. Tamron XR 28-300 f/3.5-6.3; Pros: less $$, all-in-one lens, macro; Cons: image quality at long focal lengths, and is such a wide range really that useful/valuable? (I got an SLR for a reason, after all) One thing I've noticed is that a lot of Canon's zoom lenses don't seem to offer macro capability. Is there a reason for this? Any tips on getting around this limitation (e.g. dedicated macro lens, etc.)? Also, any advice on how well/how poorly macro multifilter sets work would be appreciated. I have a Meade ETX-90 telescope for casual observing, and it doubles as a 1250mm f/13.8 spotting scope, but I have no idea how well this works on terrestrial targets and with a dSLR. Thanks for reading my long post and TIA for any help, Peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Second/additional lenses (and general advice) for digital rebel
In article , Peter Wang
writes Hi everyone, I'm getting a digital rebel 300D and I'm shopping around for a second lens. I've done some light 35mm SLR work in the past, and mostly have been working on improving my framing and composition with a digital Elph S230 over the past few years (http://www.electrictao.net/gallery/portfolio). I like landscape, scenery, architecture, astro and people photos. I don't generally do any sports photos, though my fiance is an equestrian so I guess I'd better start learning how to clean horse muck off my camera. I also like taking macro shots of flowers and insects, but I feel these tend to be less challenging tests of composition. I find this surprising - many people find true macro work much more difficult. Maybe you have not got close enough yet to realise how hard it gets! I'm really excited about exploring photography more with the DR, but I suspect that the kit 18-55 isn't quite what I'm looking for. Though I like the idea of an 18mm wide-angle, I'm worried about distortion and sharpness at the 18mm end. Also, I'd like to have more of a 25-125 zoom for walking around. I initially was looking for more of a 70-200/300 telephoto, but I figure I'm only going to use that much telephoto for a small percentage of shots (i.e. wildlife shots), and having a more compact, optically sound lens with smaller range was a better option. I have a 10D, so very similar in needs to your 300D, and have a similar range of interests. The lenses which I take out most often with the 10D are 17-35 f/2.8L, TS-E 24 f/3.5L and 28-135 IS. I don't do much sport or "distant" wildlife, but for airshows and the like I would take a 100-400 L IS. I am also fortunate enough to have a range of other lenses, including fixed focal length ones, which I take as required. If I know I will be looking for flowers, small wildlife etc I will take the 100 f/2.8 macro. IMO, there is no point in messing about trying to do this kind of work with a zoom which focusses a few cm closer than others. None of them are satisfactory except as close-up lenses. Get a true macro lens (I know from experience the Canon 100mm macro is excellent, and by repute, so is the Tamron 90mm; I wouldn't rely on most others). I know that I will get a Canon 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) and possibly a 20mm wide-angle prime at some point down the road. I'm also probably going to get a mid-range telephoto zoom at some point (100-300mm), or I'll just rent a 400mm prime from the local camera place for weekend wildlife trips. So the big question is, what to get as my second (first non-kit) lens? Here's what I've been looking at: 1. Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5; Pros: great reviews, great price, USM; Cons: less zoom, no macro Very good by repute; I've never had one. Consider the 28-135 IS as an alternative; the IS is very useful. 2. Tamron SP 24-135 f/3.5-5.6; Pros: more range, sharp at 24mm, macro; Cons: more $$, not so great above 90mm Don't know it, but the Tamron SP range has a generally good reputation. 3. Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6; Pros: big lens with lots of range, less $$, macro; Cons: would still have to swap lens for 35-50mm range shots, is image contrast and sharpness sacrificed for the zoom range? I have had 3 Sigma lenses and came to the conclusion I can't afford them any more (as I always end up replacing them with decent ones later). 4. Tamron XR 28-300 f/3.5-6.3; Pros: less $$, all-in-one lens, macro; Cons: image quality at long focal lengths, and is such a wide range really that useful/valuable? (I got an SLR for a reason, after all) The only 10x zooms I know of which I would buy would be the Canon 35-350L and its 28-???L replacement - and even these are really special purpose lenses for press work. All the small aperture 28-200 and 28-300 zooms I have seen reviewed just don't seem very sharp. The whole issue of tele zooms is difficult; I never found one which combines low price with good quality (the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6USM is not ultra sharp and lacks contrast at the long end, and I believe the 75-300 may be the same); you have to go to the L range to get this. Once you do, you realise how feeble the others are; look at the 70-200 f/4L and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. Other lenses to consider: Canon 17-40 f/4L - never had one (I have a 17-35 f/2.8L instead) but from all reports it is excellent. Canon 85 f/1.8 - excellent lens, good value. 300 f/4L or 400 f/5.6L - both a bit pricey, but top quality If you develop your interest in architecture, there is only one "must have" lens: the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L. I rarely leave home (photographically speaking) without mine. It is unfortunate that the 10D/300D sensor cuts the field of view so much, and for that reason it works better on a film body, but I find it indispensable. One thing I've noticed is that a lot of Canon's zoom lenses don't seem to offer macro capability. Is there a reason for this? At a guess, it is because the quality you get from trying to make one lens do too many things just gets too poor, and Canon prefer not to compromise too much. Cynics would say it's because they want you to buy an expensive macro lens, or that they are complacent, but (having been a Canon system user since the 1970s) I would not find either view convincing. The company does irritate me in some ways, but not these. Any tips on getting around this limitation (e.g. dedicated macro lens, etc.)? Also, any advice on how well/how poorly macro multifilter sets work would be appreciated. See above. I would suggest a close-up lens set will work very well on a zoom provided you don't expect top quality. I got one (Hoya +1, +2, +4 set) with my first EOS lens (35-135 zoom, back in the early 90s) just for photographing my daughter's hamsters. It was perfect for this. They are cheap and easy to use, you don't lose X stops of light and for modest sized prints they are OK. Save the money you didn't spend on other stuff to buy a proper macro lens later. I am told the Canon doublet ones are worth the money, but have never tried them - they are several times the price of the Hoya ones. True macro work (1:1 or better) is demanding, and too complex to advise you in a brief post like this. I suggest you get a book, and decide what it is you like to do, before you spend lots of money. A macro flash will also be invaluable. I have a Meade ETX-90 telescope for casual observing, and it doubles as a 1250mm f/13.8 spotting scope, but I have no idea how well this works on terrestrial targets and with a dSLR. Try it, it will be fun even if the results don't match what a pro would get with a 600 f/4L etc. You will need a VERY good tripod though; expect to pay at least £200/$300 for one good enough for this. However, for trials you should be able to use a cardboard tube, gaffer tape and a bean bag to see if it works well enough to spend money. Thanks for reading my long post and TIA for any help, Peter -- David Littlewood |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Second/additional lenses (and general advice) for digital rebel
Since you already have the 18-55mm range covered, you might want to
cover the 70-200 mm range with 70-200 F/4 L USM or go with its big brother 70-200 F/2.8 L USM. to extend the capabilities of the camera and photographer first, and then back fill with a 16-35 F/2.8 for more low light performance and smaller Depth of Fields, and finally replace the 18-55mm with the top notch 28-70 F2.8 L USM. Mitch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Since you already have the 18-55mm range covered, you might want to
cover the 70-200 mm range with 70-200 F/4 L USM or go with its big brother 70-200 F/2.8 L USM. to extend the capabilities of the camera and photographer first, and then back fill with a 16-35 F/2.8 for more low light performance and smaller Depth of Fields, and finally replace the 18-55mm with the top notch 28-70 F2.8 L USM. Mitch |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Asking advice | Bugs Bunny | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 69 | March 9th 04 05:42 AM |