The world of Lenses: Advice request

luke_church · December 24, 2005

Hi All,

So I'm looking for some advice. I'm pricing a move from fixed lens to DSLR. Currently looking at a Canon 350D (XT). I think I understand enough of the technology and usability issues to make the camera decision, but lenses are a new game for me.

I need something that can take photos in *bad* lighting (Drama performances, indoors available light), I also want to kick the habit of relying entirely on zoom lenses, so I intended to acquire the

-> Canon 50mm Prime f1.8 (£60)

Which seems to be well liked despite being cheap.

:

For this kind of thing: http://www.lukechurchphotography.com/gallery/980054 (I know that it won't have the zoom range, but I'll trade that for the brightness)

So this leaves a macro lens and a zoom lens.

Zoom:

The problem here is a quality judgement. I'm not really in the market for L Glass, but how do I tell what is good and what isn't below that? The 70-300mm IS USM looks nice and the people over at FM seem to like it, but it does cost almost the same as the camera(!) (£470)

I understand that the 55-300mm sucks somewhat, which I would have expected for the price and range. (~£160)

Can if I accept a shorter range and no IS and expect the price to drop for the same quality? E.g. 100-300mm USM F4.5 (£250)

I need something that can do general zoom, portraits and 'zoo photography'. Oh, if possible I'd also like it to be fairly light, my wrists are somewhat fragile....

I'm inclined to quality over range if anyone has any other suggestions?

Basically: How do I tell what's good and what isn't? I've been using FredMiranda's reviews, which are fine as they go, but generally seem to concentrate on the higher cost band lenses. Any other places to recomend?

Macro: Everything I've done has been with a 'close up' lens on the end of an F828: e.g. http://www.lukechurchphotography.com/gallery/891515

I don't really understand the world of Macro and DSLR... As far as I can tell, it seems like an property that allow the lense to focus close for a given zoom range. So a macro lens is also useful for non-macro photos? I think I get the idea about the impact of the focal lengths and DOF.

So I was looking at the EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM (£300) (Probably in 6 months or so once I've learnt the camera system)

Is this reasonable, or overkill as an introductary DSLR macro lens?

Any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated...

Many thanks and best wishes for the season,

Luke

DavidTO · December 24, 2005

luke_church wrote:

So this leaves a macro lens and a zoom lens.

Zoom:

The problem here is a quality judgement. I'm not really in the market for L Glass, but how do I tell what is good and what isn't below that? The 70-300mm IS USM looks nice and the people over at FM seem to like it, but it does cost almost the same as the camera(!) (£470)

I understand that the 55-300mm sucks somewhat, which I would have expected for the price and range. (~£160)

Can if I accept a shorter range and no IS and expect the price to drop for the same quality? E.g. 100-300mm USM F4.5 (£250)

I need something that can do general zoom, portraits and 'zoo photography'. Oh, if possible I'd also like it to be fairly light, my wrists are somewhat fragile....

I'm inclined to quality over range if anyone has any other suggestions?

The 70-200 f4L is a great L lens that's in the same price range as the 70-300. I love mine. Used $500.

I don't really understand the world of Macro and DSLR... As far as I can tell, it seems like an property that allow the lense to focus close for a given zoom range. So a macro lens is also useful for non-macro photos?

Is this the idea or am I misguided?

Yes. The 100 2.8 is a nice lens (I owned one for a bit, bought from Windoze, sold it to Andy, who live a stone's throw from eachother!), and it works fine as a normal lens, just a bit slow in the focusing. I would recommend going slow and getting the macro down the line, unless you really have a burning desire to shoot macro. Get the camera, a couple of lenses and work your way into it.

DavidTO · December 24, 2005

On the macro front, check out this thread.

luke_church · December 24, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

The 70-200 f4L is a great L lens that's in the same price range as the 70-300. I love mine. Used $500.

Thanks David, I'll look into that. For some reason it seemed to be a fair bit more expensive than the 70-300 in the UK... I'll keep an eye out on that one. I've never really bought used electronics/optics, but it seems to be a fairly common thing to do with lenses...

Yes. The 100 2.8 is a nice lens (I owned one for a bit, bought from Windoze, sold it to Andy, who live a stone's throw from eachother!), and it works fine as a normal lens, just a bit slow in the focusing. I would recommend going slow and getting the macro down the line, unless you really have a burning desire to shoot macro. Get the camera, a couple of lenses and work your way into it.

Surely.

Thanks for the helps,

Luke

luke_church · December 24, 2005

DavidTO wrote:

On the macro front, check out this thread.

Good one, thanks again... I hadn't seen that thread in my searching...

Ahhh back to work now, no more 'browser' shopping for a few minutes...

Luke

Andy · December 24, 2005

70-200 f/4L, nice choice, given your desires.

100mm macro: super for macro, and portraits (on 1.6x body, mostly outdoor portraits) and also anything else you'd use that FL for.

50 f/1.8 - yup give it a go. ISO 1600, and f/1.8 - you'll be fine.

leebase · December 24, 2005

The 50m f1.8 is a no brainer must have lens (unless you spend more for the 50mm f1.4)

It's not going to be all that long of a lens, so I hope you'll be upfront for those performances.

The 85m f1.8 is another excellent lens for indoor theatre type shots -- and a great portrait lens and indoor sports lens as well.

The canon 35mm f2.0 should be on you list to consider....I went with the Sigma 30mm f1.4...pricier and brighter.

As for cheap zooms....you get what you pay for. I went with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, but, as you mentioned, it's almost as much as you are paying for your camera (not a bad thing, lenses will last many camera bodies).

I'd reccoment the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for your basic zoom -- but you might stick with the "kit" lens if money is tight. I believe Sigma also as a pair of "kit lens" quality in the range of 18-55, 55-200 that should be reasonable. You can upgrade later as you needs and pocket book allow.

Lee

wxwax · December 24, 2005

luke_church wrote:

Thanks David, I'll look into that. For some reason it seemed to be a fair bit more expensive than the 70-300 in the UK... I'll keep an eye out on that one. I've never really bought used electronics/optics, but it seems to be a fairly common thing to do with lenses...

Surely.

Thanks for the helps,

Luke

Make sure you're looking at the f4, not the f2.8.

Almost all of my glass was bought used, and I am entirely satistifed with its quality. Seemed like a smart way to go, to me, and it still does.

Justiceiro · December 24, 2005

I have to second the previous opinion about the canon 50mm f 1.8. It's really nice, and very easy to use in low-light situations. And for $80 new you really can't go wrong. The one drawback is that on a DSLR its a little too long for my taste. Then again, I tend to shoot wide more often than I shoot tele, and I have never used it in a performance type setting- If you scop out a theater beforehand you out to be able to figure out where to sit to get the best use out of the lens.

If this is going to be the lens you use most of the time I would consider shelling out the dough for a 35mm f2.0. It's only $220 at B&H.

luke_church · December 25, 2005

Thanks Andy, Lee, Sid and Justiceiro.

Don't worry I'll certainly be looking round the theatre before hand. I think they are also keen on my shooting their dress rehersal, so I should be able to get a good feel for it then as well.

Cheers for the advice,

Luke

The world of Lenses: Advice request

Comments