- This topic is empty.
Newbie Question – What Lens with my camera? Can EOS 400D
-
I think I’m going to go with the Canon EOS 400D. I’ve hear the standard 18-55 lens in not the best, so I need some help choosing what other lens to get with it.
Sigma 55-200 – http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3288&navigator=6
Sigma 70-300 – http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3I’d welcome any advice as to what lens I should get as its all quote new to me!
ThanksHi colly, welcome.
Looks like you’re new into all this, so welcome to your new addiction too! Leaf through some other threads on here, camera body & lens recommendations or opinions are fairly regular.
It depends on what kind of photography you think you’re likely to be doing. You won’t get the best out of a hefty but affordable zoom at the start. And it won’t help you learn the ropes either. I’ve also heard bad reviews of the 18-55 kit lens.
I’d generally advise to start out small, and would recommend a 50mm f1.8 – yes a prime lens – without hesitation. If you prefer the flexibility of a zoom, Tamron and Sigma both have quality optics for third party vendors, and I’d suggest a medium wide zoom to start with (30ish-80ish). If you feel you need a long range (200 or 300) – purpose specific for, say, sport or wildlife – consider any options you hear from others and invest in a decent tripod as I think you’ll probably be using it quite often, with such artillery.
You’ll need to consider also the max aperture of your prospective lens as it’ll limit you in a number of ways, that will come apparent as you gain experience (see below link). Basic rule of thumb is to go for the widest aperture (lowest “f” number) lens you can afford. With long zooms you’ll find it prohibitively high such as f4.5 or even f5.6 (can’t open your links, sorry) as you’ll find yourself “running out of” light, and image quality will usually suffer at the long end (i.e. at the fully extended 200 or 300 end).
A useful intro to lenses (also posted in the below mentioned thread).
http://www.photographytips.com/page.cfm/468Here’s a thread asking a similar question, and some good discussion on the topic.
I’m afraid I would have to disagree with stasber. While the 18-55 is not L quality it is fantastic value if you get it as a kit lens with the 400d. It is ?35 extra if you buy the 400d from calumet in belfast which isnt bad and if you decide to sell the 400d in the future the kit lens would prove invaluable in the deal. At f8 it is indistinguisable from a lot of other lenses and it isnt too bad wide open. Good bang for the buck as they say stateside!
I would however recommend getting the 50 f1.8 after getting this lens! :wink:
Carlos.
carl wrote:
[The 18-55] is fantastic value if you get it as a kit lens with the 400d..and if you decide to sell the 400d in the future the kit lens would prove invaluable in the deal.
Agreed. Included with the kit it’s grand but not something worth buying separately as an additional lens IMO.
I don’t have one myself and the research I did (online as well as discussion with an experienced photographer friend who got it also as a kit lens) suggested I could do without it.
f8 is a sweet spot for most lenses and definition in the main frame would also be comparible with most lenses of the type but as shooting conditions & subject matter will seldom be ideal, so you’ll be reliant on the aperture and zoom range of the lens. In this respect the 18-55 might be a good back up but I’d be looking for something else as my main working lens.
Kept in top condition it’ll help with resale value of the kit.
Hey Guys,
Thanks so much that is some great advice, very much appreciated. Thanks for the link Stasber. I had a quick read but I reall need to study all of this a little more to get a proper understanding.
I have been an avid amateur for a while, but just using a standard compact digital point and click – a Canon Ixus 65. Here is an example of the sort of photos I have been taking so far: http://www.zascar.com/photos (redirects to my Flickr site). Any comments on what you think my style would be suited to are greatly appreciated.
You are correct at this early stage I don’t really know what I want! I had never really considered buying just a standard 50mm lens, I don’t really understand why but I trust you in saying that this would be a good next purchase. I suppose when you do not have any zoom it forces you to choose your position etc more carefully. I can get it here for ?79 http://www.digitalwonderworld.de/product_info.php/products_id/26 so I’m sure I will get one anyway.
