| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2012 11:47:15 AM · #1 |
Hey
About a year ago I bought a Canon 550d (Rebel) which came with a kit lens (18-55mm). I also bought - upon a recommendation - the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens at the same time. Although cheap, I do like that lens.
However, I know bugger-all about lenses in general and there's just so much information to sift through on the tinterweb.
I'm just getting into all-subject photography.. although I have no idea what sort of lenses are good for what.
XXXmm Fx.x means nothing to me when considering a new lens. I know the mm is the angle... and I know the fx.x is the aperture range... but I have no idea what the practical implications are of the differing types.
Can anyone offer any general points that I should be aware of? And/or can anyone offer a suggestion as to the next lens I should consider? As I say.. I have no particular genre or interest when it comes to subjects. I know that I'd like to get a macro lens in due course... but would likely look for a telephoto first as it would offer greater flexibility with general shooting.
Anyone?
Al |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 11:55:34 AM · #2 |
I will let some others chime in about the focal length, f stops, etc, as I think they can describe them more eloquently than I can.
But you asked what your next lens should be. I would highly recommend you check out the canon 15-85. You could then sell your kit lens, and you would see a MAJOR upgrade in quality, stabilization, and a much broader focal length lens. It's a great walk around lens as it gets you wide angles and decent telephoto. It's lens is one of my most used, or at least it was until I got my 50 1.4 that has stayed on my camera almost fully since buying it.
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 11:56:03. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 12:14:46 PM · #3 |
I think you know it's hard for us to give you pointers on specific lenses if you can't pin down what you're interested in, but I can give you some general info to consider.
First, the mm refers to the focal length, which is related to but not the same as the angle of view. The angle of view is the width of the light that enters the lens whereas the focal length describes the distance over which the rays of light converge within a lens. That's more technical than you probably care about, so just think of focal length as equating to the amount that a lens brings a distant object closer (magnifies it).
The aperture or the F number refers to the relationship between the size of the aperture blades at the rear of the lens and the focal length of the lens. The number listed on a lens for its aperture is its maximum (largest) aperture. The smaller this number, the more light the lens allows in, which means you can take photos in lower light at the same shutter speed. Aperture also dictates your depth of field, which is the distance from the camera that the scene is in acceptable focus. When you see a nicely blurred background, this is control of the depth of field. The larger the aperture (meaning, the smaller the number), the more your scene will typically be blurred in front of and behind your subject matter that you have focused on. The lens will also have a minimum aperture, which is the smallest the aperture can get and is the highest number (like f/16 or f/22 typically). This allows the smallest amount of light into the camera and increases your depth of field, so objects close to the camera and far from the camera will be in focus (mostly... there are caveats here that really need their own discussion).
Now, with those basic ideas, you should know that no lens is as sharp wide open (at it's maximum aperture) as it is stopped down somewhat. I say somewhat because different lenses require you to stop down different amounts in order to find their best performance. So, your 50 1.8 will be sharper at f3.2 than at 1.8, for instance.
So, with that bit out of the way, go find a subject with your 50 1.8. A great thing to do is to go in your kitchen, set your camera up on a tripod if you have it. If you don't, just set it on the table propped up with a pillow or something at some object on your kitchen table like a banana. Take a photo at f/1.8 and then move through all your aperture values and look at the results. This will give you a feel for what a fast lens (lenses with larger apertures are called "fast") does. You can compared this to a lens that is not fast by using your kit lens. Zoom it to about 50mm and repeat the same actions with the aperture wide open on the 18-55 and then move through your aperture values and see how there are differences.
Lastly- a telephoto won't necessarily be more flexible for general shooting. In fact, I'd say they're generally LESS flexible because they require a greater separation from your subject (a telephoto lens is a lens which has a higher focal length, so it "magnifies" distant subjects more than a wider lens). A zoom lens is more flexible, however. Your 18-55 is a zoom, your 50 is a prime. Zoom lenses change focal length, primes are a fixed focal length. Primes are generally lighter weight, faster, sharper, and cheaper for the same maximum aperture because they are easier to build since the elements don't move as much and they require fewer elements in the first place.
