 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2006Question on sizing lense attachments
I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in investing in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. I haven't had one that you can change the lense on before, how do you size a lense, filter etc at the attachment point? I see great deals all the time but I don't want to invest in stuff for someone else... Any ideas? thanks >I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in >investing > in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. > I haven't had one that you can change the lense on before, how do you size > a > lense, You get a lens that fits the mount of the camera you bought and couples to the autofocus and exposure sensors. Your manual or the Canon Web site should tell you which lenses will fit your camera properly. Most people get a zoom telephoto to complement the lens that came on the camera. That way you only need two lenses for most of your photography. If one of the lenses has a macro mode you pretty much have it covered. > filter etc at the attachment point? The filters usually thread onto the front of the lens, so you have to know the tread size.. I guess what I am trying to ask how do you size the mount (newbie didn't know term) if you don't have a manual? I got the camera used and no manal. I have gotten one extra lense but I took in my camera to make sure it would fit. To buy online I need to know mount size. I tried going to the Canon website but was lost as to what to look for. I have had it a little over a year and love the camera. I am just amature who likes to take all kinds of photos. I have two lenses a 75- 300 mm (one I got used) and the 18-55 mm. What I am thinking of is a lense that will allow me to zoom in more on wild life. I was thinking of a magnafier. But I want it to fit with my exisiting lenses... I know I can get an adapter if I had to but wouldn't even know what ranger (size to size) to get there. Thanks >>I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in >>investing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The filters usually thread onto the front of the lens, so you have to know >the tread size.. >I guess what I am trying to ask how do you size the mount (newbie didn't >know term) if you don't have a manual? I got the camera used and no manal. I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Thanks You can get a copy of the manual here: http://www.starbatteries.com/caeos30direo.html It's in PDF format, read it on the computer, or print it as you wish. The EOS-300D is another name for your camera. You need lenses that are made for EOS cameras, that's Canon's name for a whole series of lenses. If you want to get an adapter that will effectively make the 75-300 mm lens magnify more, you need a teleconverter. Again, it will be type EOS, but not all teleconverters work well with all lenses. Is the 75-300 a Canon lens, or some other manufacturer? I don't know of any attachment that would go on the front of the lens that would make it stronger, there could be some, as there are for smaller lenses, but for that lens it would be quite expensive. Both lenses are Canon. I will look into the teleconverters. Thank you for your help. >>I guess what I am trying to ask how do you size the mount (newbie didn't >>know term) if you don't have a manual? I got the camera used and no manal. I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >that would make it stronger, there could be some, as there are for >smaller lenses, but for that lens it would be quite expensive. > Both lenses are Canon. I will look into the teleconverters. Thank you for > your help. Keeping in mind that once you start getting lenses over 300mm you start to get into the territory of SERIOUS money - and you'll need a good tripod and head to support them as well (like I'm talking many times what you would have paid for the camera). Teleconverters are a "poor man's choice" - they cost a hell of a lot less than a much longer lens, but optically aren't as good (better than nothing though, although it's all relative). Cheers, Colin I realize to get really good professional quality photos I need to seriously step up what I pay for lenses and filters all around. Probably invest in another camera also.... I am just a person who loves to take full range of photos. I was tired of the point and shoot. I wanted a camera that I could play with a little. Change lenses depending upon what I was shooting. I feel like I need a couple more lenses, for myself to have full range for me to shoot what interests me. A wide angle for landscape shots and a serious zoom lense.... I can't afford big money lenses right now so am looking for an inexpensive alternative until I have the $ for better lenses. I also tend to go in spurts as far as photography... I may not take a single shot for weeks and then on a single weekend take 500 shots... I bring them home dump the ones that didn't work and them print the ones that I feel good about.. They range from one of the kids, pets, scenery or a sunset, sometimes wildlife.. What made me realize that I need something that will give me a little better telephoto shot was shooting some eagles this last weekend with the 75-300 mm I have. You can see they are eagles I just want a little more detail, make them a little closer. I am amateurish enough I was looking for guidance. Thank you for your input it is appreciated. >> Both lenses are Canon. I will look into the teleconverters. Thank you for >> your help. