 |
 | 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 / October 2007Seeking lens advice
Hello all, I'm brand new to SLR photography. In fact, I haven't even bought any equipment yet, but I'm doing all the research now. I'm very confident that I'm going to buy the Canon Rebel XTi body, and I'm about 50% confident that I'm going to buy the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (I'm debating between that and the more expensive Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM). My question is that if I buy the 17-85mm lens, what real benefit would I get from buying the Canon 10-22mm ultra wide- angle lens? I want to take a lot of landscape shots and only want to invest in the additional lens if it's really going to make a difference. Also, any other advice on what I should be considering would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Shannon > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Shannon I have the 17-85 is and like the lens very much (and can't justify the L lenses due to price) but one thing you have to remember is that on these digital SLR's the sensor is less than full frame (in relation to a 35mm film SLR) and as such have a focal length multiplier.. So, the 17-85mm is really equivalent to a 27-136mm lens. Much less wide than you may have initially thought. That makes the 10-22mm lens a 16-35mm lens and may be approaching the wide angle you were expecting. Then again, if you know about the focal length multiplier you can disregard everything I've said..  Signaturethepixelfreak Thank you so much! That is actually quite helpful in making my decision and in my overall learning. I'm vaguely aware of the focal length multiplier. I read it's definition but haven't found (or even looked for) a practical example of how it's used. Therefore, I did not take that into account. That makes me confident that if I buy the lens I won't be wasting my money (or at least it's worth giving a shot). Thanks again, Shannon > Thank you so much! That is actually quite helpful in making my > decision and in my overall learning. I'm vaguely aware of the focal > length multiplier. I read it's definition but haven't found (or even > looked for) a practical example of how it's used. Therefore, I did not > take that into account. That makes me confident that if I buy the lens > I won't be wasting my money (or at least it's worth giving a shot). Stop this myth, you are cropping! You aren't multiplying the focal length. If I had a 1.5X teleconverter (presuming they existed) and mounted on a 50mm lens on a 24x36mm film or dSLR I would have a 150mm lens. If I mount a 50mm on a APS-C sensor like a Nikon D80 etc, I would only have a 50mm lens, but the field-of-view would be cropped. If I put the same 50mm lens on a 35mm SLR and looked at the same scene from the same vantage point the perspective would be the same. Shoot print the dSLR to 5x8, print the 35mm to 8x12, and cut a 5x8 from the center of the 8x12, and then shot the exact same thing with a 100mm on the 35 print that at 5x8 it will have a different perspective than the other two examples. You are cropping not multiplying... >> Thank you so much! That is actually quite helpful in making my >> decision and in my overall learning. I'm vaguely aware of the focal [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You are cropping not multiplying... Yes, you're always cropping! Until they invent a variable sized circular sensor larger than the image circle projected by any lens you use, and circular paper and monitors, then you're always cropping. All this cropping is such a huge waste it makes me feel sick! Will somebody please go and take a photo. >> You are cropping not multiplying... > > Yes, you're always cropping! No, you never crop; you always use the whole frame to make your print. So it's a multiplier. As I said before, for compositional considerations, 65mm in 6x7 really does act the same as 22mm in APS-C. Cropping is the wrong way to think about it because it doesn't help you take photographs. If you know you need a normal lens, you use the "format conversion factor" as the multiplier (or divisor) to figure out what lens to use relative to your base format. If you usually use 645, then 35mm is a 1.6x crop, and you have to divide 80 by 1.6 to find the right focal length for normal work. > Will somebody please go and take a photo. I did. Lots. And as I said before, a "normal" lens really does act as a normal lens in every format. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Thank you so much! That is actually quite helpful in making my >> decision and in my overall learning. I'm vaguely aware of the focal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Stop this myth, you are cropping! You aren't multiplying the focal length. Sort of. The "multiplying" happens when you print. > If I had a 1.5X teleconverter (presuming they existed) and mounted on a > 50mm lens on a 24x36mm film or dSLR I would have a 150mm lens. Uh, no: 75mm. > If I mount a 50mm on a APS-C sensor like a Nikon D80 etc, I would only > have a 50mm lens, but the field-of-view would be cropped. You would have a lens that is _functionally equivalent_ to a 75mm lens. Other than resolution, if you shoot the 50mm on APS-C and a 75mm lens (stopped down one stop) on 24x36 from the same place and make prints of the same size, you can't tell the difference. You really can't. If you could, shots from P&S dcams would be insanely dizzy and distorted. But they're not. When the lens on the P&S says "35mm equiv.", (other than DOF) it acts like a 35mm lens on 24x36. My 65/4.0 on my Mamiya 7 acts exactly the same as the 55/2.8 on my Mamiya 645, which acts exactly the same as a 35mm lens on my 5D, which acts exactly the same as a 22mm lens on my 300D. They really do. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > My 65/4.0 on my Mamiya 7 acts exactly the same as the 55/2.8 on my Mamiya > 645, which acts exactly the same as a 35mm lens on my 5D, which acts [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan They really don't, if you take d.o.f. in consideration! /per >> My 65/4.0 on my Mamiya 7 acts exactly the same as the 55/2.8 on my Mamiya >> 645, which acts exactly the same as a 35mm lens on my 5D, which acts [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They really don't, if you take d.o.f. in consideration! > /per Would you mind expanding on that a bit? I understand the basics on DOF and lens/sensor, but that's about it. Thks! p. > >> My 65/4.0 on my Mamiya 7 acts exactly the same as the 55/2.8 on my Mamiya > >> 645, which acts exactly the same as a 35mm lens on my 5D, which acts [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thks! Am I correct in assuming that reducing the aperture one f stop will equalize the DOF? >> My 65/4.0 on my Mamiya 7 acts exactly the same as the 55/2.8 on my Mamiya >> 645, which acts exactly the same as a 35mm lens on my 5D, which acts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They really don't, if you take d.o.f. in consideration! But the question at hand was perspective, and they really are the same. The max dof is, of course, a function of desired resolution, so 6x7 is limited somewhat (since 6x7 users are greedy), but if all you are making is 8x10s, you just stop down one stop further in each larger format, at which point even DOF is the same. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> They really don't, if you take d.o.f. in consideration! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is 8x10s, you just stop down one stop further in each larger format, at > which point even DOF is the same. Stopping down retains dof but also means longer eposure time, and this is one reason why large cameras usually need tripods. The different ratio between perspective and dof when you compare APS/C-cameras with full frame or even larger cameras, may be advantageous or detrimental, depending on your work, but is not simply described by at crop factor or focal length multiplier. /per > >> They really don't, if you take d.o.f. in consideration! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > factor or focal length multiplier. > /per Now this s extremely interesting! What is the ratio between perspective and dof? >> Thank you so much! That is actually quite helpful in making my >> decision and in my overall learning. I'm vaguely aware of the focal [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You are cropping not multiplying... Bla bla bla. Yes, it is a 'crop' as the light that would have fallen on the film is outside the sensor. Data is lost. But what people want to know is how the CROP is going to affect the composition of the shot. If the photographer needs an ultra wide picture and is using a 'crop' sensor they'll be sorely disappointed. So instead of arguing the technicalities for some unknown arcane reason, cut to the crap and let them know what they'll see through the lens. Duh... What the manufacturers should call it is an 'effective focal view multiplier' Signaturethepixelfreak > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Shannon I will be posting some raw and sraw pics taken with my 10-22 lens on my web site later today. www.takebetterpix.com Tom > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Shannon if you want to see pictures taken with the 10-22mm i posted some raw files on the link below. http://www.takebetterpix.com/pictures.html Tom Thanks for the reply, Tom! The wide angles on those are impressive. How impressed have