| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2007 10:23:24 AM · #1 |
I'm looking for a couple of lenses for my Canon Rebel XTi. I have the lens that comes with the kit, and I'm looking at getting a macro lens and a telephoto. Probably just basic stuff, but I'm not having luck finding things on my own. This is probably just because of my lack of knowledge.
Either way, I'm asking, although I'm sure someone else has asked somewhere. Does anyone have this stuff, that they can recommend, or know of someplace that will help me choose?
Thanks in advance for your help! |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:25:54 AM · #2 |
| what is your budget for lenses? |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:27:13 AM · #3 |
| Posting your budget could narrow it down significantly. There's lot's to choose from. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:27:52 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
what is your budget for lenses? |
Add to that: What do you want to shoot? |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:32:13 AM · #5 |
The most commonly recommended lenses around here are (as I see it)
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Sigma 70-300mm APO
Sigma 105mm Macro
Tokina 12-24mm
Edit: Forgot the Tokina
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 10:40:18. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:32:23 AM · #6 |
My budget is under $1000 for the both of them, unless i can be convinced otherwise. What i'm wanting to shoot as far as the macro lens goes, is obviously macro. flowers, bugs, anything really, i just need the ability to get closer to what i'm shooting that the current lens doesn't offer. as far as telephoto, i'm thinking landscapes and other things a much larger zoom capability can handle. other things would include wildlife, but again, the ability to get closer while standing far away.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:34:41 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Krystle:
My budget is under $1000 for the both of them, unless i can be convinced otherwise. What i'm wanting to shoot as far as the macro lens goes, is obviously macro. flowers, bugs, anything really, i just need the ability to get closer to what i'm shooting that the current lens doesn't offer. as far as telephoto, i'm thinking landscapes and other things a much larger zoom capability can handle. other things would include wildlife, but again, the ability to get closer while standing far away. |
If you're looking at shooting landscapes you'd want a wide angle to get the largest field of view ... |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:36:48 AM · #8 |
I have the first 3 of those listed ... and LOVE each one of them ... my favorite (hardly ever comes off of my camera) is the Tamron ... I don't have a true macro yet, but the Sigma 70-300 has a 2:1 macro capability, which I find is more than enough for me right now ... |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:41:02 AM · #9 |
| For telephoto, I would recommend the Canon 70-200 F/4L. Might not be quite as long as you may want for wildlife, but the quality is VERY nice for the price. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 would compliment it nicely, although not a true macro you should be able to get some nice close-ups. These two should fit your budget. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:41:15 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
I have the first 3 of those listed ... and LOVE each one of them ... my favorite (hardly ever comes off of my camera) is the Tamron ... I don't have a true macro yet, but the Sigma 70-300 has a 2:1 macro capability, which I find is more than enough for me right now ... |
Actually, the 70-300 is ideal for butterfly macros, and parks that don't let you off the path to take pictures of flowers. The local arboretum staff get a bit testy with you if you start walking around like you own the place ;) |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:43:28 AM · #11 |
Like the others said, budget is the biggest hurdle. With that said, narrow your choices down to a few different lenses and then have a look at online reviews from actual users and review sites (links below). then try to find a trustworthy photog store and see if you can rent the lenses you are interested in to try them out in your world to see if they will suit your needs. this is pretty much how I came to purchase my new zoom lens...