If flexible is what you want, something like an 18-200 is a good option, but know that it won't do ANYTHING very well, but will do everything alright. It will be a slow lens, it will be soft in some focal lengths, but it will have tons of versatility. The greater focal length range a zoom lens covers, the more it has to make compromises.
That's a bit of a primer and is pretty simplified. Any deeper and we'd have to know your specific comparisons of lenses and expectations. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 01:04:18 PM · #4 |
Ok, that's one hell of a question, but I'll try:
Focal Length:
XXXmm - lower numbers here mean wider angles of view, higher means narrower FOV - the implications here are far-reaching, but there are three major areas:
Perspective - 50mm is considered "normal", wider than 50mm makes distant things look more distant, and this effect increases with decreasing mm. Compression occurs above 50mm, which is the effect of making everything in an image look closer together, a good example of each follows:
 - 400mm shot - 1 mile from the trees in the foreground, 2.5 miles from the boat, 5 miles from the towers, 221,600 miles from the moon
 - 12mm shot - 2 ft from the closest flour dust collector, 20 ft from the far wall
(Each of these was shot on a crop body, as such the effect of the wide shot is somewhat diminished as we only have the FOV of a 18mm shot and the best distortion shows up in those last 6mm. The 400mm shot is actually the FOV of a 640mm shot, but the amount of compression remains basically the same to the eye.)
Reach - This is pretty obvious, longer lenses give you more detail in distant objects (in theory anyway... Cheap glass, shaking, and atmospheric distortion are all big issues)
Distortion - Wide angle lenses often have significant distortion, sometimes this is good, sometimes it's bad, depending on your needs, and there are many types of distortion, getting to understand each will help you pre-visualize your image.
Now, there's more to the length of lenses, but that's a pretty decent overview - also, this is a good place to note that primes (fixed mm) lenses often perform much better than zoom lenses, because zoom lenses are making multiple compromises to be able to change focal lengths. Of course, the flexibility of a zoom is awesome, that's why they exist.
Aperture:
f/X.X - lower numbers here mean wider openings for light, which has a bunch of really important effects:
Wide Apertures - f0.8 - f/2.8 - these are known as "Fast Glass", for the ability to freeze motion, even in low-light conditions. At this f-stop range you will get very heavy blurring of all but a narrow plane of focus, known as "bokeh". This type of lens ranges from expensive to insanely expensive - a notable exception being Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens, although the quality of this lens is much lower than the average bit of "Fast Glass".
Mid Apertures - f/3.2 - f/5.6 - These are the most friendly apertures, and are often referred to as "consumer" lenses, while they won't stop motion in really low light, the background is still blurred enough to give photos a nice pleasing quality. Be warned that at f/5.6 your camera will likely have trouble focusing in anything lower than moderate light levels. These lenses range from cheap to expensive, and the quality ranges from very low to very high - you'll find tons of variance here. The aforementioned 15-85 falls into this category, and is an excellent lens, at a very good price.
Narrow Apertures - >f/5.6 - Anything higher than f/5.6 is narrow - many cheap or specialty lenses fall into this category, forget about AF working well, don't even think about using these in low light unless you have a tripod. The quality of lenses that are rated in this range is usually pretty low, but there are exceptions, you can usually tell from the price which ones they are. Mostly avoid these, unless you have some good reason to buy. I personally bought a 500mm f/8, it was a fun toy, but I'd never try to use it for anything serious. This aperture range will start to give you a great deal of your image in focus, keep in mind that you can use this range on a good lens, and the quality will still be high, at least until you reach the diffraction limit, which varies according to the pixel pitch of your sensor. In your case, with a 550D, anything above about f/7.1 will start to show diffraction since that's a pretty high MP crop sensor.
Hopefully this helps, if you have any questions about the terms above, just post here, I'm sure that one of us will get an answer for ya.
As far as which lens to consider next? Spend as much as you can, buy quality used lenses, try to stick to lenses with red rings around the end, and you'll never be unhappy again. ;)
-CB
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 13:12:00. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 01:16:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Shifty_Powers:
As I say.. I have no particular genre or interest when it comes to subjects. I know that I'd like to get a macro lens in due course... but would likely look for a telephoto first as it would offer greater flexibility with general shooting. |
BTW, The 100mm f/2.8 macro lens is one of the best, and most flexible primes I own.
