| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/04/2005 06:34:21 PM · #1 |
I'm excited to be getting my first DSLR soon (RebelXT), but searching for lenses is pissing me off because it seems like the lens I want doesn't exist. Can anyone recommend a few lenses that offer moderate macro and telephoto capabilities, as well as an aperture that goes very big and also very small. Maybe something like 50-200mm F/2.8; any manufacture. If you can think of a lense somewhere in that ballpark range and under ~$1000, please post :) |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:39:03 PM · #2 |
Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro. It is great for macros and super sharp with portraits too. The 100mm also give you a decent amount of zoom power.
Either that or you should step it up and get a 70-200 f/2.8L. It's one of the best all around lenses and probably suit you much better since you are looking for an all-around good lens.
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 18:40:57.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:41:42 PM · #3 |
Yeah; get one of the new Panasonics, or some other high-end prosumer non-interchangeable lens camera. The whole POINT of the dSLR is to have several better lens than one do-it-all lens.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:43:10 PM · #4 |
| might not have the reach, but the the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a stunning lens. |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:53:51 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
might not have the reach, but the the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a stunning lens. |
He's asking between 50 and 200
The 70-200 f/2.8 would fit that range but is well above the $1000 limit you mentioned |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:56:07 PM · #6 |
Remember the 1.6 crop factor.
If you want a wide zoom range, Sigma makes an 18-200mm, but its not low light.
Sigma also makes a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. These two Sigma lenses will run you about $1100.
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 18:56:44. |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:56:40 PM · #7 |
there's some 70-200 f2.8 lenses that you could pair up with the canon 50mm 1.8 and get a reversing bracket for the 50 (it's kinda tricky to focus but can get 1:1)
some of the sigmas have a switch to go into macro focusing at larger zooms
like my 70-300 3.?-5.? will focus down to about 3 feet wich makes 1:2 life size |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:56:55 PM · #8 |
| I used to have a Panasonic FZ10... so I understand what you're after. That's why I bought a Tokina 24-200mm. Of course it's not F2.8 which is why I bought a Minolta 7D with in-body image stabilising. ISO1600 and ISO3200 are quite usable so this body and lens blows away the Panasonic camera I upgraded from. |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 06:59:13 PM · #9 |
Double post...sorry.
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 19:00:54. |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 07:00:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
[quote=bear_music] Yeah; get one of the new Panasonics, or some other high-end prosumer non-interchangeable lens camera. The whole POINT of the dSLR is to have several better lens than one do-it-all lens.
R. |
Not everyone can start with a bunch of lenses. I think most people buy one good lens while becoming adjusted to a DSRL, then add lenses down the road. |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 07:02:08 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by peterish:
I'm excited to be getting my first DSLR soon (RebelXT), but searching for lenses is pissing me off because it seems like the lens I want doesn't exist. Can anyone recommend a few lenses that offer moderate macro and telephoto capabilities, as well as an aperture that goes very big and also very small. Maybe something like 50-200mm F/2.8; any manufacture. If you can think of a lense somewhere in that ballpark range and under ~$1000, please post :) |
Well if you have your heart set on the XT then I can't help but, Olympus makes an 50-200 f2/8 but it is a 4/3 mount for the E-1 and E300. It is less then $1000 also. Oly is coming out with some great lenses this year also. Some f/2 zooms that are f/2 through the whole range of the zoom. I don't think even Canon has any of those but I may be wrong. Anything out there like that from Canon?
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 07:08:09 PM · #12 |
| I have a Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM - nice lens - not that low light but the IS helps - but I still do not find it on my camera that much with the other lenses I seem to keep collecting. It's a cheaper lens but I still like it! |
|
|
|
08/04/2005 09:09:43 PM · #13 |
Sigma 150 EX f2.8 Macro. Since it's 150mm with 1.6 crop, it's a good telephoto, sharp, fast, and under a grand by a few hundred bucks.
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 21:10:15.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 10:30:27 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by macox:
70-300 3.?-5.? will focus down to about 3 feet wich makes 1:2 life size |
70-300 4/4.0-5.6 good lens, I have one.
Maybe this lens would be good. not really fast but it'S A 55-200mm. Max aperture is 4.0 at wide end and 5.6 at tele end, decent nothing more but it cover the zoom range asked for, it was specifically designed for DSLR and it's not really expensive (159$ ar B&H) I think it's a god starter lens and you can go from there.
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 10:33:12 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Originally posted by Riggs:
[quote=bear_music] Yeah; get one of the new Panasonics, or some other high-end prosumer non-interchangeable lens camera. The whole POINT of the dSLR is to have several better lens than one do-it-all lens.
R. |
Not everyone can start with a bunch of lenses. I think most people buy one good lens while becoming adjusted to a DSRL, then add lenses down the road. |
Yup, it takes a day to know you need more :P
|
|
|
|
08/04/2005 10:35:00 PM · #16 |
USED Canon 80-200L 2.8 ~$650-800
USED Canon 70-200L 2.8 ~$900-975
New sigma 70-200EX ~$650
New sigma 70-200EX DG ~$750
Message edited by author 2005-08-04 22:35:44.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 08:59:58 AM · #17 |
Thanks for all the replies. I've learned a lot but now I have even more questions lol.