user based forum thread with actual samples from specific lenses
Photo Zone lens reviews
ePhotozine - this one is a bit of a pain but select "reviews" on the left then in the mid section change the drop down selection to "interchangeable lenses"
Fredmiranda reviews - another deasent user review forum
the-digital-picture.com - mostly canon stuff here but a little sigma and tamron
hope this helps a little :)
-dave |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:44:17 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Krystle:
My budget is under $1000 for the both of them, unless i can be convinced otherwise. What i'm wanting to shoot as far as the macro lens goes, is obviously macro. flowers, bugs, anything really, i just need the ability to get closer to what i'm shooting that the current lens doesn't offer. as far as telephoto, i'm thinking landscapes and other things a much larger zoom capability can handle. other things would include wildlife, but again, the ability to get closer while standing far away. |
If I didn't own anything but the kit lens, I would
Sell it for $75 on eBay and use the $1075 to buy Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 70-300mm APO and the Tokina 12-24mm. And if I found a sale somewhere on one of the lenses and saved $75, I would toss in the Canon 50mm. Then I would have all the bases covered. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 10:49:39 AM · #13 |
Not to step on any toes here but I tried the Sigma 70-300 and although a nice lens I have a bit of arthritis and the zoom was stiff as hell to rotate, I also tried the Canon 70-200 F4L and the Canon 70-300 F4-5.0 IS and ended up getting the 70-300 IS as the quality was indistinguishable between the two and the IS and extra 100mm reach is nice also and it was about $70(cdn) cheaper than the F4L.
-dave |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:02:46 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
For telephoto, I would recommend the Canon 70-200 F/4L. Might not be quite as long as you may want for wildlife, but the quality is VERY nice for the price. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 would compliment it nicely, although not a true macro you should be able to get some nice close-ups. These two should fit your budget. |
I would second the recommendation of one of the 70-200 L family - combine it with a Canon 500D close-up filter (the one with dual elements) and you get macro facility on a quality zoom and save loads of space in your camera bag by not having an extra dedicated macro lens.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:09:28 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Telehubbie:
For telephoto, I would recommend the Canon 70-200 F/4L. Might not be quite as long as you may want for wildlife, but the quality is VERY nice for the price. The Tamron 28-75 2.8 would compliment it nicely, although not a true macro you should be able to get some nice close-ups. These two should fit your budget. |
I would second the recommendation of one of the 70-200 L family - combine it with a Canon 500D close-up filter (the one with dual elements) and you get macro facility on a quality zoom and save loads of space in your camera bag by not having an extra dedicated macro lens. |
An option I prefer over adding additional glass to get macro capability is a set of extension tubes. They're cheaper and don't add more "stuff" for the light to go through. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 11:45:35 AM · #16 |
| well you can get the canon 100 macro or sigma 105 macro, and those are also telephoto lenses. I love my 28-75mm tamron, and it does close to macro, 1:2 magnification not 1:1. You can pick up the 28-75 and a 70-200L F4 lens for under $1000. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 01:02:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would second the recommendation of one of the 70-200 L family - combine it with a Canon 500D close-up filter (the one with dual elements) and you get macro facility on a quality zoom and save loads of space in your camera bag by not having an extra dedicated macro lens. |
An option I prefer over adding additional glass to get macro capability is a set of extension tubes. They're cheaper and don't add more "stuff" for the light to go through. |
I'll have to disagree with you. You get what you pay for. The 500D is a quality bit of glass (a dioptre).
The dioptre does not affect focussing or zoom focussing (tubes make a lens varifocal), it does not involve any loss of light (contrary to what you say - you lose light (and stops) with an extension tube but not a dioptre), and the dioptre tends to work better with longer lenses than an extender does. The dioptre tends to keep more detail than the tubes.
The tubes are best used on wider angle lenses, where the diopter makes a negligible difference.
For a 70-200, the dioptre should give better results than a tube.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 01:27:46 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would second the recommendation of one of the 70-200 L family - combine it with a Canon 500D close-up filter (the one with dual elements) and you get macro facility on a quality zoom and save loads of space in your camera bag by not having an extra dedicated macro lens. |
An option I prefer over adding additional glass to get macro capability is a set of extension tubes. They're cheaper and don't add more "stuff" for the light to go through. |
I'll have to disagree with you. You get what you pay for. The 500D is a quality bit of glass (a dioptre).