I can shoot wildlife, macro, sports, portraits, city skylines, and street photography with it, and it works pretty darn well for each application, I don't think I have a more flexible lens.
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 13:17:40. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 01:38:32 PM · #6 |
the others have given good advice on what the specs represent, my question is what about your current lens lineup is limiting you? do you want to go wider? longer? do you want more of a workaround range? do need a faster lens? looking for better image quality? are you looking just to get something new?
my advice find a lens that covers the focal length you need/want, then find one in that range that suits your needs.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 02:24:39 PM · #7 |
Cory covered it pretty well.
I have 3 lenses I primarily use (Most of the others in my profile have been handed down to my wife)
Canon 18-135mm. good general purpose lens and the one that spends the most time on my camera goes from a fair wide end to a zoom that is long enough for most of my purposes except for wildlife and airshows.
Tamron 70-300. The big gun for those distant subjects mentioned above. It's rather long and heavy so I only take it when needed.
Tamron 10-24. Ultrawide. I like strong perspectives. One of my favorite things to do with this lens is get up close to a person at the close focus range of 9". It often gets a fun grin.
None of my lenses are expensive (relative to what some others own), and I don't have any desire for more expensive glass.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 02:54:39 PM · #8 |
Whoa - lots of excellent responses inbetween leaving work and getting home.
To all you guys... thanks a lot for the info - it really does make things much easier to understand. Thanks for offering your time and advice.
Mike - I suppose what's limiting me is magnification range (or focal length as I've now just learned). Also, I tend to get pretty rubish results in lower light situations with my 18-55. I popped into Liverpool Cathedral last week as the architecture is fantastic with loads of interesting features. The problem was that I didn't have my tripod on me, which limited what I could do straight away due to the lower light.... and that interesting features within the building were just too far out of range of my zoom.
I'm pretty much looking for everything you mentioned... ha... but will have to spend a lot of cash of various lenses to get all the things. So I gues I'm looking for a more versitile lens than my 18-55.
Ha... hell... DPC dictates my subjects from now on, so perhaps I'll put in a request to only shoot stuff that suits me ;)
Cory - cheers again. What do you mean lenses with red rings? Why's that significant?
Al |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:29:30 PM · #9 |
| Red rings on a Canon lens means it is an L series lens which is the cream of the crop. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:38:05 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Shifty_Powers:
I'm pretty much looking for everything you mentioned... ha... but will have to spend a lot of cash of various lenses to get all the things. So I gues I'm looking for a more versitile lens than my 18-55. |
I started out with the unstabilized 18-55, upgraded to the stabilized version, then a 17-85 (Previously belonging to  Scalvert, but he he used up all the mojo before sending it to me), and now the 18-135, which for me is the perfect walk around lens and the one I normally take when I want to travel light (Such as when taking it on my bicycle). The EF-S 18-135 only cost me $250(US) used. Since it is the kit lens that sometimes comes on the 7D and 60D, they are plentiful on the used market. The guy I bought mine from was upgrading L glass (the red rings). It is nice and sharp at all focal lengths. If you need an upgrade on a budget, I can't recommend this one enough.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:39:35 PM · #11 |
whats your budget? if you buy used or lenses/refurbished lenses you spend a fortune.
sigma and tamron make some great alternatives for instance each makes a 17-50/2.8 that will help you in low light and both provide better image quality than your kit lens.
if its zoom you want maybe look into a canon 55-250mm super cheap and very good IQ.
or a very solid lens as  giantmike suggested, the canon 15-85.
with low light, another option is upgrading your body to one that has higher ISO ability. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:55:48 PM · #12 |
| With regards to spending a fortune on new lenses i see you are in the UK Al, so if you are happy to buy used i highly recommend these couple of online stores. MPB Photographic and Ffordes. They are my first stops when lens or camera shopping and both are very reliable and pretty good price-wise. Just thought i'd mention it as it can take a while to find good places to get stuff. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:57:00 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
whats your budget? if you buy used or lenses/refurbished lenses you spend a fortune.
|
Budget - £500 max. No idea what that is in US $.. prob 750-800. I ideally don't wanna max out on the budget though.. but I'm a bit weak when it comes to it!
