| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2005 02:05:40 AM · #1 |
| Well after some serious thought and a few visits to some knowledgable people I have decided on a Canon Rebel 350. Now I suppose I need some help in deciding what lens I should look at. I am interested in macro and also distance-so any help in this areas would be most appreciated. I am wading into unknown waters here so please do your best to not be overly techincal. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:09:15 AM · #2 |
What kind of money are you looking to spend on lens?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:09:46 AM · #3 |
By distance, I'm assuming you mean landscapes? I would look into a wide-angle lens, maybe in the 18mm range or so. Also, I would talk to bear_music. He seems to shoot a lot of the same things that you do and he recently ugraded to a 20d with both macro and wide-angle lenses. Maybe you could try PM'ing him.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:13:21 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Neeshac:
"I decided"...... "Well after some serious thought and a few visits to some knowledgable people I have decided on a Canon Rebel 350" |
How did you come to this discussion? This may help the people that are still undecided.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:15:46 AM · #5 |
| You might find THIS interesting, but be prepared to wait. Dell can sometimes take weeks to ship. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:16:22 AM · #6 |
The Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon is a very good Landscape lens. And also something wide from the 10mm to 22 or so range for some dramatic landscape shots.
I just purchased the Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon and so far I'm impressed with the quality vs. price. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 02:31:58 AM · #7 |
| Thanks for the help here guys! I came to my decision by talking to a couple of local pros and by reading here. The folks around here tell me that unless I intend to do this for money that I will be well served by a Rebel. I took that advice along with looking around here and seeing the shots submited by folks with the rebel and noticed the lens options I had available to me and decided that I would be happy. I think I will get the Tamron lens for landscapes. I did send bear_music a tell as suggested and thanks for that. He does seem to to have the same interest I have. However I failed to ask him what lens he uses for macro. :( As far as money I would be willing to spend 4-5 for a good one-especially macro. Thank you all for the input-it was with your help along with the others mentioned that I decided to make what I feel to be about as an informed buying decision as I possibly could. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 04:17:25 AM · #8 |
I am hardly one who has a lot of experience in the matter, but I have been doing a fair bit of research as well. I have found that most people who are interested in doing a lot of macro like to pick up the 50mm 1.8 prime lens. It is quite cheap, great for all-around use indoors, not too big and heavy, and can be reversed using a cheap little male-male thread adaptor. It enables any longer focal length lenses to be used as excellent macro tools.
Some really like the 100mm f2.8 USM Macro made by canon with it's internal focusing and use it with and without the 50 1.8.
I am personally still trying to figure out if I want to go for a minolta 5d and save a bundle on lenses or save up and go 20d with more expensive lenses, but either way I decide, I'm pretty sure to go with a 100mm Macro + a prime 50.
Don't forget to go through the archived challenges and see what people used for the shots you like. Then you can click on the lens itself and see all the shots that lens has taken. |
|
|
|
08/13/2005 12:21:12 PM · #9 |
I presume Neeshac has the 18-55 kit lens coming on the 350 rebel? Then the obvious choice for a macro lens is the 100mm range macros. I'm partial to the Canon 60mm macro because it's more compact than the 100's are, but the main reason I bought it was because it filled a gap in the "normal" range for me as I bought my 20D body-only and my two set-in-tone purchases were the 10-22mm super WA and the 70-200 f/4L zoom, both optically outstanding lenses. So I didn't really need anything walk-aroundish in the 100mm range.
Now, if budget is a consideration it's true that the 50mm f/1.8 is a hell of a lens, and an extension tube will make it convertible to macro work at a cost significantly less than a dedicated macro lens. But when I'm shooting macro I tend to be wandering around in the field doing more general work, and I see something I want a close-up of as I am shooting away, so I like the ease of use that comes with having a lens that will focus from infinity to 1:1 without stopping to mount accesories. Also, lenses that are designed for macro generally give better performance in the macro range than adapted lenses do as far as sharpness and eveness go.