you been with it? Also, what do you use for viewing CR2 files? I assume Photoshop but I don't have a copy of that. I tried a free program that installs a Windows shell extension so you can view it as a thumbnail, but I can't open it full size. Thanks again, Shannon > Thanks for the reply, Tom! The wide angles on those are impressive. > How impressed have you been with it? Also, what do you use for viewing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks again, > Shannon You are welcome and glad to see someone actually looked at them :). Well my talking about how much I like anything in a camera is worth only conversation. I wouldn't suggest you go out and buy anything based on what I say. This is my first DSLR and this is the first camera that I have been shooting in Raw. Those were actually my first outside pictures with this camera and lens. and don't judge the 40d or the lens by the pictures I take. hmmm so you only were able to see my pics in thumb nails? I have just upgraded from elements 4.0 to Photoshop CS3 and love it. If your computer can handle it you can down load trial versions of Photoshop CS3 and get to use it for 30 days. but I would suggest is first down loaded the trial of Elements and get used to the basics after 30 days experience then treat your self to CS3. there are a number of programs that you can down load for 30 days. but if you cant or just don't want to go with a paid version than its probably best you start with a free version. being you used the term " Windows Shell Extension" you probably know more about computers than I do. but can offer some help in MS Office, Dreamweaver and dare I say Photoshop. Tom > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks in advance, > Shannon L glass is worth every penny. I have a friend with the 17-85 and I have the 24-105, it is easy to see which lens took which picture. The only drawbacks to the 24-105 is it's size and obviously it's price. If you don't need the long reach, the 17-40 f4 L is a better match to the smaller XTi. If you don't need the wider angle of the 17-40, the 24-105 does an acceptable job and nothing stops you from stitching two or three shots together to make a panoramic shot. On a recent trip, my wife used a 17-40 on her Xti and I used a 24-105 on a 20D. Only a few times did I wish for more of a wide angle, but the pictures I took and stitched looked great. On the other hand, the longer reach of the 24-105 and the IS were more useful to me. Buying cheap is not always a good move, you may spend more when you do get the best product in the end. Jean > L glass is worth every penny. > > Jean And still, some of the sharpest and best Canon lenses are not "L" specified! The 50/1.4 for example! /per >> Hello all, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >and nothing stops you from stitching two or three shots together to make a >panoramic shot. Stitching longer focal length images together to make a panorama works fine, but it is a different story when trying to use stitching to simulate ultra-wide angle. There is so much perspective distortion in each image that merging them becomes nigh-impossible. At least it has not worked for me, and I have not been able to find any info on the web to accomplish this. Just to give an example, lest I be misunderstood: try shooting a building at fairly close range with the 24-105mm lens on your XTi, set at 24mm... take a shot of the upper left, upper right, lower right and lower left, 4 shots in total... then try to stitch them together to make it look like an ultrawide shot. I think you will find that each photo has to be grossly distorted to get close to what is needed, and that the images won't merge correctly. In short, (in my experience) you can't get ultra-wide effects by stitching more normal shots together. Therefore you need the 10-22mm lens. Ed [] > Stitching longer focal length images together to make a panorama works > fine, but it is a different story when trying to use stitching to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ed I've had reasonable results with programs like AutoStitch and Autopano Pro, but I've probably not tried exactly what you mentioned. Some of my pictures have a 180 degree FoV, as a strip of the horizon. For such shots, cylindrical projection provides me with the best results. I've used planar projection with images up to three shots wide with the 18mm on the D40. David > Stitching longer focal length images together to make a panorama works > fine, but it is a different story when trying to use stitching to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > web to accomplish this. > Ed There are software that correct geometric distortion. I have not tried those, but I suspect that such corrected images