-Would a min focal length of ~70mm make it difficult to shoot close range stuff, such as parties? And if so is there anything you can add on to the lens to correct this when needed?
-How important is it to have F2.8? Is the creative advantage of f2.8 worth the extra cost of these lenses?
-After reading a lot of reviews on canon lenses, it seems to me that unless it's a L lens, the image quality is poor. How accurate is this description? And how are tamron lenses in general? the Tamron 24-135mm F3.5-5.6 and Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 sound very promising.
-Also, can someone explain this whole 1.6 crop factor thing and the 1:1 1:2 jumbo mumbo? Thanks! |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 09:20:33 AM · #18 |
Crop Factor: 1.6x — refers to the relative size of the image sensor compared to 35mm film, the SLR "standard". A 100mm lens on a Rebel has the angular coverage of a 160mm lens on a 35mm film camera. In other words, all your lens are "more telephoto" on the digital camera. Or "less wide angle"; a 28mm on a 35mm cam is considered fairly wide angle, but it's a 45mm-equivalent on the Rebel, not wide at all.
1:1, 1:2: degrees of magnification at closest focus. The first number represents units in the camera, the second one units in actual size. A camera capable of "true macro" focusing will magnify 1:1 (or more), meaning that the image recorded on the sensor is exactly the same size as the object being shot. In other words, at 1:1 if your subject is bigger than the sensor you can't even capture all of it in the exposure. And, of course, since we view these images at MUCH larger than sensor size, a 1:1 image, in the print, is a HUGE magnification of the original.
f/2.8: Is more important in viewfinder brightness and speed of autofocus than it is in creative control, possibly. The brighter the image, the easier it is to compose in low light and the easier it is for the autofocus to seek & find focus. On a macro lens especially f/2.8 is worth its weight in gold for framing & focusing, even though you'll almost always stop way down for DOF on macros.
70mm focal length: This is, in 35mm terms, a 112mm lens, a moderate telephoto. It's absolutely useless for shooting in tight confines.
*****
Depending on your personal tastes as far as wide angle work goes, perhaps the most useful all-around length of lens, if you can only have one, is 28-75 or so. Tamron's 28-75 is an exceptionally high-performance lens for a zoom in its price range. Canon's 24-70L is a hell of a lens, but it's well over your price ceiling of $1000.00...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 10:02:21 AM · #19 |
I appreciate the detailed explanation Robt. So let me get this straight: do not buy a 70mm lens if I need it for close quarters, even just occassionally?
And you mentioned that the best all-around focal length to have is 28-75; do you mean it's better to have that than a 28-135, for example? |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 10:20:58 AM · #20 |
If my lens budget were under $1000, I'd get the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (if you can find one) and the Canon 70-200 f/4L.
The Tamron will serve you well in low light, indoors, and as a general walkaround lens. The Canon is fabulous when you need zoom- typically outdoors, where f/4 is plenty. They both have a 67mm filter size so you can swap a single, high-quality polarizer between them. Adding a $79 extension tube will yield great macros with either. For more zoom, you could add a Canon 1.4x teleconverter to the 70-200 later on.
The other lenses you mentioned (24-135 and 28-300) are nowhere near these two in image quality or sharpness due to the inherent limitations of optical design with such a wide zoom range.
Message edited by author 2005-08-06 10:23:05. |
|
|
|
08/06/2005 11:05:07 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by peterish:
I appreciate the detailed explanation Robt. So let me get this straight: do not buy a 70mm lens if I need it for close quarters, even just occassionally?
And you mentioned that the best all-around focal length to have is 28-75; do you mean it's better to have that than a 28-135, for example? |
See what Scalvert just said; I'm in complete agreement. For what it's worth, here's what I have: 10-22mm Canon zoom, 28-75mm Tamron zoom, 70-200mm f/4L Canon zoom, and the 60mm Canon macro. So obviously I agree with him. Each of these lenses has seriously good optics. Had I the money, I'd have gone with more primes, but I'd have bought the 10-22 and the 28-75 regardless. That's really good walkaround coverage. I'd prefer primes at 100, 200 and 300 to the 70-200 zoom, but the 70-200 is VERY good optically and it makes more sense for me cost-wise, as I'd have to get L-glass primes to beat it.
Robt.
Incidentally, my 10-22 also uses 77mm filters, a big plus; a single polarizer covers all 3 lenses, and polarizers are expensive. Good ones, in fact, are so pricy that I don't even have one yet for the big glass. I do have a 52mm polarizer and a 52mm UV that fit the macro lens, which is good since I'm always sticking it close to things :-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-06 12:07:37.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 11:36:53 AM · #22 |
for indoor shooting you need a WA lens. Something that goes at least to 17mm. A 12-24, 10-22 etc etc is also good as well as any type of fisheye lens (*canon 14mm *drool*) such as the sigma 15mm. Don't expect much use out of a 70-200 ranged lens inside unless you're doing just face shots.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2005 12:38:44 PM · #23 |
How about a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC (for 1.6x and 1.5x crop cameras only), plus a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX APO HSM.
24 and 28 wide still isn't very useful in tight area's. Sure they can be, else I wouldn't have a 30mm prime for that purpose, but it is still pretty tight. The 18-50 covers that area a lot better and the gap between 50 and 70 isn't such a problem.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:09:56 AM EDT.
