|
|
|
|
boz84
Nov 26, 2002, 6:22 PM
Post #1 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
SO continuation of the "Which Camera" thread...
What types of lens (max. aperture, focal lengths, other features) should a beginner/novice be looking at for a good all-around outdoor/rockclimbing/landscape type of lens. We are on a budget, so the one lens with the MOST versatility, and the least price is ideal.
I've basically decided on the Canon EOS Rebel Ti body, so of the Canon lenses the ones that seem appealing to me (although one is a litle outtamy price range right now) are these:
EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM
Canon also has this same focal length and features in a f/3.5-4.5. Would this be more ideal? Any real differences I would note?
And on the more pricey side (but with a longer focal length, as well as an Image Stabilizer, which would be nice in Low light situations) Canon offers the
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Is this too much lens for too much money for a beginner/novice? I've found the lens for around 300 bucks, which makes it much mroe expensive than the other lens mentioned here.
Gimme your comments, thoughts. I NEED HELP.
|
|
|
|
|
willstrickland
Nov 26, 2002, 6:43 PM
Post #2 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2002
Posts: 51
|
Ok, speaking as a semi-pro photog who also shoots Canon EOS system:
Forget those cheap-assed consumer wide-tele zooms. For the money, you can get a MUCH superior fixed focal length lens. The best bang for the buck lens in the line is the 50mm f1.8....I got one for $70 new, and the quality is FAR superior to any of those 28-70 or whatever zooms. The lens is also much faster. 50mm is not my primary working focal length for climbing and landscapes...it's more around 20mm or 24mm (I personally shoot a Sigma EX APO HSM 17-35 f2.8-4). In this focal length, both the Canon and Sigma fixed focal lenses, wide open at f2.8 are excellent. Expect to pay around $400. Also expect vastly superior quality to what you'd get with the zoom.
Zooms are fine, but to get a fixed aperature zoom, with equal image quality you're going to have a huge heavy expensive lens.
Skip the titanium rebel body and go with the regular.I use an old Rebel G body as a backup to my Elan 7Es, they are light, the interface is almost the same, and you can get one in like-new condition on the used market for about $125. Try KEH.com, a used dealer with a huge pro clientele. They are very well respected and there EX+ or higher rated stuff is indistiguishable from new.
Keep in mind that the glass (lenses) is a much more important element in you getting good pics than the camera body...put your money in glass.
Here's my peronsal system:
2 Canon EOS ELan 7E bodies with the BP300 vertical grip/batt pack (vertical grip/shutter release is VERY nice, plus your using cheap AA batts).
Canon EOS Rebel G body (superlight and cheap)
Sigma EX APO HSM 17-35mm f2.8-4
Sigma EX APO HSM 70-200 f2.8 fixed aperature
Sigma EX 2x teleconverter
Canon 50mm f1.8
Hoya SMC UV filters for protecting that pricey glass
Tiffen and SinghRay 0.6 ND Grads in a Cokin holder
Hope that helps.Check out photo.net for lots of good info on a variety of topics.
|
|
|
|
|
peanutbutterandjelly
Nov 26, 2002, 6:56 PM
Post #3 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2001
Posts: 238
|
boz84- The difference between the two 35-105 lenses is only the fstop. The 3.5-4.5 allows more light to get it making it a little bit better for low lights. You pay $50 more for better fstop with the 3.5-4.5 costing $200 and the 4.5-5.6 is $150. The 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS is a nice lense runs for $400(not grey market). What the IS does is it adjusts the lenses as the camera moves to make the image stable. You dont need to use a tripod or monopod for the lower shutter speeds to a point. With the Canon Rebel G's flash I did not get blurred pictures and I am pretty sure it automaticaly sets you shutter speed at 60 and f/stop at 5.6. The flash is not that powerfull and when I kneew I was going to use a flash I ussually used an external flash. I do not think you should base you lens on your flash.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Nov 26, 2002, 7:24 PM
Post #4 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
The 28-135 should be tight, I wish I had a 28-70 (hell I wish I hadn't loaned my whole backpack full of lenses to my Dad) this weekend instead of my 50/1.4. But, I was able to shoot at a much higher shutter speed in a shady area than I'd have been able to with a zoom, even a fast f/2.8 pro zoom...
Buy the cheapest body that you can suffer, then get the best glass you can afford (and carry -- won't do you any good on the ground) and have at it. If you get the 28-135mm zoom, get a fast prime too, no IS will ever be able to stop someone's hand from moving or the photographer from spinning on the end of a rap line.
have fun, you seem to 'get it' as far as cost and such... spend money on glass, gas, and film/processing, not on whizbang bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Nov 26, 2002, 7:58 PM
Post #5 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
I understand the pros of a prime lens, but it's one glaring con (or what I assume to be a con) is it's lack of versatility. Im poor, if it means buying one lens that I can use for 98% of the shots I'd like to take, at the expense of some quality and speed, shouldn't I take it?
Maybe the 28-135mm IS lens is a little on the steep side, pricewise, but maybe a more moderate zoom would suit my needs greater than a prime? If I did decide on a prime, which I may, what focal lengths should I be looking at. Granted, if I want to get up close and personal at a climber 60 ft up, but still be able to take sweeping landscape shots. Would something in the 50mm range be OK? If I were to obuy more than one lens, which focal lengths would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
tradguy
Nov 26, 2002, 8:09 PM
Post #6 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 526
|
I have a Tamron 28-300 lens that I've been fairly happy with. It covers a HUGE range, and takes nice shots, but it's slow - f/3.8-5.6 - so I have some trouble in low light (must remember to pack the mini-tripod). For a while I saw it advertised under $400 with a $100 mail in rebate, so final price would have been under $300. The extra zoom range is really nice when you want a close-up shot, but just can't get physically close. Plus, it's nice for checking out hot naked chics running around on top of Echo Rock in Joshua Tree from the parking lot.
Anyway, for a non-pro, who wants a simple system that they don't want to mess around with carrying extra lenses and swapping out all the time, the 28-300 is a good solution.
Oh, and I have a Canon Elan II body that gets the job done.
[ This Message was edited by: tradguy on 2002-11-26 12:12 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jasona
Nov 26, 2002, 8:12 PM
Post #7 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2002
Posts: 207
|
I use Canon EOS as well. I have a 50 1.8 28-80 and 75-300. I would have to agree that you will want the fastest lens you can get with the highest quality glass. I am looking to get the 20-35 (canon) due to the fact I shoot mostly mild wide angle. I would recommend this lens and then a 135 or something similiar for everything else. 75-300 is ok but just not that fast.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 27, 2002, 1:06 AM
Post #8 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
I find my 70-210 to be a perfect lens for Climbing photography (except it's bit slow). 70 lets you get back from the action and 210 gets you in there pretty handily.
fstops should be your main concern though. Shooting in a cliff's shadow is really difficult if you are stuck with a 3.5 + apature. Look for 2.8, 1.7 stuff, that's your best bet.
50mm lenses are cheap but there is very little latitude with them. They take a picture of exactly what you see. Scale and everything. Sure the price is right, and they are great to learn on, but rarely does mine see the light of day anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
slhappy
Nov 27, 2002, 4:59 AM
Post #9 of 9
(3069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2002
Posts: 207
|
start off with a versitle lens like the 28-105. It's a good range lens for the money and will get you into the action to sort out your style of photography. The speed of the lens will be fine...just taylor the film to the lighting conditions. most importantly is to shoot lots of film...which might conflict with the poor status. Have fun and dont get bogged down in the technical stuff...paint with light!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
