First dSLR, lens recommendations

[Marsu42]

As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime.

Indeed, however the advantage of the 50mm is that it's about the human eyes' angle. But having a lot of mp sure helps because you can crop more and need to zoom less.

There's only one compelling reason why you should learn to shoot with a prime. That's because retro-grouches learned it that way back in the 60s, and therefore you should too. The notion that primes "force you to think and zoom with your feet" can easily be simulated by setting a focal length on a zoom before you raise the camera to your eye.

Agreed - *if* you can force yourself to do that. I am just too lazy and only discovered new angles when using my 100mm macro (I only use the 50/1.8 for shoot in the dark shots). Thus, a prime is/was very instructive to me, but having learned that I'll settle for zooms too if they had the iq and dof of the 35L. Btw ... 60s??? ... I'm not *that* old

 

[marekjoz]

As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime.

Indeed, however the advantage of the 50mm is that it's about the human eyes' angle. But having a lot of mp sure helps because you can crop more and need to zoom less.

Indeed, however portaits made on FF with 50mm look worse, than with 70-100mm, although better than with 24 or 35

 

[RAKAMRAK]

Ok, Summarizing - one should zoom with lens and feet accordingly to achieve a desired composition, having it learnt using primes (especially 30, 35mm on crop) while still paying attention not to get bored or disinterested. Better?

Seriously - you're a bit limited to whan you can do having a particular prime on a body attached and nothing helps no matter how you will work with your feet. Below 70, 80 - you have it difficult to frame a good portrait. Having 50 and up - the room can be to small etc. Primes are great when you are prepared to what you are going to shoot sacrifying frames you definitely loose. Landscape, portrait, product, "stylish" street are great for primes. As a general purpose lens it's difficult to find a prime. I think that having ie 15-50 f1.4 and 24-135 f1.8 would bring this discussion to another level

Ahh.. now you are talking.... I would just add one more demand/wish here..... 15-50 f/1.4 "with curved aperture blades". (or the 24-135 with curved blade).......

 

[!Xabbu]

There's only one compelling reason why you should learn to shoot with a prime. That's because retro-grouches learned it that way back in the 60s, and therefore you should too.

The advantage of primes is aperture and selective focus, not composition. Zooms are much better for learning composition. The notion that primes "force you to think and zoom with your feet" can easily be simulated by setting a focal length on a zoom before you raise the camera to your eye.

It is very instructive to take a subject and shoot it at with a variety of focal lengths (say 24, 35, 50 and 85 mm) to see the effect of wideangle, normal, and compressed views. Set the focal length and then "zoom with your feet". In the end this leads to better composition and photography compared to trying to hobble yourself with a single focal length. Learning correct choice of focal length is an essential part of composition.

I would argue that, if you really want a learning tool for composition, you should get a superzoom. Of course there are reasons why a superzoom may not be the best choice (IQ, aperture) but from a composition perspective it can't be beat.

+1 - that's what it feels like to me. One can use a zoom like a prime and I don't know how many time one really shoots at f/1.4. I get beautiful OOF shots even with my 70-200mm f/4 and I still am of the opinion that it gives me better IQ and a much nicer look than my 50mm f/1.4.

 

[Sartor]

Wow, there is a lot of debate about primes vs. zooms ;D

It is not always about the distortion. It is actually about the "angle" (which I have tried argue below at Flickr, have a look if time permits)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alo-chhaya/7091640629/#


Precisely for finding the "angle" a zoom is better than prime. Cropping won't give us a different angle which we are talking about.

(Do not get me wrong; I am neither against prime nor overtly for zooms, I love both. And out my three lenses two are fast primes. Well relatively faster than the available zooms at least.)

Nice illustration and explanation. It got rid of some of my confusion

As for my needs I'm starting to get convinced to get the 70-200 zoom. But which model?
As I see it I have two options, as the 2.8 IS is too expensive:
- 70-200 f/2.8 L USM
- 70-200 f/4 L IS USM
These lenses are in the same price range and within my budget if I stretch it a little.