I suppose I was just looking for maximum flexability – a good general purpouse / all rounder, and I would like my next lens to have a decent range and a bit of Zoom. I like the depth of field effect when zooming and blurring out the background. 300 is probbaly too much, 200 is more than enough, and perhaps less will do. This is why I was looking at lenses like this:
These two have a massive range from wide-zoom:
Sigma 18-200 – 3.5-6.3
Sigma 28-300 – F3.5-6.3
What are the downsides of going for such a big range?Great offer here for 2 lenses: Tamron 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 & 75-300 f/4.0-5.6 – all for Under ?200
Say i bought the 50mm cannon, and this bundle for 2, would this be a decent setup?
I’m going to buy a Canon EOS400D – if anyone else is looking too, the cheapest I have found it is for ?728 here: http://www.digitalwonderworld.de/product_info.php/products_id/9009
I’ll keep doing more research but any more info is greatly appreciated.
Cheers
CollyThe 18-55mm is a kit lens and exactly that, it is not a high quality lens because you get what you pay for.
On that basis if you want pin sharp pristine type pics then dig deep in your pocket, if you want just average type run of the mill pics then the kit lens is perfectly ok, i could post a few i did with my 18-55 kit lens and the person who just bought it from me seems ok with it perhaps they may post a few pics here and give you their opinion.
Just go by what pics people post and form your own opinion or get to know someone who has the kind of equipment you want and see their stuff.
I saw in Camera Exchange on Georges St. here in Dublin they had a 2nd hand Sigma 70-300 APO lens (the newer one with the red ring…but I think it might have been for Nikon?) for ?120. The onlive reviews for this lens seem to be good enough, although there are some reviews that say some models aren’t as sharp as others (maybe this is why its been traded in/sold?) New they are ?199 here which is actually cheaper than I’ve seen them in the UK!!!!! :shock:
I’ve got a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and it is a fantastic lens. It’s small, light, fast and really sharp.
I’ve had a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 before and I wasn’t a fan of it to be honest. At the time, in my ignorance I thought it would cover everything. I found it to be slow, cumbersome, heavy and not the sharpest either. It was the slightly earlier version that didn’t have the macro facility though.pete4130 wrote:
..New they are ?199 here which is actually cheaper than I’ve seen them in the UK!!!!! :shock:
I was look at them before Christmas and it was quite a surprise alright. They were ?230 or so everywhere else, and 199.99 here in Dublin! Anyway, I ended up buying the same lens from eBay fro ?150 (digitalrev, including delivery, don’t know if I will get an import tax letter from UPS later) – got it delivered today, and looks great mounted. (a bit on the heavy side though..!)
In general, the downside of superzoom lenses is poor performance at the extremes and indifferent performance near the middle. The 18mm end is likely to have bad barrel distortion and chromatic aberration, and the 200mm end is likely to be dark with poor contrast and soft focus. BUT, all this is by comparison with similar length primes, for which you’d:
a) pay the same or more for just one lens doing one focal length
b) need a bagful of glass to cover the same rangeSo if you want convenience and ease of use you may want to consider a big zoom. If image quality is paramount you’ll need primes or more limited range quality zooms, like Canon’s L range. Either way you’ll pay a load more. The other downside with cheaper lenses is slow and buzzy autofocus, and indifferent plasticky build quality. The like of L lenses are silent, focus like lightning and can be used as bludgeons.
SteveFE wrote:
…The like of L lenses are silent, focus like lightning and can be used as bludgeons.
:lol: :lol:
Thanks guys that makes much more sense. I’d say that any deterioration in quality would not be enough to sway me, it is still miles better than what I’m surrently using. And of course we all want the best of the best of everything, but money is always a factor so you have to look for value, and I’d say a lens with such versitility and range represents great value for the price.
Positron, I see you have the same camera that I intend to buy, with the standard lens, the 50mm as recommended by everyone, and the 70-300 that I’m thinking about. Please let me know what you think of each and what else you would recommend. Is the 50mm as good as its reputation? Is the 70-300 slow and clunky? Am I better off going for a smaller focal range?