The dioptre does not affect focussing or zoom focussing (tubes make a lens varifocal), it does not involve any loss of light (contrary to what you say - you lose light (and stops) with an extension tube but not a dioptre), and the dioptre tends to work better with longer lenses than an extender does. The dioptre tends to keep more detail than the tubes.
The tubes are best used on wider angle lenses, where the diopter makes a negligible difference.
For a 70-200, the dioptre should give better results than a tube. |
Every optical element adds distortion and the like. It's simple physics. The 500D may be the greatest chunk of glass in the world, but you can't say that it doesn't degrade the image. The extension tubes add nothing but airspace and, while they do decrease light, they do not degrade the image by passing light through additional optical elements.
I do agree that extension tubes are not the best choice for macro with a long telephoto lens. They are excellent when paired with 50mm or 85mm lenses. With long telephoto lenses, extension tubes are useful for decreasing the minimum focusing distance on really long lenses to make them useful for focusing on subjects like small birds from a "backyard" distance. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 02:28:13 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Every optical element adds distortion and the like. It's simple physics. The 500D may be the greatest chunk of glass in the world, but you can't say that it doesn't degrade the image. The extension tubes add nothing but airspace and, while they do decrease light, they do not degrade the image by passing light through additional optical elements. |
The distortion is, of course the point with the 500D (!) - I agree that there is a degradation, but not a noticeable one and the lens works normally (except for the focal range).
I disagree that passing the image through more air does not degrade the image - you are taking a lens with a dozen or more elements, all designed to throw a light of a particular diameter, then adding a whole bunch of space so that the image is cast larger (and you will only capture the central bit). The whole image is darker and the lenses pushed past their design tolerances - any imperfections will be magnified.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 02:37:40 PM · #20 |
| What is this 500D we are talking about here? |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 02:40:59 PM · #21 |
I own both the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and love them both. My next lens will most likely be the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. I had the chance to use one owned by a fellow DPC member and loved it!
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 14:41:32. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 03:29:25 PM · #22 |
Lenses come in 3 or so levels of quality, and pretty much price is direclty related to quality.
Quality is defined as build (robustness), image quality (lens optics), focus speed and accuracy, etc.
Some lenses excel in the price-performance category and those are the ones more often recomended here.
macro - true macro (1:1), close to macro or what? The canon 100 2.8 macro is the best all around choice. Sigma and tamron make very comparable lenses for about the same price. Canon also makes a 60 EF-S macro lens that is quite good. 'near macro' lenses are common - sigma 18-50 2.8 EX (*the new one) is a good lens with macro capablity and would be a good choise to replace your kit lens (better optics, better low light performance)
You could also look at the sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO lens - it does a nice job at macro is a very good value.
Canon makes 'consumer glass' and 'L glass' - L being their high-end pro lenses.
Sigma, tamron and tokina all offer 2 levels of glass as well - regular and EX, SP and Pro (respectively) as their better/best glass.
If absolute best image quality and performance is of paramount importance to you, then get L glass. It holds it's value very well over time.
The EX and SP lenses are very good and I would not hesitate to reccomend any of them.
There are other lenses that are good - the sigma 70-300 i mentioned above being one of them. Lots of folks like the $75 canon 50 1.8 - IMO it's a $75 lens and suffers from CA to the point it's a limited use lens. Some say it's sharp...sharper than the kit lens perhaps, but it's out classed by L glass, as well as EX and SP lenses.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 04:43:30 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Every optical element adds distortion and the like. It's simple physics. The 500D may be the greatest chunk of glass in the world, but you can't say that it doesn't degrade the image. The extension tubes add nothing but airspace and, while they do decrease light, they do not degrade the image by passing light through additional optical elements. |
The distortion is, of course the point with the 500D (!) - I agree that there is a degradation, but not a noticeable one and the lens works normally (except for the focal range).