If the Canon 100mm macro is too pricy (it can be had in the 500 dollar range) then I hear the Sigma and Tamron are nice as well, but I can't speak to this directly.
The 18-55 kit lens has the wide-to-normal range covered very nicely. So for the moment a WA lens is not a high priority neeshac, assuming he does have the kit lens. If he wants extreme wide angle capability, I'm totally in love witht he 10-22mm canon, and prefer its performance to the other options in that range, particularly in that it is absolutely distortion-free, but it's a very specialized lens and takes a lot of work to use "naturally", it's SO wide.
There are a slew of lenses available in the 28-100 or 28-200 range, although none of these really appealed to me given my background and penchant for superior optics. Nevertheless, an obvious addition to neeshac's arsenal for starters would be Canon's EF 55-200mm f/4.5 at a little over 200 dollars. It's a lot of coverage for the buck, and seems decently put together to me. By comparison, the 70-200 f/4L costs around 600 dollars, is much larger and heavier, and only marginally faster (4.0 to 5.6 at the tele end, 4.0 to 4.5 at the wider end). But optically it's one of the best zoom lenses Canon has ever made.
The Canon 100mm macro and 55-220 together can be had for around 700 bucks, and combined with the kit lens would give you all the coverage you needed for quite a while... There are, of course, third-party lenses that would lower this price significantly, but I haven't used or evaluated any except the 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron, which I have ordered but is still back ordered. It's an exceptionally nice lens but most of its range overlaps the kit lens.
On a side note, the choice of the 350 Rebel was an excellent one. From an image quality point of view it's simply outstanding; the extra money between it and the 20D is spent in other areas like build quality, higher burst mode, stuff like that.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 12:38:12 PM · #10 |
I know it's more expensive, but you can pick up a 300L F4 IS, it is obviously pretty good at far range stuff, but also focuses to 4.9 feet giving it pretty good closeup cababilities. If you throw on a 500D or some extention tubes it becomes an effective closeup lens.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 12:42:10 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I know it's more expensive, but you can pick up a 300L F4 IS, it is obviously pretty good at far range stuff, but also focuses to 4.9 feet giving it pretty good closeup cababilities. If you throw on a 500D or some extention tubes it becomes an effective closeup lens. |
Yeah, but one that's impossible to hand-hold effectively. For most of us anyway.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 12:45:45 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I know it's more expensive, but you can pick up a 300L F4 IS, it is obviously pretty good at far range stuff, but also focuses to 4.9 feet giving it pretty good closeup cababilities. If you throw on a 500D or some extention tubes it becomes an effective closeup lens. |
Yeah, but one that's impossible to hand-hold effectively. For most of us anyway.
Robt. |
It's actually quite handholdable, it's between the weight of the 70-200L F4 and the non IS version. I believe it's 2.5 pounds. Also it has IS so that helps a lot. Just IMO I wouldn't be afraid of handholding a lens up to 3.5-4 pounds. I've seen shots with handheld 600L F4's... but that's just crazy!
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 12:48:31 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I know it's more expensive, but you can pick up a 300L F4 IS, it is obviously pretty good at far range stuff, but also focuses to 4.9 feet giving it pretty good closeup cababilities. If you throw on a 500D or some extention tubes it becomes an effective closeup lens. |
Yeah, but one that's impossible to hand-hold effectively. For most of us anyway.