I have also read the posts in: Which 70-200? and What shutter speed is required to overcome the need for IS?

I'm thinking the f/4 IS version would fit me best as most of my shots will me handheld. And the weight is much lower.

A third possibility is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but at a higher cost... Does anyone know at which FL the min. aperture goes from 4 to 5.6 by the way? Is it at 200 mm?

Last question:
How often do you use the f/2.8 setting on your lenses? A lot of great pictures I've seen are taken at f/4 or higher.
So, do you use the f/2.8 as a mean to get shallow DOF and OOF or because you are shooting in low light and a higher ISO value is not an option (possible due to noise)?

 

[gtog]

...
A third possibility is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but at a higher cost... Does anyone know at which FL the min. aperture goes from 4 to 5.6 by the way? Is it at 200 mm?
...

The SLRGear.com review reports the following apertures at the following focal lengths for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM:

Focal length	70mm	100mm	135mm	200mm	300mm
Largest aperture	ƒ/4	ƒ/4	ƒ/4.5	ƒ/5	ƒ/5.6
Smallest aperture	ƒ/32	ƒ/32	ƒ/36	ƒ/40	ƒ/45

Of course, I would not be inclined to use any of those "smallest apertures".
I also do not have a f/2.8 zoom to help answer your last question.

G

 

[Marsu42]

A third possibility is the 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS USM, but at a higher cost... Does anyone know at which FL the min. aperture goes from 4 to 5.6 by the way? Is it at 200 mm?

I've got it, and it's f4 up to 100mm, f4.5 up to ~150mm and f5 up to ~220mm (I read it from the scale)

How often do you use the f/2.8 setting on your lenses? A lot of great pictures I've seen are taken at f/4 or higher. So, do you use the f/2.8 as a mean to get shallow DOF and OOF or because you are shooting in low light and a higher ISO value is not an option (possible due to noise)?

Excellent question, and one imho is asked way too seldom. I can only report that with my 100mm (macro) lens I nearly don't use 2.8 at all because the dof is so ridiculously thin even at this mid tele range. Sometimes I shoot at 2.8, then rave about the great dof effect and the creamy bokeh, then scrap the shot and shoot at f4+ where the object other than a flat piece of paper is actually 100% in focus and the bokeh is still there. On the other hand, one good reason to get f2.8 is that you can use a 1.4x or even a 2.0x teleconverter with little af degradation.

For the 70-200, f2.8 is great if you've got a good af and shoot indoors like weddings. Not to actually shoot at f2.8 all the time, but the af works way better at f2.8 at low light. For me, it wasn't worth the considerable added weight (70-200/2.8+tc to get outdoor tele range) and price over the 70-300L. I'll get a prime with a really large aperture when I need it later down the road.

My advice if you think about the 70-200/4 vs. the 70-300L: How often do you depend on f4 in the range 135-200mm? If not, think about getting the 70-300L, it even takes a tc too although not the Canon one - I just bought the Kenko 1.4x, af working @f8 ok and iq is as good or bad as with a Canon tc. The 70-200/4 is a bit sharper, but it is at the same time physically longer due to internal focusing, and the iq of a 70-200/4+tc is about the same or worse than a native 70-300L. But there are a lot of other threads about this, but most of the time the decision is really about the 70-200/2.8 vs 70-300L vs. 100-400L.

 

[papa-razzi]

I'm sure the 60D is a nice camera. However, the difference between the 60D and T3i is about $300 USD.
If you needed to "compromise" somewhere on budget, that is where I would do it, not on the lenses. The other option is to get a used body. Body's lose their value quickly. Good Lenses do not. I promise you will outgrow your first body in a year or two if you shoot much at all. My first body was an XSi, and it takes amazing pictures. You could pick a used XSi up very cheap - and it will get your through your first year as a DSLR shooter.