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Colin >Both lenses are Canon. I will look into the teleconverters. Thank you for >your help. The Canon 75-300 lenses just barely deliver their 300mm worth of detail; using a TC with them may not get you any more subject detail from the same distance, but will lose a lot of light. I would save purchasing teleconverters until you have lenses really worth using them with. I bought a 75-300IS, and then a 2x TC, and found I was getting magnified blur. AF went the wrong way all the time, and the manual focus of the lens was too coarse and had too much play to be useful. The TC served no useful purpose until I got the 300mm f/4L IS.  Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Ok now I am getting it... somedays the feels like the brain isn't totally connected. Jumping back and forth from work to this doesn't help much either. Aren't I kind of stuck with what I have for choices since the SLR's are 'new' enough there isn't a lot of sencond hand stuff? I know just to get what I have gottten has been months of searching and bargin hunting. You have taken the air out of my balloon.... I was excited to think I had found an inexpensive solution. >>Both lenses are Canon. I will look into the teleconverters. Thank you for >>your help. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >no useful purpose until I got the 300mm f/4L IS. > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Aren't I kind of stuck with what I have for choices since the SLR's are 'new' > enough there isn't a lot of sencond hand stuff? I know just to get what I > have gottten has been months of searching and bargin hunting. > You have taken the air out of my balloon.... I was excited to think I had > found an inexpensive solution. I think there's a couple of "dynamics" you need to know about DSLR Photography ... 1. For a limited amout of money, you'll get better pictures on a lower-quality camera with a higher-quality lens attached, than you will the other way around. 2. As a rule of thumb, when Canon release new cameras, "old" lenses will work on the newer cameras (except EF-S lenses on some models) The net result of this is that photographers who have invested thousands of dollars in a collection of lenses tend to hang on to them when they upgrade cameras - as a result, in the 2nd hand market you'll find it easy to get a camera (with or without a cheap "kit" lens) (at a good price) - but when it comes to lenses they're nowhere nearly as common (at least in the higher-quality models) at "bargain basement" prices. So it's a double-edged sword - Good quality lenses (like my 24-70 F2.8L USM and 70-200 F2.8L IS USM) are very expensive - each costing more than a new Rebel XT / 350D - but once you've made the investment (a) they'll help you get much nicer photos; and (b) you can fit them to anything from your 300D all the way up to the $7000 USD 1Ds Mk2 (well, any Canon EOS Camera). Looks like you need to start saving. Some will suggest lenses from other manufacturers that are cheaper - personally, I've made the decision to only invest in Canon L series items - Other manufacturers like Tamron / Sigma etc have a range of lenses that also vary in performance - you'd be best to seek advice on the good from the bad before considering any. Hope this helps, Colin >... - personally, I've made the decision to only > invest in Canon L series items One shouldn't discount Canon's non-L primes. The 50/1.4 USM, 85/1.8 USM, 100/2.8 macro, and 100/2.0 USM are all excellent lenses. Optically speaking, the 50/1.8 is excellent. The 28 - 135 USM IS is a good gp lens, though not as good optically as the primes. At $450 the 100 macro is the most expensive of these. At $80 the 50/1.8 gives a lot for a little. > >... - personally, I've made the decision to only > > invest in Canon L series items > > One shouldn't discount Canon's non-L primes. The 50/1.4 USM, 85/1.8 > USM, 100/2.8 macro, and 100/2.0 USM are all excellent lenses. Optically > speaking, the 50/1.8 is excellent. Not sure if you're meaning that for me, or for 'tomboygirly'? I don't need any of these as they're all covered in the range of what I already have, with the exception of a macro lens (I'm not into macro just yet). It's why I say "personally" - all I can say is this is the way I've chosen to do it, and I have no regrets - given the opportunity to do it over again I wouldn't do it any differently. Then again, it's just the 'perfectionist' or the 'excessive-compulsive' bits coming out of me - I think there's a little of both in every photographer :) Yes all of this helps; I understand the concept of the lens making the camera. I was just after something to work in the mean time. Until kids are gone and I can justify spending more on my camera than I do on my kids all year, LOL. Like I said I am an amateur who likes to play around with taking pictures. I have ended up with some pretty good ones. (According to family and friends- General public that has seen them have also liked them.) Even with the point and shoot. I also want to stick with the Canon accessories since I knew that the secondary market although may work may not be a worthwhile investment if you have to replace it over versus buying it once. But talking to all of you has really helped me to understand some of what I have researched. I also have talked to a couple of people who I know are also into amateur photography. That was where I got the idea of a TC or a doubling lens. I figured if I could pick one up fairly cheap I could give it a try to see if it would even be something that would help me to achieve what