No shame in being a newbie (what kind of lenses do I need)?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rupert, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Rupert

    Rupert Guest

    Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out
    (assuming the reviews are good). Without any prior SLR experience, can
    someone please tell me what lenses I will need? I will be buying the
    kit, so I get one. I would like to try to get away with only
    purchasing one other. I want to be able to take macro shots (probably
    25% of what I will use it for). Being a newbie, I don't want to spend
    too much on equipment, but at the same time, I want a lense that is
    going to be useful for a long time, and will continue to be useful as
    I get better (ie, it will survive my hopefully increasing scruitiny).

    Thanks for any help....

    Rupert
    Rupert, Aug 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rupert

    JK Guest

    Rupert wrote:

    > Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out
    > (assuming the reviews are good). Without any prior SLR experience, can
    > someone please tell me what lenses I will need? I will be buying the
    > kit,


    With the lens? Don't do it. Get just the body, and buy better lenses separately.



    > so I get one. I would like to try to get away with only
    > purchasing one other. I want to be able to take macro shots (probably
    > 25% of what I will use it for)


    Then get a real macro lens, not a zoom that has the word macro in its name.
    50mm macro lenses aren't that expensive. If you want even more magnification,
    (such as for photographing insects and other very small things)get extension
    tubes to be used with the macro lens.

    > . Being a newbie, I don't want to spend
    > too much on equipment, but at the same time, I want a lense


    The who purpose of getting an slr is to get a few lenses.

    Some suggestions:

    A 50mm macro lens
    A 50mm f1.8(or f1.4) lens for shooting in low light
    An f2.8 zoom(a bit expensive but well worth it)




    > that is
    > going to be useful for a long time, and will continue to be useful as
    > I get better (ie, it will survive my hopefully increasing scruitiny).
    >
    > Thanks for any help....
    >
    > Rupert
    JK, Aug 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rupert

    JK Guest

    "Ed E." wrote:

    > I agree with the other poster. The lens looks cheap and will probably only
    > provide meodicre images, but that will remain to be confirmed when the
    > reviews start pouring in.
    >
    > Invest your money in the lenses. Don't be tempted to save a few bucks by
    > buying off-brands. Here are some good macro lenses:
    >
    > Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro - $230
    > Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro - $420
    > Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro (slow and noisy focus, but very sharp images) - $360
    >
    > I normally steer away from Sigma, but that lens is really, really sharp.
    >
    > One inexpensive, non-macro lens to get is the 50mm f/1.8 for about $65.


    If he is getting a 50mm f2.5 macro lens, then he should also get a 50mm f1.4
    rather than the f1.8. If he is getting a 50mm macro lens much slower than
    f2.5, then the f1.8 would be such a bad purchase. I see no reason for him to
    buy a 100mm macro lens, especially due to the 1.6 x factor for that camera.
    A 50mm macro lens would be the equivalent of an 80mm macro lens on
    a 35mm slr, which is a good portrait lens as well.

    >
    > Many swear by the Canon 28-135mm IS lens ($400), but I've been pulled into
    > the more expensive "L" series and can't go back.


    How much is a Canon 85 mm f1.8 lens ? That would translate to a 135 mm
    1.8 equivalent, which would also be a nice lens to have. One of the main
    reasons to buy a digital slr is to be able to use fast lenses. Buying slow
    lenses for a digital slr seems like a real waste. If you want a zoom lens,
    get an f2.8 one. Don't waste your money on a slow zoom lens. You might
    really end up regretting it.
    JK, Aug 22, 2003
    #3
  4. Rupert

    Jean Gupta Guest

    > > Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out
    > > (assuming the reviews are good). Without any prior SLR experience, can
    > > someone please tell me what lenses I will need? I will be buying the
    > > kit,

    >
    > With the lens? Don't do it. Get just the body, and buy better lenses separately.


    I disagree. They know better than you what lens would work best with the
    camera. The one they give you should work well with overall situations, rather
    than a lens that would only be good at taking one type of picture.

    > > so I get one. I would like to try to get away with only
    > > purchasing one other. I want to be able to take macro shots (probably
    > > 25% of what I will use it for)

    >
    > Then get a real macro lens, not a zoom that has the word macro in its name.


    I disagree again. A zoom lens is going to get used more than any other type and
    having macro built in to it means you don't have to change lenses all the time,
    which is a big pain. Many times you will want to take a quick picture and find
    out you pass it up because you didn't want to bother changing the lens!