Some really great suggestions have been given. Here are mine.
1) Most important and priority #1 - you want a good "general purpose" lens. I suggest the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This is a fantastic lens. I love mine. You will wish you had a lower f-stop if you shoot much indoors and you go with the EF-S 15-85. The 24-105 L is good, but you will need a wide angle lens to go with it. 24mm is not wide enough on a crop camera for what you want to do.

2) Next, you want something really fast to learn about using shallow depth of field, and if you get in really low light situations. Nothing beats the EF 50 f/1.8 for value here. In my opinion, the EF 50 f/1.4 isn't worth the extra money - especially on a crop camera. (I have the 50 f/1.4 and my Daughter has the 50 f/1.8)

3) Last, you want something on the telephoto end. I would go with the EF 70-200 f/4L IS. To me, IS is very important in a hand-held telephoto lens - therefore it is preferred over the non-IS f/2.8 in the same range. This is a very good, affordable L lens.

If the EF 70-200 f/4L IS exceeds your budget, then go with the EF 70-300 IS non-L. This will do just fine and give you experience. Then you will really know what you want when you spend the big bucks on an L-grade telephoto lens.

I also highly recommend getting a good flash. I recommend the Speedlight 430EX II.

Today's B&H Pricing
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - $1179
EF 50 f/1.8 - $119
EF 70-200 f/4L IS - $1349
(EF 70-300 IS non-L) - $549
Speedlight 430EX II - $299
Rebel XSi (450D) ebay - $250 - $300

Good luck!

 

[Cosk]

I'm sure the 60D is a nice camera. However, the difference between the 60D and T3i is about $300 USD.
If you needed to "compromise" somewhere on budget, that is where I would do it, not on the lenses. The other option is to get a used body. Body's lose their value quickly. Good Lenses do not.

Completely agree with that... bodies depreciate like stones, but lenses (strangely) appreciate in value. To optimize your investment, buy a camera that's a couple generations old and pair it with fantastic glass... over the long haul, you'll spend a lot less money. I just upgraded to a 5D Classic for $750 off eBay and am thrilled with my 'new' camera.

30D's are about $250 on eBay and they take fantastic photos. 40Ds are about $350.
The photos I posted above were all taken with a 30D. If you are OK without video... I say used is the way to go... (unless you have unlimited funds.)

 

[Marsu42]

30D's are about $250 on eBay and they take fantastic photos. 40Ds are about $350.

... to the op: if you get a used body, at least get a xxd like the 40d ore something because usability is imho much better. Try a 600d and a 60d at a shop, see how it fits your hand and try to change some settings. The reason I recommend this: You won't be able to take good shots no matter how good the lens is if you hate your camera body because you get a cramp in the hand and constantly fiddle around and loose shots because you got the settings wrong. Or because your body craps out the first hit it takes or in light rain because it's note even sealed like a xxd.

 

[!Xabbu]

I'm sure the 60D is a nice camera. However, the difference between the 60D and T3i is about $300 USD.
If you needed to "compromise" somewhere on budget, that is where I would do it, not on the lenses. The other option is to get a used body. Body's lose their value quickly. Good Lenses do not. I promise you will outgrow your first body in a year or two if you shoot much at all. My first body was an XSi, and it takes amazing pictures. You could pick a used XSi up very cheap - and it will get your through your first year as a DSLR shooter.

[...]

If the EF 70-200 f/4L IS exceeds your budget, then go with the EF 70-300 IS non-L. This will do just fine and give you experience. Then you will really know what you want when you spend the big bucks on an L-grade telephoto lens.

I also highly recommend getting a good flash. I recommend the Speedlight 430EX II.

Today's B&H Pricing
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - $1179
EF 50 f/1.8 - $119
EF 70-200 f/4L IS - $1349
(EF 70-300 IS non-L) - $549
Speedlight 430EX II - $299
Rebel XSi (450D) ebay - $250 - $300

Good luck!