Just been reading some cracking reviews of the 15-85mm actually. Just looking at prices of that against the 18-135mm. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:58:26 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by rooum:
With regards to spending a fortune on new lenses i see you are in the UK Al, so if you are happy to buy used i highly recommend these couple of online stores. MPB Photographic and Ffordes. They are my first stops when lens or camera shopping and both are very reliable and pretty good price-wise. Just thought i'd mention it as it can take a while to find good places to get stuff. |
Cheers - I'll take a peek |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 03:58:48 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Shifty_Powers:
....I suppose what's limiting me is magnification range (or focal length as I've now just learned). ... |
Just to address this very quickly, there is an important measure, called magnification (or more properly, maximum magnification/reproduction ratio)
This is what makes a lens a macro lens, effectively a proper macro lens will go to at least 1:1, and in the case of the excellent MP-E 65mm 5:1.
What that ratio represents is the size of the image on the camera's sensor. 1:1 means the subject is life-size on the sensor, giving you huge apparent magnification, the actual amount of which depends on a host of factors, mainly pixel density and reproduction ratio. Read this thread for the dirty details.
But, a long focal length lens seems to bring subjects closer to you, thereby giving an apparent magnification. Despite the similarities, the two measures are very independent.
Funny enough, this is still really important with macro lenses, for example: I wouldn't want to try to take a picture of a live hornet with the 65mm MP-E 65, because I'd have to get much closer than I do with my 100mm, both go to 1:1, but you have to be closer with the 65mm than the 100mm... There is also a 180mm version, which is nice, but the 100mm is good enough for most people's needs. Funny enough, my 100-400mm lens is a pretty good macro lens for shy subjects like green anoles and dragonflies.
So, hope this helps, if it's all too much to take in right now, just remember that things work differently when you're talking about macro. :) |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 04:02:37 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Shifty_Powers:
Originally posted by mike_311:
whats your budget? if you buy used or lenses/refurbished lenses you spend a fortune.
|
Budget - £500 max. No idea what that is in US $.. prob 750-800. I ideally don't wanna max out on the budget though.. but I'm a bit weak when it comes to it!
Just been reading some cracking reviews of the 15-85mm actually. Just looking at prices of that against the 18-135mm. |
I would advise that you go for the 15-85mm IS, or the 100mm macro (non L IS version, the L is nice, but the IQ of the non-L is possibly just a tad bit better, and they are cheaper).
Both are great choices in your price range.
The big question is do you want a zoom with IS and wide angle (it would have performed very well in that interior situation, but struggles with movement in low light especially zoomed in), or do you want Macro and better low-light action stopping? The 15-85's macro isn't great, but it is a more versatile lens. However, if you just want pure image quality, grab the 100mm Macro and deal with the slightly limited flexibility.
 - 100mm Macro
 - 15-85mm IS
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 16:04:57. |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 04:18:26 PM · #17 |
| I'd go for the 100mm Macro as well if only because you are quite new to photography and you have a lot of the 15-85mm range covered with your kit lens already. You'd notice some improvement with the 15-85mm i'm sure but the totally new focal length and macro capabilities of the 100mm macro will blow your socks off. You can always upgrade the kit lens later. Basically, i think you'll have more fun with the macro (which will also be a good portrait lens of course) |
|
|
|
10/25/2012 04:25:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Shifty_Powers:
Just been reading some cracking reviews of the 15-85mm actually. Just looking at prices of that against the 18-135mm. |
The 15-85 is the better lens. Better build quality (more robust), Canon's Ultrasonic focusing motor, and it is probably a bit sharper, though I have no complaints about the sharpness of the 18-135. The things the 18-135 has over it are price and a much longer focal range.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2012 07:09:52 PM · #19 |
you want to know why the 15-85 costs much more?
//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=678&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
if it were me i opt for the Tamron 17-50 Non VC and pick up a Canon 55-250. You'd get a solid improvement in image quality, cover a nice range of focal lengths, have a constant 2.8 aperture for indoor shooting and you'd complement it with a solid telezoom and falls within your budget.
you could get both used for about $450 USD. if you wanted to try out macro you could sell your 50mm and get a canon 60mm/2.8 macro as well and still fall in your budget.
Message edited by author 2012-10-25 19:10:19. |
|