would stich together much easier than uncorrected pics. /per >> Stitching longer focal length images together to make a panorama works >> fine, but it is a different story when trying to use stitching to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >easier than uncorrected pics. >/per Well, try it and report back! Ed >>> Stitching longer focal length images together to make a panorama works >>> fine, but it is a different story when trying to use stitching to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ed I've tried it. You can correct for barrel / pincushion and importantly complex pattern distortions using PTLens, very simple to use, as the database that it uses contains measured distortion characteristics for most lenses on most cameras (crop factor), it reads focal length and guesses exact lens (sometimes you have to select it yourself, as it doesn't know the difference between say a Tokina or Nikkor 12-24 f4). So normally it's effectively a "one-click" and near perfect correction. For panoramas you can also use it to correct for edge light fall-off causing uneven skies. Cost is $US10, available as either stand-alone, or PS plugin. Does it make wide angle shots stitch better? I tried it and thought it did make a little difference in stitching accuracy, but really not a big deal and now I don't bother. OTOH it's a very useful program to have anyway - to correct distortion in single frame ultra wide shots. > >> Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Ed Hi, I suspect (from your description) that the problem you are facing is not perspective distortion but parallax error. It is quite difficult to get it right if you try to stitch shots which include obvets close to you (close enough that you get parallax error). Google "panorama nodal point" or something similar and you'll get tons of information (for the correctness of which I cannot vouch!). FWIW, I often stitch together shots with my 28mm lens to obtain a result with significantly larger field of view than I can get with my 10-20mm lens. But I usually either avoid stuff close to the camera being visible, or rotate the camera very carefully (I do this handheld, I've never tried with a tripod). > >> Hello all, > >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > stitching more normal shots together. Therefore you need the 10-22mm > lens. I tried many of the free stitchers and I was never satisfied. On one pic in particular, made up of 3 shots taken with my old Nikon Coolpix 4500 I ended up with a car that was the front half from one of the pictures and the back from another picture. My Coolpix was not that fast and while taking the 3 shots, the cars moved. I restitched the same 3 pics with Stitcher Express2 and the result was night and day, no way to see where the breaks were and no funky stuff like a Chevyrolla. I bought Stitcher Express2 (from Realviz) as a package with DXo RAW converter. I made several stitches with it and all of them stitched correctly. Of course if the shots are taken in a plunging rotation, there will be distortion, but they will stitch and it will be very very difficult to see the stitch points. And right you are, my results were better (less distortion) using my 24-105 at it's widest than using shots taken with my 17-40 at it's widest. Jean > > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for the input Jean. I completely agree, as I am always willing to spend a little more to get something I want. I'm just weighing a lot of decisions regarding the lenses (because I'm planning to buy up to five) and hoping that the 17-85 will be enough for me. Clearly, my cart total is skyrocketing! Therefore, I keep flip-flopping between the 17-85 and the 24-105. I also have a little voice in my head that tells me whichever one I pick will be my primary lens, and I should invest more in it to get the best quality. Here are the lenses I'm considering getting (all Canon brand): 100mm macro 10-22mm ultra wide-angle 17-85mm IS or 24-105mm IS standard zoom 70-300mm IS telephoto 50mm f1.8 prime lens (only because it's cheap, has a wide aperture, and is highly recommended by customers on Amazon) How do you feel about this list? Are any of them unnecessary or not very useful? In my mind I can imagine different scenarios where each would be useful, but like I said, I have no experience. Thanks again, Shannon > Here are the lenses I'm > considering getting (all Canon brand): > > 100mm macro Fine if you intend doing macro work.. Flat field, 1:1 etc.. > 10-22mm ultra wide-angle If budget starts to get tight consider the Sigma 10 - 20 as an alternative.. > 17-85mm IS or 24-105mm IS standard zoom I have the 24-105 so I'm biased... It's the one that's on my camera most of the time.. > 70-300mm IS telephoto