I was after. If not then I could always resell it. I know there is a good market for digital stuff.. Hence my having a hard time trying to figure out which way to go. Descriptions aren’t always good to know exactly what it is that the person is selling, makes me leery of just making a purchase. I will keep researching and taking in all of the advice and hopefully I will find a deal on what I am looking for. Thanks Dayna >> Aren't I kind of stuck with what I have for choices since the SLR's are 'new' >> enough there isn't a lot of sencond hand stuff? I know just to get what I [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Colin > I was just after something to work in the mean time. Until kids are gone and > I can justify spending more on my camera than I do on my kids all year, LOL. I tried selling my kids to buy more camera equipment, but unfortunately everybody kept bringing them back after a few hours and demanded their money back :( Seriously, it's very much a science where there are few problems that money can't solve - so long as you've got enough of it. For the rest of us it's a compromise between "how good it is" and "what it costs". The size of the sensor in your camera effectively multiplied your lens by 1.6 anyway (compared to a traditional 35mm camera). It sounds to me like you'd do well starting out with a versatile zoom lens - or if you're keen, be on the lookout for a 70-200mm F4 lens which you can use with a 1.4x Teleconverter. $ wise they do add up, but I think you have to take the point of view that it's a cost that's going to be spread over a LOT of years - they're not going to need replacing in 2 or 3 years like the camera may. Cheers, Colin I understand that lenses are a long term investment. Cameras come and go.. lenses can be different. I have the 75-300mm 1.5m/4.9ft lense. I shot some eagles with it last weekend and they were about 2 miles away. In my photos you can see they are bald eagles but no detail. Actually they are rather fuzzy. You can see the white head and tail, dark body. The trees in the background are also a little fuzzy but more defined and detailed. I realize my shots focused on the trees instead of the eagles. I was too excited to get a shot anda trying to follow flight path to get a good shot. I want to bring them in just a little closer. Maybe I am expecting too much. I searched my heart out on line and found a teleconverter that I am willing to pay the price for. I figure I can always get it and if it really sucks then I can always resell later. >I tried selling my kids to buy more camera equipment, but unfortunately >everybody kept bringing them back after a few hours and demanded their money >back :( I have always joked wiht my Mom that if the kids were kidnapped the ransomer would demand me to take them back and they'd pay me.... LOL >> I was just after something to work in the mean time. Until kids are gone and >> I can justify spending more on my camera than I do on my kids all year, LOL. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Colin >I understand that lenses are a long term investment. Cameras come and go.. >lenses can be different. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Maybe I am expecting too much. You may be expecting too much. There are limits of how much you can magnify the image. Air currents can disturb the path of light enough that no matter how good your lens is, the picture will be blurry. Two miles away is a lot. Focusing of the wrong thing is pretty common, at least for me when I use autofocus. Anyway, keep trying, nothing better than experience. >I searched my heart out on line and found a teleconverter that I am willing >to pay the price for. I figure I can always get it and if it really sucks [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >>Colin After reading all of the information all of you have shared... I figured I was expexting too much. But you can't blame a gal for trying.... I have always been considered tenatious. I am still searching and searching to find new toys online that won't 'breakthe bank'. I do so enojy taking photos. I have found some online stores that have a couple of things that I want to try out. I can't wait to get them and try them out. I tend to get photo happy at times and right now wihtin a couple of hours I can get to where the eagles hang out for a brief time in the winter. Plan to go back up possibly this weekend. Hope to get more shots. Maybe can get closer to them. I was on the wrong side of the lake last time. I found out where they hang out when they aren't fishing. Wish me luck. Thanks for all of your help. Dayna >>I understand that lenses are a long term investment. Cameras come and go.. >>lenses can be different. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> >>>Colin > I understand that lenses are a long term investment. Cameras come and go.. > lenses can be different. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > instead of the eagles. I was too excited to get a shot anda trying to follow > flight path to get a good shot. I want to bring them in just a little closer. Not one of Canon's better efforts. It's ok to about 200 and drops off rapidly after that. Some will disagree, but the Sigma 50-500 gives quite acceptable results. YMMV. It is heavy, and not too fast auto focusing, but it has given me decent results. You'd want at least a monopod, though, because that beast is heavy. A less expensive alternative would be a prime, say the 85/1.8 or the 100/2.0, and a 2x TC. Those lenses are very sharp and will handle the TC ok. > Maybe I am expecting too much. > > I searched my heart out on line and found a teleconverter that I am willing > to pay the price for. I figure I can always get it and if it really sucks > then I can always resell later. Some like the CT some don't.... which to pick a TC or telephoto lens..... all these things to ponder. I think I'd like to try the TC since it seems like it would work with the lens and the camera instead of just magnifying at the end.... Just my observatons in research.. Dayna >> I understand that lenses are a long term investment. Cameras come and go.. >> lenses can be different. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> to pay the price for. I figure I can always get it and if it really sucks >> then I can always resell later. >Some like the CT some don't.... which to pick a TC or telephoto lens..... all >these things to ponder. >I think I'd like to try the TC since it seems like it would work with the >lens and the camera instead of just magnifying at the end.... >Just my observatons in research.. Save your money. That eagle at 2m miles is not going to get any closer with your 75-300 no matter what you add between it and the camera. Don't get a TC until you have a lens that is so sharp that the camera is under-resolving it. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >Not one of Canon's better efforts. It's ok to about 200 and drops off >rapidly after that. Agreed. I tried mine the other day with a 2x and 1.4x TC stacked, and pixel quality peaked at about 200mm (300 and 75 were much worse). By "peaked" I mean relatively speaking. Maybe lenses should be rated in terms of "potential reach". The 75-300 has a potential reach of 200mm; meaning that at 300mm it is a softer version of what the lens captures at 200mm. On the other hand, a lens like the 500mm f/4L IS has a potential reach of about 1400mm, as it delivers well with a 1.4x and a 2x TC stacked, according to people who own it and know the difference between real reach and mm. >Some will disagree, but the Sigma 50-500 gives quite acceptable results. > YMMV. It is heavy, and not too fast auto focusing, but it has given >me decent results. You'd want at least a monopod, though, because that >beast is heavy. I think the case is similar for the Bigma. It has an potential reach of 400mm, and at 500mm it is just basically magnifying what it captures at 400mm. This potential reach, of course, is limited by the resolution of the capture medium, so isn't a precise concept for lenses with great "potential reach". A lens that may not warrant a TC on a 20D, may easily warrant one on a 1D with its more widely-spaced pixels. >A less expensive alternative would be a prime, say the 85/1.8 or the >100/2.0, and a 2x TC. Those lenses are very sharp and will handle the >TC ok. Think about what you're saying, though - that is a max of 200mm, already do-able on the 75-300. Better to think about saving up some money and looking to the future - a 300mm f/4L IS (US$1100) is sharp enough to warrant 2x or more magnfication (stopped down one stop from maximum), as well as the 400mm f/5.6L (US$800) and 100-400 IS (US$1400). Grey market tends to be about 10% cheaper from B&H, and they offer factory service at their expense for one year on grey-market Canon lenses (I brought my grey market 100-400 to B&H for service, and it came back with Canon Service paperwork). Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< I found my manual... had to do some looking. It gave the thread size for the front of the lens but no where could I find a place that gave the actual mount size for where it attaches to the camera. So I have my filter size down. .. how about the actual mount to the camera size? Thanks >>I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in >>investing [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The filters usually thread onto the front of the lens, so you have to know >the tread size.. >.. how about the actual mount to the camera size? All you need to know is 'Canon EF(-S) mount'. Any EF-mount lens will fit the Rebel (and all other EOS-series cameras), whereas EF-S lenses will only work on the 1.6x crop models such as the Rebel and 20D. Al Signature[This space left intentionally blank] > I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in investing > in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. > I haven't had one that you can change the lense on before, how do you size a > lense, filter etc at the attachment point? > I see great deals all the time but I don't want to invest in stuff for > someone else... you don't need attachments to the lens, whatever filters are supposed to do, you do it in photoshop. I know enough to know filters protect your lens. I was asking about the other end of the lens.... the mount size. I want my photos to be able to stand on thier own as much as possible. I do have to lighten sometimes or crop... I still need to work on framing with my lens... but I like to print what I take... >> I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in investing >> in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you don't need attachments to the lens, whatever filters are supposed to do, >you do it in photoshop. >I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in investing >in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Any ideas? >thanks If you are still reading this thread, I just found out there are tele attachments that you can put in front of your lens. B and H photo-video ad in a magazine lists Raynox DCR 2020 telephoto that mounts to a lens with filter size 62 mm and has