    > > . Being a newbie, I don't want to spend
    > > too much on equipment, but at the same time, I want a lense

    >
    > The who purpose of getting an slr is to get a few lenses.


    No, it is to get a better quality camera that has settings and speed you don't get
    with the other cameras.

    > > that is
    > > going to be useful for a long time, and will continue to be useful as
    > > I get better (ie, it will survive my hopefully increasing scruitiny).


    Remember, it is not the lenses that take good pictures, but the photographer that
    gets all the credit, so the lens that comes with it will be plenty. As you become
    a good photographer you will learn how to use that one lens to take good pictures.
    Jean Gupta, Aug 22, 2003
    #4
  5. Rupert

    Dana Laffit Guest

    > Invest your money in the lenses. Don't be tempted to save a few bucks by
    > buying off-brands. Here are some good macro lenses:
    >
    > Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro - $230
    > Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro - $420
    > Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro (slow and noisy focus, but very sharp images) - $360
    >
    > I normally steer away from Sigma, but that lens is really, really sharp.


    But from what everyone is saying on this group, the lens shouldn't matter at
    all, it is the photographer that makes the picture better, not the camera or
    lens.

    You people here keep contradicting yourselves.
    Dana Laffit, Aug 22, 2003
    #5
  6. Probably the best solution to your Macro problem is to buy the set of
    Extension Tubes that Canon sells especially for this purpose.
    Bob Williams

    Rupert wrote:

    > Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out
    > (assuming the reviews are good). Without any prior SLR experience, can
    > someone please tell me what lenses I will need? I will be buying the
    > kit, so I get one. I would like to try to get away with only
    > purchasing one other. I want to be able to take macro shots (probably
    > 25% of what I will use it for). Being a newbie, I don't want to spend
    > too much on equipment, but at the same time, I want a lense that is
    > going to be useful for a long time, and will continue to be useful as
    > I get better (ie, it will survive my hopefully increasing scruitiny).
    >
    > Thanks for any help....
    >
    > Rupert
    Robert E. Williams, Aug 22, 2003
    #6
  7. Rupert

    Mark B. Guest

    "JK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Rupert wrote:
    >
    > > Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out
    > > (assuming the reviews are good). Without any prior SLR experience, can
    > > someone please tell me what lenses I will need? I will be buying the
    > > kit,

    >
    > With the lens? Don't do it. Get just the body, and buy better lenses

    separately.
    >


    Until a full review comes out, you don't know how good or bad the 18-55 zoom
    is. Someone posted a first-look review of the 300D with the kit lens on
    dpreview.com and said it looked surprisingly good.

    Mark
    Mark B., Aug 22, 2003
    #7
  8. Rupert

    Mark B. Guest

    "JK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > "Ed E." wrote:
    >
    > > I agree with the other poster. The lens looks cheap and will probably

    only
    > > provide meodicre images, but that will remain to be confirmed when the
    > > reviews start pouring in.
    > >
    > > Invest your money in the lenses. Don't be tempted to save a few bucks

    by
    > > buying off-brands. Here are some good macro lenses:
    > >
    > > Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro - $230
    > > Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro - $420
    > > Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro (slow and noisy focus, but very sharp images) -

    $360
    > >
    > > I normally steer away from Sigma, but that lens is really, really sharp.
    > >
    > > One inexpensive, non-macro lens to get is the 50mm f/1.8 for about $65.

    >
    > If he is getting a 50mm f2.5 macro lens, then he should also get a 50mm

    f1.4
    > rather than the f1.8. If he is getting a 50mm macro lens much slower than
    > f2.5, then the f1.8 would be such a bad purchase


    ut for a newbie, is it worth more than 3x the cost of the 1.8? The 1.8 is
    pretty darn sharp for under $90. Yes, there is a speed difference but again
    I'm not sure it's worth the cost.

    >. I see no reason for him to
    > buy a 100mm macro lens, especially due to the 1.6 x factor for that

    camera.
    > A 50mm macro lens would be the equivalent of an 80mm macro lens on
    > a 35mm slr, which is a good portrait lens as well.
    >


    I'd agree with that, a 50mm macro would be very good on the 300D.

    Mark
    Mark B., Aug 22, 2003
    #8
  9. Rupert

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>, says...

    > I disagree. They know better than you what lens would work best with the
    > camera. The one they give you should work well with overall situations, rather
    > than a lens that would only be good at taking one type of picture.


    No, they know better than you which cheap lens they can include without
    hurting their profit margin. The 35-80 is a piece of shit lens. It has
    nothing to do with working well with overall situations (whatever that
    means) and everything to do with lens quality.