I have one but wasn't totally happy with it on a 350D. Focussing may be better on a 40D but haven't tried it yet.. Switched to the 100-400 which I was much happier with.. Maybe the 70-200 f4 L would be a better bet with a 1.4 TC added later ? Non IS though if that's important. > 50mm f1.8 prime lens (only because it's cheap, has a wide aperture, > and is highly recommended by customers on Amazon) No question about it.. Think of it as a short telephoto, great for portraits.. T. Thanks, Tony! That's very helpful because I'd hate to make a decision I regret. Shannon > Thanks, Tony! That's very helpful because I'd hate to make a decision > I regret. > > Shannon It's tricky isn't it ? The best thing you can hope for is a decent local dealer who will let you shoot a couple of dozen test shots before you buy.. Take the card home, download and have a good look at the images then go back to the shop if you're happy with the results.. T. Oh and think about budgeting for a decent tripod ! > Thanks, Tony! That's very helpful because I'd hate to make a decision > I regret. > > Shannon and that is probably what would have happen to me if i just went out and spent $4,000 ( or was it 3) with out being able to talk to real photographers. if B&H would have had what I wanted in stock the last time I went I probably could have gotten a just as good tripod and head (for me) for a few bucks less. but the tripod I now have is pretty tall, folds up very small and is very light. I thought I was going to end up with 2 tripods but with this set up I see no reason for that. I think you will find that if you put together a system based on how much you are willing to spend. the people here will be able to help out a lot in terms of telling you the pros and cons of your choice. Tom > I think you will find that if you put together a system based on how much > you are willing to spend. > the people here will be able to help out a lot in terms of telling you the > pros and cons of your choice. Yes, it's been quite helpful so far, being that this is my first post... >Thanks for the input Jean. I completely agree, as I am always willing >to spend a little more to get something I want. I'm just weighing a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Thanks again, >Shannon The 24-105mm might be right for you, but for most people the range is too long. It is like having a 38-170mm lens on a 35mm camera. How do I know it is the wrong range for most? Because Canon doesn't make anything like it for the 35mm format, and they probably know their market. The 24-105 is a holdover from 35mm days. If you think you might go full frame in the foreseeable future, it would be a good choice. But if you haven't even bought the body yet, and if you are deciding for small frame, then you are really committing to small frame for now. The right range for the small format Canon DSLRs is 17-55 or 17-85mm or 18-55mm. Canon makes these 3 models, more if you include the new 18-55, and that tells you something too. For best optical quality, the obvious lens to consider is the 17-55mm f:2.8. It is very sharp and fast too, and will give extra focusing performance should you move up to the 40D. But it is expensive. I agree with the 10-22mm and the 70-300mm IS USM. If you get the 17-55mm, you probably won't need the 50mm f1.8... unless you are going to do portrature (might not need it even then). Instead of the 100mm macro, put a 500D close-up lens on the 70-300mm zoom. Works great, cheaper, more versatile, and ligher to carry too. Ed > The 24-105 is a holdover from 35mm days. If you think you might go > full frame in the foreseeable future, it would be a good choice. It is quite possible that I'm going to upgrade camera bodies in a couple years. I just know that I'm going to have a huge investment up front and would rather the majority of it be in lenses. > For best optical quality, the obvious lens to consider is the 17-55mm > f:2.8. It is very sharp and fast too, and will give extra focusing > performance should you move up to the 40D. But it is expensive. I was first convinced I was going to get the 40D until I thought about the lenses I might want and the costs associated with them. Then I thought, maybe later. > I agree with the 10-22mm and the 70-300mm IS USM. If you get the > 17-55mm, you probably won't need the 50mm f1.8... unless you are going > to do portrature (might not need it even then). Instead of the 100mm > macro, put a 500D close-up lens on the 70-300mm zoom. Works great, > cheaper, more versatile, and ligher to carry too. I think I decided to first try the macro mode on the other lenses I buy to see if they get me what I want, although I realize they won't get me the same level of detail. I may look at a macro lens or the closeup lens you described later, if I decide I want to do more macro work. Thank you very much for your input. Shannon On Oct 23, 12:18 am, "jean" <try...