Getting an older body is fine, but you should make sure that it fits your needs. My first body was a 450D and the AF is really bad. I like to shoot moving objects once in a while and the AF Servo is really not good - on top of that the fps is very low, which means you will miss a lot of nice shots, if you shoot some sports or moving animals or even just your wife walking towards you (the last is more of an AF Servo issue).
On top of that I agree with Marsu that you should get a body, which fits your hands and where you like the ergonomics.

Honestly I would save money on the IS in your 70-200mm ($700 cheaper than IS). The 70-200mm f/4 L (non-IS) is a wonderful lens and as discussed in another thread you will almost never use it indoors on a crop body (it's just too long). Outdoors the light is almost all the times bright enough to get a speed of 1/200s or faster. Furthermore this lens is sharp at f/4, which means you don't have to stop it down to get great pictures.

 

[aznable]

I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.

i dont like the 60D...maybe is a better idea to get a 7d/50D used body; if you need a fast and advanced autofocus, god for the 7D

I like to photograph landscapes and animal as well as portraits.

As for lenses, I have read that the EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good choice for an all-round starting lens so I’ll buy that unless you convince me otherwise

Now, the thing is I’m going to Malaysia in six weeks where I among other places will be going to the rainforest and hopefully I’ll be able to 'shoot' some wildlife.

I was fist thinking of getting the ES-F 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as my second lens for landscapes, but now I’m wondering if a tele lens might do me better as the difference between 10 and 15 mm isn’t that much.
How long focal length will I need for 'shooting' animals? My guess is that even the 15-85 mm will be too short even at the long end. So is this 200, 300, 400 mm?

the differences between lenses like the 15-85 and other lenses like canon 10-22 , sigma 8-16 and so on is the huge distorsion you will get at short end of the lens; for example on the sigma at 8mm the distorsion is near the half you will get with the 15-85 @15mm and both wide-lenses become flat @15mm.

anyway i dont think is a good idea to buy a wide angle lens from the start, it's surely better to experience with an all around lens and in the future consider more specialized lenses.

you are right, you will need a tele, but the length depends on which subject/distances you think to shoot

you will go with tamron 70-300 VC USD; decent performance for a low price

for low light shooting then i suggest the sigma 50mm F/1.4 thats usable @1.4 and very sharp from 2.8

 

[!Xabbu]

I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.

i dont like the 60D...maybe is a better idea to get a 7d/50D used body; if you need a fast and advanced autofocus, god for the 7D

What do you dislike about the 60D? It has significantly better AF than the xxxD series, it has significantly improved burst rate (and 5.3 fps is enough for most people) and it's considerably cheaper than the 7D (here in Switzerland it's a $450 difference). Of course the 7D gives you an extremely good AF and even higher burst rate, but do most people really need this?

The 50D is a great camera - a friend of mine has it and I really like it. So, this might be a valid option, if the 60D doesn't have anything that justifies the higher price for you. (The flip-out screen did it for me, because it enables me to take pictures really low to the ground or above my head without guessing what I'm shooting or getting into advanced yoga positions).

 

[Marsu42]

I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.

i dont like the 60D...maybe is a better idea to get a 7d/50D used body; if you need a fast and advanced autofocus, go for the 7D

What do you dislike about the 60D?

Fyi: The burst rate of the 60d is even higher than Canon says in Live view or when disabling jpeg. But apart from that, we've been through the 60d vs 7d time and time again, it's really a matter what is required and if it's worth the price difference. I wouldn't want a 7d because it doesn't run magic lantern which is *the* killer feature that sets most Canons (50d to 5d2) apart from Nikon. But are scenarios where the 7d's improved tracking af does make sense. If anyone wants to know about specifics, I'm happy to help, but general comparisons imho don't help.

One persistent problem with the 7d is that it's got the worst image quality of all 18mp bodies (see http://a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm): Since it's basically a turbo-charged rebel using two cpus, it introduces unrecoverable noise banding that the other newer bodies (600d, 60d) don't have.