adaptors for filter sizes 52 and 58 mm. It says it is 2.2X, so I guess that your 300 would become equilavant to a 660 mm lens. I have no idea how good they are, I have some Raynox products which I think are good, others I think are not very good. Just some more info. >If you are still reading this thread, I just found out there are tele >attachments that you can put in front of your lens. B and H >photo-video ad in a magazine lists Raynox DCR 2020 telephoto that >mounts to a lens with filter size 62 mm and has adaptors for filter >sizes 52 and 58 mm. It says it is 2.2X, so I guess that your 300 >would become equilavant to a 660 mm lens. >I have no idea how good they are, I have some Raynox products which I >think are good, others I think are not very good. The front-mounted TCs are tricky. They can work very well, if designed specifically for the lens, but can be quite bad. I bought a Sony F707 4 years ago, and I tried a Canon TC (DC58, or something liek that). It was horrible on the Sony. I bought the Sony 1.7x, and it was excellent; every bit as sharp as without it, and no loss of light (it had a larger aperture than the camera's lens). Tried it on my 75-300IS, and it was horrible. By horrible, I mean the image was soft and prismatic everywhere but dead center. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>If you are still reading this thread, I just found out there are tele >>attachments that you can put in front of your lens. B and H [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >it on my 75-300IS, and it was horrible. By horrible, I mean the image >was soft and prismatic everywhere but dead center. I've used the Nikon one in front of My Nikon 990, and the Olympus in front of that. they work well, as far as I can see. I've used tcs made for video, They work well enough for video, but quite poorly on the 990. thanks, so much information. I love it. I had no idea how much input a person could get on one of these groups. This is great. I will look up some more information on them. Dayna >>I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in investing >>in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Just some more info. Do you mean a teleconverter or telephoto lens? Sorry newbie.... :) >>I got a grat deal on a digital Canon EOS Rebel, I am interested in investing >>in some more lenses and assessories. This is my first 'real' camera. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Just some more info. Hopefully all of you will see this. Thank you so much for all of the information you have shared with me. It is all taken in and mulled over. I am not entirely sure which way I will end up going until I can afford the lenses I would really like to get but Thank you Thank you. If any of you come up with more ideas please let me know. I appreciate all of the information. Dayna >Do you mean a teleconverter or telephoto lens? >Sorry newbie.... :) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>Just some more info. > Hopefully all of you will see this. Thank you so much for all of the > information you have shared with me. It is all taken in and mulled over. Nah - we're just suckers for a pretty face :) If bird photography is going to be your thing, then take a look at www.birdsasart.com - Arthur Morris is a living legend on the topic. I bought 2 of his books - some of his suggestions ... 1. Get a LONG lens - 400mm is the absolute minimum, pref 500 or 600mm. One of the dynamics to think about is that if you double the length of your lens (ie go from 200mm to 400mm) the object your shooting gets FOUR times as big (twice as wide, and twice as high) - so it makes one hell of a difference. (I've got a 200 + a 2x TC on a camera that multiplies it my another 1.6 - and I don't even consider myself in the ballpark for birds in flight (damn it!). 2. Open your lens right up - high shutter speeds are more important that depth of field when you're shooting birds far away. 3. Set your AF for the centre, and aim for the neck - it's on the same plane as the head, but bigger. 4. Accept the fact that the "keep" rate for bird shots isn't great. Cheers, Colin Birds aren't my normal choice.... Eagles just roost near here in the winter. So I figured I'd take advantage while I can. To me two hour dirve isn't bad for the possible shots... Thanks Dayna >> Hopefully all of you will see this. Thank you so much for all of the >> information you have shared with me. It is all taken in and mulled over. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Colin Just had to share... We went back up to where the eagles roost and fish agian today. I got closer.... I got some photos today that are better.. still not what I'd like to have had but ... better. We were leaving and 4 or 5 flew in over me... . I was so exicted. I got to click away at them circling in along a cliff side looking for a tree to land on. If I zoom in on the picture you can see that it's an eagle but not the difination that I would have liked to have had. Then we went back on the other side of the lake so we could all do a little more hiking... My calves are killing me... There was a large perditor bird. I think a hawk but I am not sure what kind. It was busy watching my two little dogs and I got close!! I can't describe the feeling I had taking those photos. Just had to share... Dayna >> Hopefully all of you will see this. Thank you so much for all of the >> information you have shared with me. It is all taken in and mulled over. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Colin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.