@find.it> wrote: > "Shannon Cayze" <ca...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message denews:1193080352.061922.152890@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for the input Jean. I completely agree, as I am always willing to spend a little more to get something I want. I'm just weighing a lot of decisions regarding the lenses (because I'm planning to buy up to five) and hoping that the 17-85 will be enough for me. Clearly, my cart total is skyrocketing! Therefore, I keep flip-flopping between the 17-85 and the 24-105. I also have a little voice in my head that tells me whichever one I pick will be my primary lens, and I should invest more in it to get the best quality. Here are the lenses I'm considering getting (all Canon brand): 100mm macro I have a friend who has one and I tried it. Nice for macro shots but limited to 1-1. If you become a macro fanatic, it will not be enough, then you will buy an MP-E and the MT-24EX flash... $$$ 10-22mm ultra wide-angle No comments, I haven't tried it. Should be great for indoor shots. 17-85mm IS or 24-105mm IS standard zoom I have the 24-105 so I'm partial, great quality. 70-300mm IS telephoto My friend has one, I would say the quality is acceptable BUT the focussing speed is not high enough, at least for me. Beleive me you WILL lose action shots with the 70-300 because it will take forever to focus. I have a 70-200 f4 L and I use it with a 1.4X TC giving almost the same range as the 70-300 (70-200 and 98-280 with the TC). The drawback to the 70-200 and TC is as always the price. 50mm f1.8 prime lens (only because it's cheap, has a wide aperture, and is highly recommended by customers on Amazon) I have one and I am trying to use it more. Inside it's wothless except for portraits because the equivalent focal lenght is 80mm. Trying to take a group portrait in a regular sized room is almost impossible. I bought a 28mm f1.8 which I use a lot more because it's more like a "normal" lens on a 35mm and with it's wide aperture, it can gather a lot of light. Drawbacks, again price and the other is it has such a shallow depth of field when it's wide open it gets ridiculous. How do you feel about this list? Are any of them unnecessary or not very useful? In my mind I can imagine different scenarios where each would be useful, but like I said, I have no experience. I traveled to Peru with the following: 400XTi with a 17-40mm f4 L 20D with a 24-105mm F4 L IS and 70-200F4 L and 1.4X TC The 70-200 and TC were very usefull for nature shots of condors, birds and llamas but if I had to cut down, I could have done just about everything with the 24-105. Three years ago in europe I had a 10D with 24-70mm f2.8 L, what a bear to lug around, great lens, but super heavy. I also had a 70-300 but used it only for a dozen pics. Jean http://www.pbase.com/jeandr/peru for examples ;-) > 100mm macro > > I have a friend who has one and I tried it. Nice for macro shots but > limited to 1-1. If you become a macro fanatic, it will not be enough, then > you will buy an MP-E and the MT-24EX flash... $$$ I think I decided to hold off on this until I see if the macro mode on the other lenses is sufficient for what I want to do. I may look into it later on. > 10-22mm ultra wide-angle Definitely going to get. Maybe not in the first round of purchases, but very likely in the second. > 17-85mm IS or 24-105mm IS standard zoom > > I have the 24-105 so I'm partial, great quality. Yeah, I think I decided to go with an L series lens, either the 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4, since this will be my primary lens by far. The reviews of head-to-head comparisons indicate that the 24-70 takes sharper photos with better color contrast, but the 24-105 has a longer focal length and IS. Since they cost about the same, that's not really a factor. I think I'm leaning towards the 24-105. > 70-300mm IS telephoto > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 70-300 (70-200 and 98-280 with the TC). The drawback to the 70-200 and TC > is as always the price. Yeah, now you have me thinking (which is dangerous for my wallet). I definitely see where you're coming from and I'm very tempted to get the 70-200L. However, since this won't be my primary lens I'm worried about spending that much money. I guess I'm still a little undecided about this, but at least my field of choices has been narrowed. Thanks so much for all your help! Shannon > > 100mm macro > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the other lenses is sufficient for what I want to do. I may look into > it later on. The 24-105 does