 

[Alwyn]

Let me see, what was the problem with my 60d? Dead pixels, Poor AF in low light, Excessive noise at ISO 3200, a shutter mechanism which behaved like it was on it's way out within the first month of ownership.

 

[!Xabbu]

Let me see, what was the problem with my 60d? Dead pixels, Poor AF in low light, Excessive noise at ISO 3200, a shutter mechanism which behaved like it was on it's way out within the first month of ownership.

Dead pixels and shutter mechanism issues within the first month - unless you bought it on the black market, there should be no problem about getting it replaced under warranty. Sounds to me like you got a defective 60D from the get go.

It's known that the 18MP APS-C from the 60D (and also 7D and 600D) doesn't behave too well with high ISO. There are enough reviews stating this - so, it seems like you didn't do your homework.

Poor AF in low light compared to what? A 1D body - of course | the 5D II - I don't think so, the 60D is clearly better than 5D II | a P&S - no way...

The 60D is the cheapest body above the Rebels - you can't expect the same performance from a $1,000 piece of equipment as from a $3,500 camera...

 

[re:k photographie]

My first lens above kits was a used EF 28-105 f3.5/4.5 II USM that I bough for around $200 including hood, caps & filter. It has not been on a body in years, not since I got my 24-70 L & my 70-200 2.8 L IS. But I will never sell it because I have sentimental attachment to that glass; it is where I cut my teeth.

I mention this because I think for just starting out you can get some really good--not great--but very good glass for less than $250 (an old EF 28-105 USM or maybe a EF 24-135 IS USM) without breaking the bank & with the option to use them FF if you go that direction someday.

 

[RLPhoto]

Hi

I'm buying my first dSLR and I'm looking for some advice.

My current camera is the Canon Powershot G9. I have played with the different modes for e.g. aperture and shutter speed, and now I want more

I have looked around on the internet, reviews and forums and have reached the conclusion, that the 60D will do a nice upgrade from my current camera.

I like to photograph landscapes and animal as well as portraits.

As for lenses, I have read that the EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a good choice for an all-round starting lens so I’ll buy that unless you convince me otherwise

Now, the thing is I’m going to Malaysia in six weeks where I among other places will be going to the rainforest and hopefully I’ll be able to 'shoot' some wildlife.

I was fist thinking of getting the ES-F 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as my second lens for landscapes, but now I’m wondering if a tele lens might do me better as the difference between 10 and 15 mm isn’t that much.
How long focal length will I need for 'shooting' animals? My guess is that even the 15-85 mm will be too short even at the long end. So is this 200, 300, 400 mm?
I will be shooting handheld most of the time, so IS is almost a requirement.
I’d appreciate any suggestions for primes or zooms lenses. My budget for lenses is 1,500 € at the most.

Here is the best sharpest setup for Little $$$

Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 - 480$

Canon 50mm 1.8 - 120$

Canon 100mm F/2 - 480$.

I could honestly do all my work with that lens setup. It covers a pretty broad range on APS-c and covers low light situtations also.

 

[Marsu42]

Here is the best sharpest setup for Little $$$: Canon 50mm 1.8 - 120$

Since you mention the 50/1.8 (I've got it, I'm sorry to say), you're obviously not speaking of sharp at open aperture. And in this case: Every lens is sharp stopped down, so the interesting piece of information is when a lens starts to get sharp enough for what print size or resolution and when (if ever) it start to get sharp enough for 18mp @100% crop.

 

[RLPhoto]

Here is the best sharpest setup for Little $$$: Canon 50mm 1.8 - 120$

Since you mention the 50/1.8 (I've got it, I'm sorry to say), you're obviously not speaking of sharp at open aperture. And in this case: Every lens is sharp stopped down, so the interesting piece of information is when a lens starts to get sharp enough for what print size or resolution and when (if ever) it start to get sharp enough for 18mp @100% crop.

Name me a lens that's a 1.8 and sharper wide open for a 100$ with the same feature set and I'll recommend it. The point is that it's the sharpest for the $$$.