I disagree that passing the image through more air does not degrade the image - you are taking a lens with a dozen or more elements, all designed to throw a light of a particular diameter, then adding a whole bunch of space so that the image is cast larger (and you will only capture the central bit). The whole image is darker and the lenses pushed past their design tolerances - any imperfections will be magnified. |
You are, of course, free to disagree as you so frequently do on other matters. However, I don't believe the laws of physics are on your side here.
Capturing just the central bit? Isn't that the same as what an APS-C sensor camera does anyway? The center is the sweet spot for any lens, the image area where any lens performs its best. I do not know of any lenses where the edge performance exceeds the center by any measure. As for making the image darker, how is making it darker with an extension tube any different than making it darker with the aperture by stopping down?
When I was making studio images with a view camera, I know that when I needed to focus on something very small, I did not reach for a screw-on attachment. I simply extended the bellows as far as possible and, if necessary, adding an extension to both the camera and the rail to gain even more extension. The standard bellows would go to 16" giving 3x magnification using a 4" lens. I also never had any problems going with longer bellows up to 24" to get 5x mag. Imagine taking something as small as a ring and making it fill a 4"x5" sheet of film. The resulting images were tack sharp. Yes, I had to compensate for the additional extension, every 4in needed 2 stops of compensation, and of course, reciprocity came into play as the exposures got longer too.
Had I tried to do the job using an add on optic, I would have been tossed out or at least I would have had to reshoot on my own time.
Granted, no attachment will give the flatness of field that a dedicated macro lens will, but I'd rather have not have added elements and their requisite defects, no matter how small. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 09:13:51 AM · #24 |
It was precisely the imperfections in the center of the glass that made me decide that the 50mm f/1.8 wasn't up to snuff for me.
I shot backwards through it and the 80-200 f/2.8L. The 50mm has significantly softer images because the glass just isn't as good. When you shoot backwards through a lens, you will really see how good it is and those imperfections are magnified up the wazoo.
A dedicated macro lens has much higher quality glass.
However, 'L' series glass is generally right up there too. My 80-200 has no troubles reversed, even shooting through just a tiny part of the center which was roughly equivalent to shooting through it at around 5-6X. Better than the 50mm at an equivalent to 1X.
Likely, the glass on a typical studio 4x5 camera will be good enough that it will take magnification up to 5X.
Either way, if you start with a 70-200 f/4L, you will probably have a better starting point to start playing with things like extension tubes and macro filters...
On the other hand, if you just want to take pictures of medium sized bugs, birds and butterflies, you are probably just fine with a 70-300 Sigma. It will be a lot cheaper in the long run and WILL do a decent job.
Another thing of note is that while optically it delivers 1:2X, the crop factor does need to be considered and you will end up with 1:1.25X effective. That's getting pretty decent. I think the Tamron 28-75 is around 1:5 or 1:3.5... it's a fair ways off of the Sigma's starting point of 1:2. The Sigma 70-300 will do a better job of 'macro' and will do a very decent job in general. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 11:39:24 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Capturing just the central bit? Isn't that the same as what an APS-C sensor camera does anyway? |
Not really. On APS-C, the lens is focussed at its optimum distance from the sensor, but the sensor is only capturing the middle 2/3 of the image (it effectively crops the existing image). You are talking about taking the same sensor, then moving it back away from the lens so that the image thrown has further to travel and gets larger (like moving a projection screen away from the projector). You will be capturing a smaller proportion of the image thrown by the lens than usual - but because of magnification, rather than a smaller crop.
Lenses do not resolve to infinite detail, so by magnifying the image you will suffer a loss of quality.
Originally posted by spazmo99:
Had I tried to do the job using an add on optic, I would have been tossed out or at least I would have had to reshoot on my own time. |
Horses for courses. I am not arguing that a dioptre is the ultimate solution - there is probably little between good extension tubes and a dioptre in terms of quality. However, for the OP, a telephoto zoom is probably best combined with a dioptre rather than a set of extension tubes for convenient and practical macro capability.
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 11:39:38.
|
|
