Newbie Seeking Advice

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Bill H. - 24 Oct 2006 23:55 GMT

I am just getting into photography, just retired, and have purchased a Rebel
XT. Now I need lenses and in particular would like to purchase good quality
used lenses. I would like a good portrait lens, a lens for landscape and
vista shots, and a lens for long range wildlife pictures? I would
appreciate advice on which lenses I should look for and where I might find
good used lenses at a reasonable price. Retired teachers don't have a lot
to spend.

Reply to this Message

Jim Mitchell - 26 Oct 2006 04:30 GMT

>I am just getting into photography, just retired, and have purchased a Rebel
>XT. Now I need lenses and in particular would like to purchase good quality
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>good used lenses at a reasonable price. Retired teachers don't have a lot
>to spend.

I can highly recommend a Tamron 35-105 F2.8 Zoom)C$1200 new) and a
canon F2.8 80-200 Zomm (C$2000 new)IF you want Macro - I can also
recommend a TAmron 90 MM F2.8 Fixed (C$900 new)

Reply to this Message

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 26 Oct 2006 06:20 GMT

>>I am just getting into photography, just retired, and have purchased a Rebel
>>XT. Now I need lenses and in particular would like to purchase good quality
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> canon F2.8 80-200 Zomm (C$2000 new)IF you want Macro - I can also
> recommend a TAmron 90 MM F2.8 Fixed (C$900 new)

Something to consider are image stabilization lenses, especially
as we get older in retirement.

To the OP: tell us more. Are you interested in great quality
(e.g. you want image to make nice enlargements to hang on your
wall) or no more than 8x10, or just snapshots? It does make
a difference in lens selection. Do you want only zoom lenses
(zooms limit quality), or are you willing to change lenses?

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Reply to this Message

Cisco Kid - 01 Nov 2006 21:56 GMT

> I am just getting into photography, just retired, and have purchased a Rebel
> XT.

Is that a digital of film camera? Not familar with the XT.

> Now I need lenses and in particular would like to purchase good quality
> used lenses.

Yeah man - why buy new and you can save huge $ and buy used. I make a
point to try and always by used electronics. The best place to shop in
www.keh.com. They are in Atlanta, GA - where are you? I've ordered many
things from them and am quite happy with the results.

> I would like a good portrait lens,

Go for a fixed focal length for portraits - you can move closer or
further away, plus you need a fast lens for portraits and zoom lenses
are notorious for not the greatest f-stop ranges.

The best portrait lens is around a 85 or 90mm lens but try and get the
lowest f-stop possible - that's very important for portraits, otherwise
you are severely limitied in your results. You can get some decent
non-canon lenses at f 2.8 for $100-200 but the quicker lens are
expensive.

But a good cheap fast lens is Canon's 50mm 1.8 - $50 or so.

> a lens for landscape and
> vista shots,

Not sure what a vista shot is but for landscapes get yourself a wide
angle zoom - no lower than 20mm and up to 35 or 50mm, Canon has a
20-35mm f3.5-4.5 for over $200. Tokina has the same for little over
$100, Tamron's 20-40mm for $165, etc.

Note: all the prices I'm giving is off of KEH.com's site for used
equipment.

> and a lens for long range wildlife pictures?

You want a telephoto - probably best to get a telephoto zoom and a
fixed focal length:

Sigma 70-210mm for $349
Sigma 134-400mm 4.5-5.6 for $379
Sigma 400mm f5.6 for $149

I actually have the Sigma 400mm 5.6 - recently shot some pics just
haven't gotten them developed yet - thinking of getting a 1.4x
converter to turn that 400mm into a 600mm and only lose 1 stop.

> I would
> appreciate advice on ... where I might find
> good used lenses at a reasonable price. Retired teachers don't have a lot
> to spend.

KEH man - trust me - they even have really knowledgeable salespersons
who are photographers and know their shtuff. So do a little bit of
homework, then check out their site for lens, prices, etc. - Camera
Store tab

So for portraits you want a fixed focal length around the 70 or 80mm
range
Landscape - start with a zoom of 10-35mm
Nature/Wildlife - 100-300mm zoom AND a 400mm fixed focal legth

And throw in that 50mm 1.8 for < $100.