    > I disagree again. A zoom lens is going to get used more than any other type and
    > having macro built in to it means you don't have to change lenses all the time,
    > which is a big pain. Many times you will want to take a quick picture and find
    > out you pass it up because you didn't want to bother changing the lens!


    Then don't buy an SLR.

    > No, it is to get a better quality camera that has settings and speed you don't get
    > with the other cameras.


    Being able to change lenses based on your current needs is a very
    significant part of purchasing an SLR vs. a point and shoot. If you
    don't get that, then again don't buy an SLR.

    > Remember, it is not the lenses that take good pictures, but the photographer that
    > gets all the credit, so the lens that comes with it will be plenty. As you become
    > a good photographer you will learn how to use that one lens to take good pictures.


    How many times to we have to play this game?

    If this is the mindset that we are going to be dealing with in potential
    buyers of the 300D, this is going to be LOTS of fun.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
    Todd Walker, Aug 23, 2003
    #9
  10. > > I disagree. They know better than you what lens would work best with the
    > > camera. The one they give you should work well with overall situations, rather
    > > than a lens that would only be good at taking one type of picture.

    >
    > No, they know better than you which cheap lens they can include without
    > hurting their profit margin. The 35-80 is a piece of shit lens.


    Canon doesn't make shit. And besides, isn't it you losers on this group that keep
    saying it is not the camera or the lens that matters but the photographer???? If you
    are a good photographer you should be able to take great photos with any lens, right???

    > It has
    > nothing to do with working well with overall situations (whatever that
    > means) and everything to do with lens quality.


    That sounds like something I would have said, but most on this group seem to disagree and
    say quality of lenses and cameras have nothing to do with taking great photos, it is all
    the photographer because the photographer is a talented artist.

    > > I disagree again. A zoom lens is going to get used more than any other type and
    > > having macro built in to it means you don't have to change lenses all the time,
    > > which is a big pain. Many times you will want to take a quick picture and find
    > > out you pass it up because you didn't want to bother changing the lens!

    >
    > Then don't buy an SLR.


    Sure, just buy this SLR with the included lens.

    > > No, it is to get a better quality camera that has settings and speed you don't get
    > > with the other cameras.

    >
    > Being able to change lenses based on your current needs is a very
    > significant part of purchasing an SLR vs. a point and shoot.


    Again, I thought the camera is not important, only the photographer pushing the shutter
    button.

    > > Remember, it is not the lenses that take good pictures, but the photographer that
    > > gets all the credit, so the lens that comes with it will be plenty. As you become
    > > a good photographer you will learn how to use that one lens to take good pictures.

    >
    > How many times to we have to play this game?


    Hey, this is what all you losers out here keep pushing when I try to say the camera and
    lens matter, so now see how you like it. Or are you going to climb aboard with me and
    admit the lens and camera do make a difference?
    Hank Pharthinurfais, Aug 23, 2003
    #10
  11. > Until a full review comes out, you don't know how good or bad the 18-55 zoom
    > is.


    If it is a Canon lens, it will rule.
    Hank Pharthinurfais, Aug 23, 2003
    #11
  12. (Rupert) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out
    > (assuming the reviews are good).


    Why?

    Without any prior SLR experience, can
    > someone please tell me what lenses I will need?


    Impossible to do without knowing what interests you have,

    > I will be buying the
    > kit, so I get one. I would like to try to get away with only
    > purchasing one other.


    Why?

    > I want to be able to take macro shots (probably
    > 25% of what I will use it for).


    Macro shots of what?

    >Being a newbie, I don't want to spend
    > too much on equipment, but at the same time, I want a lense that is
    > going to be useful for a long time, and will continue to be useful as
    > I get better (ie, it will survive my hopefully increasing scruitiny).


    It 'lens', not 'lense'.
    >
    > Thanks for any help....
    >
    > Rupert
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 23, 2003
    #12
  13. Rupert

    JK Guest

    "Mark B." wrote:

    > "JK" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > >
    > > "Ed E." wrote:
    > >
    > > > I agree with the other poster. The lens looks cheap and will probably

    > only
    > > > provide meodicre images, but that will remain to be confirmed when the
    > > > reviews start pouring in.
    > > >
    > > > Invest your money in the lenses. Don't be tempted to save a few bucks

    > by
    > > > buying off-brands. Here are some good macro lenses:
    > > >
    > > > Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 macro - $230
    > > > Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro - $420
    > > > Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro (slow and noisy focus, but very sharp images) -

    > $360
    > > >
    > > > I normally steer away from Sigma, but that lens is really, really sharp.
    > > >
    > > > One inexpensive, non-macro lens to get is the 50mm f/1.8 for about $65.