an OK job at filling a frame with a flower, adding a 12mm extention tube will bring it closer still. Extention tubes are the "cheap" way to try macro. > > 10-22mm ultra wide-angle > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > focal length and IS. Since they cost about the same, that's not really > a factor. I think I'm leaning towards the 24-105. I had a 24-70 f2.8 L, great lens, but really big and intimidating. I am happier with my 24-105, more versatile, longer reach and IS at the expense of 1 f stop. There is no way I would take the 24-70 on a bicycle, the 24-105 though is with me all the time. > > 70-300mm IS telephoto > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > about this, but at least my field of choices has been narrowed. Thanks > so much for all your help! You will not regret the 70-200 f4 L, it is just so sharp, fast to focus and not so heavy you won't take it with you. One thing that could be worth trying is getting a 1.4X TC from Kenko or similar, they have inexpensive ones and expensive ones. I think (hope) the expensive ones are as good as the Canon ones but they may allow the 24-105 to be used with it while the Canon ones only accept certain lenses. This could add versatility to your collection of lenses. Jean <snip> I'm debating... 17-85mm vs EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM </snip> Shannon: The "L" series lenses are better built and heavier. Wider angle lenses have a MUCH greater difference between one mm of focal length than longer lenses (ie, the difference between 15mm and 16mm is big; the difference between 75mm and 76mm is negligible). One of the best things you can do is rent a lens or two and test them for your specific uses. You can also learn a lot at photo.net and other photography web sites. In my experience, landscapes benefit from wide lenses, but do not need fast lenses -- instead they need a really excellent tripod. Consider spending as much on the tripod and ballhead as you do on the camera body. That XTi is a fine choice; so is a Gitzo carbon fiber camera support. You'll replace the camera after a few years. The tripod will last a lifetime. HTH, Ray > Shannon: The "L" series lenses are better built and heavier. Wider angle > lenses have a MUCH greater difference between one mm of focal length than > longer lenses (ie, the difference between 15mm and 16mm is big; the > difference between 75mm and 76mm is negligible). One of the best things > you can do is rent a lens or two and test them for your specific uses. You > can also learn a lot at photo.net and other photography web sites. I did decide to go with an L series lens, either the 24-70 or 24-105, probably the 24-105. > In my experience, landscapes benefit from wide lenses, but do not need fast > lenses -- instead they need a really excellent tripod. Consider spending > as much on the tripod and ballhead as you do on the camera body. That XTi > is a fine choice; so is a Gitzo carbon fiber camera support. You'll > replace the camera after a few years. The tripod will last a lifetime. Yeah, I know tripods are an absolute must, but I haven't done any research into them, yet. Thanks for your help! Shannon >Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Thanks in advance, >Shannon I am not going to get into the cropping vs multiplier argument at all. To be honest I only read through about 6 of the 33 replies before I got bored with the arguing over semmantics. Here is what I have to tell you. I started with a Digital Rebel. 6.2 Megapixel and I took great shots with it. Visit skinnerphoto.photoreflect.com and see a few shots I took with the original rebel and a EF-S 28-135 f3.5 lens. I didn't worry about how much I magnified or how much I cropped...... I just concentrated on the subject and got what have turned out to be fairly marketable shots. Now, I have graduated up to the XTi. I use that same 28-135 lens and will eventually post up some more shots done with that rig. More importantly I think is the ability to use photo processing software like Photoshop and some of the others available. That is 50% of the battle in getting beautiful prints. What you are looking at will make great pictures if you can compose your shots well. Trust your eye and look for those things that you like. Most of all.... go out there and shoot pictures. Don;t get bogged down in the technicalities. It all is moot to the final appearance anyway. >>Hello all, >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >bogged down in the technicalities. It all is moot to the final >appearance anyway. I must be braindead tonight - try skinnerstudios.photoreflect.com Sorry. |
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
|
©2008 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.