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

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

 

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

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.

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)

 

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.

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.

 

Ok, I am ready to buy the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel when it comes out

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.

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!

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

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.

 

Invest your money in the lenses. Don't be tempted to save a few bucks by

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Mark

 

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.

Then don't buy an SLR.

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.

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
_________________________________

 

I disagree. They know better than you what lens would work best with the

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???

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.

Sure, just buy this SLR with the included lens.

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

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?

 

Until a full review comes out, you don't know how good or bad the 18-55 zoom

If it is a Canon lens, it will rule.

 

Why?

Without any prior SLR experience, can

Impossible to do without knowing what interests you have,

Macro shots of what?

It 'lens', not 'lense'.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

A macro lens will give a much flatter depth of field

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.