    > >
    > > If he is getting a 50mm f2.5 macro lens, then he should also get a 50mm

    > f1.4
    > > rather than the f1.8. If he is getting a 50mm macro lens much slower than
    > > f2.5, then the f1.8 would be such a bad purchase

    >
    > ut for a newbie, is it worth more than 3x the cost of the 1.8? The 1.8 is
    > pretty darn sharp for under $90.


    The 50mm f1.4 lens is $270? That is a bit expensive. I am used to buying
    used manual focus lenses, and a 50mm f1.4 might only be around $50
    or so. The f1.4 lens probably also has a much better build quality, and
    will probably last much longer. I wonder if there are adapters so that one
    can use old manual focus lenses on a digital slr. Some great very sharp
    used manual focus lenses are very cheap now.

    > Yes, there is a speed difference but again
    > I'm not sure it's worth the cost.
    >
    > >. I see no reason for him to
    > > buy a 100mm macro lens, especially due to the 1.6 x factor for that

    > camera.
    > > A 50mm macro lens would be the equivalent of an 80mm macro lens on
    > > a 35mm slr, which is a good portrait lens as well.
    > >

    >
    > I'd agree with that, a 50mm macro would be very good on the 300D.
    >
    > Mark
    JK, Aug 23, 2003
    #13
  14. Rupert

    JK Guest

    extension tubes used with a regular lens are not a good substitute
    for a macro lens. Regular lenses are optimized for focusing on
    infinity, while macro lenses are optimized for focusing at small
    distances. A macro lens will give a much flatter depth of field
    at small distances than a regular lens. A macro lens also has
    much more variation in its focusing ring, which makes taking
    macro images much easier than swapping expension tubes
    a few times(I did that years ago before getting my first macro
    lens). The images from macro lenses(especially at high
    magnification) are far superior to those from a normal lens.
    JK, Aug 23, 2003
    #14
  15. Rupert

    Mark B. Guest

    "JK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > "Mark B." wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > ut for a newbie, is it worth more than 3x the cost of the 1.8? The 1.8

    is
    > > pretty darn sharp for under $90.

    >
    > The 50mm f1.4 lens is $270? That is a bit expensive. I am used to buying
    > used manual focus lenses, and a 50mm f1.4 might only be around $50
    > or so. The f1.4 lens probably also has a much better build quality, and
    > will probably last much longer. I wonder if there are adapters so that one
    > can use old manual focus lenses on a digital slr. Some great very sharp
    > used manual focus lenses are very cheap now.
    >


    Actually, it's worse than that. $300 at B&H:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA

    Gray market is still $285. I don't know if there are adapters. It's not a
    bad idea, but I don't know if I would like losing AF capability completely.

    Mark
    Mark B., Aug 24, 2003
    #15
  16. Rupert

    John Guest

    > > A macro lens will give a much flatter depth of field
    > > at small distances than a regular lens.

    >
    > At the same focus distance, with the same focal length, DoF is the
    > same with a macro lens or a normal lens with extension tube.
    >
    > http://digitcamera.tripod.com/


    Flat field is not the same as DOF.

    A normal lens using tubes to get close will "curve" the edges of the frame
    giving them soft focus. The assumption with these lenses is that you are not
    taking critical images of stamps, coins, etc. with them. The edges are not
    at the same distance as the center.

    A macro lens assumes you will be shooting close and corrects the field
    ("flat" field) to insure that the images are clear across the frame and that
    the edges ARE at the same distance as the center. When shooting "normal"
    shots with a macro lens, the effect is so small that it doesn't matter.

    This is one reason why a lens with "macro features" built in is not as good
    as a true macro lens.
    John, Sep 4, 2003
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Shane & Kimberly Gilbert

    Shame on B&H

    Shane & Kimberly Gilbert, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    71
    Views:
    2,030
    Lionel
    Aug 18, 2003
  2. Frankhartx

    Re: Shame on B&H

    Frankhartx, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    851
    PTRAVEL
    Aug 19, 2003
  3. BandHPhoto

    Re: Shame on B&H

    BandHPhoto, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    399
    Mark M
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. BandHPhoto

    Re: Shame on B&H

    BandHPhoto, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,920
    BandHPhoto
    Aug 12, 2003
  5. Doc
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,193
    nobody >
    Aug 24, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page