Out of any of the links there, which ones would people recommend or not?
ThanksIMO I would say that the 50mm deservedly has it’s reputation. At least 2 friends have the same 50mm as me and they both find it a gem to use (it becomes a 75mm on my DSLR, so it becomes a nice short portrait lens too).
You’re dead right about money being a factor. The price difference between what you want and what you need can be huge. It is a compromise. While a Sigma lens may not focus as fast or as silently as its Canon counterpart, as long as you accept it may be a bit more noisy and a touch slower to focus and can live with it (pesonally it wouldn’t bother me too much) then you should be happy with the lens and get good results from it.
A rfiend who got a Nikon D50 not so long ago was in the same position as you. He got the kit lens with it (an 18-55 I think?) and was looking for something a bit longer. In the end he decided to go with the Sigma 70-300 APO lens and he’s very happy with it. It didn’t break the bank for him and its opened up a whole new way for him to shoot.
His other option was a 55-200 I think, but he chose to go for the 70-300mm and was willing to sacrafice not having anything to cover him between 55-70mm for the time being.colly wrote:
Positron, I see you have the same camera that I intend to buy, with the…..Please let me know what you think of each and what else you would recommend. Is the 50mm as good as its reputation? Is the 70-300 slow and clunky? Am I better off going for a smaller focal range?
ThanksWell colly, I am REALY new to the DSLR stuff myself; I wouldn?t trust my own opinion! :D
I bought the 400D with kit lens because that?s the only package that shop did. I think it?s an okay lens, but I could never get the sharpness, detail, contrast or control over DOF like the photos that people posts here! It did okay between F8 ? F11, on a tripod etc, but only so-so. Hence the next lens.
I decided to get a 50mm 1.8 after I came across a massive thread at ?Photography On The Net – canon ef lenses ? forum ? sharpness of the pictures there totally won me over (and it was affordable). I bought it second hand (and got lucky ? it turned out to be Mark I, which is better built than the Mark II, and slightly heavier, but may be a bit slow to focus). The pictures were obviously superior that the kit lens can ever produce ? Its fast, excellent DOF, brilliantly sharp, beautiful colors and physically, tiny! I have it mounted most of the time now. If you look at the signatures of many pro photographers in various forums, a lot of them seem to hang onto this one along with their expensive L lenses. ?Recommended without reservations?!
Once you get used to the fast 50mm, kit lens f4 is just annoyingly slow and soft! Bit I can?t get rid of it because, with a 1.6 crop camera like 400D, 50mm is in fact 80mm, and occasionally I find it a bit too long. It would be nice to have a wider prime for below ?100, but there is no such thing!
The Sigma 70-300 APO DG, I just got it yesterday and hasn?t had a change to look at it. Out of box, its sturdy and well built (kit lens now looks bad as well as cheaply build), and it feels heavy after getting used to the tiny 50mm for a while. The AF/MF and Normal/Macro switches are really tight, and almost frustrating to use ? hopefully it will improve over a period of time. I bought it because of all the rave reviews it was getting, the APO, the macro mode etc ? will have to wait and see how it goes. I tried out a 70-200L this morning, and the difference is? well, like comparing Dublin Bus and the Space Shuttle!
If I were to do it all over again, I will get the 400D (or 30D) with 50mm 1.8 prime, and will wait till I can afford to buy a 27-70 F2.8L and then a 70-200L etc.
Hope this helps.
Thanks mate. The Canon L range I’m sure are fantastic but I can’t see myself spending that amount of cash at this stage. Going from what I’m using at the moment I’m sure even the standard lens will be a massive improvement. The 50mm will be even better and I’d just like once more half decent all rounder.
Here is a list of lenses for canons from DigitalRev. Maybe the Sigma 18-125, Tamron 28-200 or Sigma 18-200.
It’s all so confusing! lolWell, if you haven’t decided on the 50mm f1.8 yet, this thread might help (this is the one I mentioned earlier)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207
Good luck!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
