Camera lenses complete beginer guide please?

BenUK

BenUK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
154
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hello

As a lot of you will of guessed I'm very new to photography.

Looking at different lenses could anyone sum up in general what lens you would use for what use?.

Mines a 14-50mm, I guess that is a bit of an all rounder?.

What would be best for say a fashion shoot, outside work, portrait work, performing arts?. etc.

Many thanks in advanced.
 
Generally any lens can be used for anything, but there are some circumstances where some lenses are better suited.
Landscapes tend to be shot with wide angles, anywhere from 10mm-50mm, portraits usually 50mm to 200mm.
If you are shooting in low light, you'll need a lens with a fast aperture f/2.8 or faster.

Obviously if you want to shoot something that's very far away, you'll need a long lens, 300mm or more.

It's impossible to say "use this lens for that" because there are so many variables. The light, the distance from subject, the look you are going for etc etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a professional but I've experimented with a range of different equipment during college & I'll be pleased to share with you what I've found.

As you've asked for Fashion/Portrait work I'd recommend a slightly longer focal length with a low aperture (the F/number). Prime lenses, which are fixed focal lengths, such as 50mm or 85mm are practical when shooting portraits. The low aperture allows you to shoot in lower lighting conditions as it allows more light to touch the camera's sensor but the narrow depth of field gives a wonderful sharp focus point of the subject's features & provides a much less busy background. You can always compensate for the extra light with a high shutter speed in brighter lighting conditions. Having said this, it depends on your personal approach to shooting portraits & using the wide-angle lens that you're currently working with might benefit your style.

The price of lenses will vary depending on the focal length, aperture & the quality of the glass it's made from. The better the glass, the better the quality of the photographs it can produce. Make sure that if you start looking at purchasing lenses, you research the particular lenses you're interested in & you can always seek advice on here about others' experiences as well.

I have been rather brief & only really discussed one variable that I know worked for me but I'll be pleased to answer any further questions you have ~ if I can, I'll do my best to offer advice! Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
Both the posts are very interesting and a good starting point at understanding them. :)

There really is just so much to take in for a newbie!
 
Thats also helped me explained some basics.
 
Learn to use the camera with the lens you have got before you start worrying about other lenses. Once you know what you are doing you will understand what your kit lens cannot do that something else could.

The kit lens is very versatile and there is a lot it can do and do it well.

Take the same picture with different settings and see what changes.

Try shutter priority mode and change the shutter speed letting the camera decide the aperture. Take pictures of say cars moving on the main road so you can see what shutter speed does.

Then try Aperture priority and let the camera decide the shutter speed. Take pictures of something near you that has a background distant behind it. Try all the aperture setting f numbers.

maybe after that you want to try Manual... maybe not.

Keep taking pictures and you'll keep learning.
 
Hi Ben

Only been into DSLRs myself for around 4 years but my experience to date involves a few different lenses.

Photography is still only a hobby so I can't/won't justify spending £1000s of pounds on gear for something specific.

I started off with a Sigma 18-200mm which was only around £200. Gave me real flexibility as I pretty much shoot anything and everything from landscapes to family parties etc. The trade off with a lens like that is image quality, it's not terrible but there's better ;)

I then wanted to take shots at rugby & cricket matches and the 200mm wasn't long enough to get close to the action so I bought a Sigma 170-500mm. It wasa big heavy lump but did the job OK. Image quality could have been better (again) and the maximum aperture at 500mm was f6.5 which meant it was pretty lousy if there wasn't a lot of light available.

Last year I upgraded from a Canon 400D to a 7D and replaced the 18mm-200mm with a Canon 15-85mm and the 170-500mm with a Canon 100-400mm L.

The difference is like night and day!!! Even my other half can tell the difference in image quality :lol:

OK, I have less range than the previous lenses but the quality is better which allows me to crop when needed.

I also have a Canon 50mm f1.8 which is a cracking little lens for around £80. Can get you out of a hole when there's low light and you can't use a flash and will also let you play with very shallow depth of field.

As Tom says, you can't say "You need this lens for this type of shot" and as Robert said, there's a whole World of settings to play/experiment with too!

Before deciding on my new lens for "general" shooting, I used a program which analyses the focal length of the photos in you collection (sorry, can't remember the name of it off hand but Lightroom does this too) that way you can be quite confident of getting the right lens(es) ;)
 
gary996 said:
Russ77

Whats the 100-400 like?
Have you got some sample shots to look at?
Been looking at that lens cause its not too expensive
Click to expand...

Absolutely love the lens!

These were taken a couple of Saturday's ago, think I started off with ISO800 and stopped when I got to ISO3200 :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150476324512050.366254.630857049&type=3&l=0a6a81a7b2

Something a little different http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=342521

Some cricket shots http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=328964

Random swans http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=315444

Test shots the night I got it http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=306518
 
Your photos are great Russ, really clear. And cheers for taking the time to explain a few bits. I don't have any intention of buying a new lens at the moment, it was more out of interest. The DMC-L1 comes with a Leica lens and a lot of people say its worth more then the body lol.
 
Thanks Ben, I've never been disappointed with the lens, my own ability is the only only thing that lets me down now :lol:

Take a look on MPB Photographic's site, you can normally pick them up for around £900 and save a few hundred on RRP ;)
 
Russ77 said:
Absolutely love the lens!

These were taken a couple of Saturday's ago, think I started off with ISO800 and stopped when I got to ISO3200 :lol:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150476324512050.366254.630857049&type=3&l=0a6a81a7b2

Something a little different http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=342521

Some cricket shots http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=328964

Random swans http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=315444

Test shots the night I got it http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=306518
Click to expand...

Great work mate. The lens looks like a nice choice for me. Not too expensive
 
gary996 said:
Great work mate. The lens looks like a nice choice for me. Not too expensive
Click to expand...

Cheers Gary, as I said originally, it's all about compromise. A prime 300/400mm would give me better IQ and if I went for the f2.8 versions better low light handling BUT for 6-10 rugby matches and a handful of cricket matches a year I couldn't justify the money even if I had it :lol:

It was difficult enough justifying £900 for the 100-400 but I think it was justified in the end and I sold my 170-500 for £260 to part fund it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top