Robt. |
It's actually quite handholdable, it's between the weight of the 70-200L F4 and the non IS version. I believe it's 2.5 pounds. Also it has IS so that helps a lot. Just IMO I wouldn't be afraid of handholding a lens up to 3.5-4 pounds. I've seen shots with handheld 600L F4's... but that's just crazy! |
Oh, it's hand-holdable in general; I meant at macro range. To get adequate DOF you'd have to be stopped down quite a bit, and handholding becomes problematical. Even if wide open, the DOF is so shallow that hand-holding makes capturing a precise focal plane a matter of luck. Hand-holding macros even with the 60mm, which has MUCH more DOF, is very difficult.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-08-13 12:49:05.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 12:51:48 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Even if wide open, the DOF is so shallow that hand-holding makes capturing a precise focal plane a matter of luck. Hand-holding macros even with the 60mm, which has MUCH more DOF, is very difficult. |
Does the 60mm at f/2.8 have a deeper DOF than a 300mm at f/4? I suspect the 300mm will be two or three times further away?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:09:58 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Even if wide open, the DOF is so shallow that hand-holding makes capturing a precise focal plane a matter of luck. Hand-holding macros even with the 60mm, which has MUCH more DOF, is very difficult. |
Does the 60mm at f/2.8 have a deeper DOF than a 300mm at f/4? I suspect the 300mm will be two or three times further away? |
I've read that if you can fill the frame the same way with each lens, at the same AV the DOF will be the same. However, the backround blur will be different... i'm not really convinced of this. So I'll check a DOF calculator and post results in a minute.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:12:40 PM · #16 |
I just remembered I was looking at 300/4L user pics earlier..
here
See the very bottom set of pics (the keys).
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:12:51 PM · #17 |
i might be doing this wrong but here's what i'm getting...
60mm 1 foot, F4 = .02 feet dof
300mm 5 feet, f4 = .02 feet dof
well I guess it is true... longer lens = same dof but better backround blur.
Message edited by author 2005-08-13 13:15:41.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:14:06 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
i might be doing this wrong but here's what i'm getting...
60mm 1 foot, F4 = .02 feet dof
300mm 5 feet, f4 = .02 feet dof |
Don't forget while focusing the EF-S 60mm is at f/2.8.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:15:24 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
i might be doing this wrong but here's what i'm getting...
60mm 1 foot, F4 = .02 feet dof
300mm 5 feet, f4 = .02 feet dof |
Don't forget while focusing the EF-S 60mm is at f/2.8. |
"while focusing" doesn't show up in the pictures.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:17:31 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
"while focusing" doesn't show up in the pictures. |
From what bear_music said:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Even if wide open, the DOF is so shallow that hand-holding makes capturing a precise focal plane a matter of luck. |
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:19:07 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
"while focusing" doesn't show up in the pictures. |
From what bear_music said:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Even if wide open, the DOF is so shallow that hand-holding makes capturing a precise focal plane a matter of luck. |
|
why would you shoot a macro wide open... that doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:21:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
why would you shoot a macro wide open... that doesn't make any sense. |
If you're asking me, I don't know, it wasn't my argument. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:40:15 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
i might be doing this wrong but here's what i'm getting...
60mm 1 foot, F4 = .02 feet dof
300mm 5 feet, f4 = .02 feet dof |
Don't forget while focusing the EF-S 60mm is at f/2.8. |
"while focusing" doesn't show up in the pictures. |
"While focusing" is critical for isolating your plane of focus as precisely as possible. It's MUCH easier to do with a "bright" lens than with a "dark" one.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:42:33 PM · #24 |
I agree, but one of the best macro lenses made for canon is an F3.5, only 1/3 stop under the 4.0. Ontop of this, one of the best lenses ever made is an F4.0 lens (the nikon 200).
|
|
|
|
08/13/2005 01:46:15 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
i might be doing this wrong but here's what i'm getting...
60mm 1 foot, F4 = .02 feet dof
300mm 5 feet, f4 = .02 feet dof
well I guess it is true... longer lens = same dof but better backround blur. |
Amazingly enough, this turns out to be correct. Contary to what most of us old fogeys have been believing for decades, in a very real sense DOF is independent of focal length. The confusion arises from the fact that we were used to calculating DOF based on the same distance from the subject.
If you maintain a constant image size, such as 1:1 in macro work, the greater working distance of the longer lens adds DOF at precisely the same rate as the physically larger aperture of the longer lens subtracts it.
Here's a good discussion of it;
DOF at constant image size
So I stand corrected; learn somethign new every day.
Robt.
|
|
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: 04/26/2024 05:28:28 PM EDT.