Reply to this Message

MASL - 03 Nov 2006 21:24 GMT

Bill H. Wrote:

> I am just getting into photography, just retired, and have purchased
> Rebel
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> lot
> to spend.

I can confirm the KEH endorsment, very good quality used gear, ver
conservatively rated (i.e. others rate 9, KEH rates 8 or 7). Robert
and MidWest photo are also well regarded in general. Of course you
best bet might be to look for camera shop auctions, we've had two nea
me just recently.
Lenses: Canon lenses hold their value pretty well, so not much to sav
(or lose) with them. Suggest you consider canon lenses new, third part
used.
Landscape: I like the Tokina 17mm which is no longer sold new. Nic
and sharp, slight distortions, a real bargain lens. Tamron 28-75 f2.
is second, zoom versatility, a little long reach for a 1.6 crop camer
though. The Sigma 20 f1.8 is well regarded (but I never owned)
Portrait: can't beat the 85 f1.8 canon, but a 60 or 10x mm macro woul
probably do nicely too.
Wildlife: I really like the canon 100-400 f5.6 IS, but it may not fi
your cost requirements. The canon 400 f5.6 IS is a bit less $, an
sharper than the zoom, though lacking the portability and versitilit
of the 100-400. The Sigma 50-500 is well regarded, and used should b
a real bargain. There are some new lenses out which I haven't see
yet, look around the web, especially fred miranda's site and dpreview.
Good luck.

-Mar

--
MASL

Reply to this Message

Cisco Kid - 03 Nov 2006 22:39 GMT

Mark - question - I could have sworn I read an article that you should
not buy zooms where the upper end is 3x or more the bottom - e.g. a
100-300mm is okay 'cause 3x100=300 but a 70-300 is not 'cause 70x3=210
and the 300 is larger than that - I can't rememebr the exact logic
behind it - maybe poor f-stop range, or maybe a clarity issue or dunno
- are you aware of such a thing - ;'cause if it's true I would say the
100-400 and 50-500 would not be good choices - anyone else hear of that
guideline - any one able to explain the logic?

Jim

Reply to this Message

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) - 04 Nov 2006 02:28 GMT

> Mark - question - I could have sworn I read an article that you should
> not buy zooms where the upper end is 3x or more the bottom - e.g. a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Jim

Jim,
There are no hard and fast rules, just general guidelines.
For example:

fixed focal length = sharper than 3x zoom = sharper than >3x zoom

But someone could get a poorly made fixed lens that was
worse than a 4x zoom. But a longer zoom range is harder to
design without some compromise. Sometimes sharpness can be
maintained at the expense of minimum focus distance, or flair,
or f/ratio, etc.

I have a 100-400 L IS lens and mine is not sharp, especially
at the long end. Previously I used (actually still have)
canon 75-300, canon 100-300 IS, and sigma 170-500 (actually mine
is very sharp). But I no longer use any of these lenses
as they are not good enough for my needs.

The problem with digital and the high megapixel APS-C sensors is
the pixels are so small that it is equivalent to using ISO 50
speed film (in terms of resolution), so the requirements for a sharp
lens is driven to a very high level. Zooms in general don't cut it
for very sharp images, unless you stop down. Stopping down
is bad for wildlife action, or sports action.

So, I have switched all telephoto work to fixed lenses. I replaced
my 100-400 with a 300 f/4 L IS. That gives several advantages:
less cost, sharper, faster f/stop so faster shutter speeds,
works well with a 1.4x TC, and is lighter than the 100-400.
My 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC gives 420 mm f/5.6 and sharper images than my
100-400 at 400mm. Example:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lorikeet.c04.07.2005.JZ3F8
962.b-700.html

For wildlife, IS is extremely beneficial and I would not buy another
telephoto lens without IS.

(My other telephoto is a 500 mm f/4 L IS.)

Photos at:
http://www.clarkvision.com

Roger

Reply to this Message