Im a total newbie and in need of some help :)

S

Shaun Smith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Edit My Images
No
Hello all, this will probably be the first of many, many posts by myself cos basically Im completely overwhelmed by everything so far and need some help to see the light!

Right here goes, Ive got a Canon EOS 350d with the standard EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. This seems pretty ok so far but my main "aspirations" are to do mainly macro (mainly bugs and plants), a bit of close up abstract type stuff, wildlife and buildings/landscapes...........so actually pretty much everything except portraits ;)

I need some advice/pointers towards some lenses that will cover these. I know its not quite as black and white as I'd like but any help would be greatly appreciated.

To the first of many!

Shaun :)
 
Shaun,

Welcome to the forum.....

There are a host of good lenses available for you...you'll be poor from this point onwards!
The majority of people would use either Canon or Sigma lenses with your camera...the Sigma's are usually a little cheaper for the same zoom coverage or fixed focal length.

It may be beneficial if you give an idea of what funds are available and then people can give you a good idea of what would help you most at this stage. Don't be afraid of buying 2nd hand stuff....there's a lot of lenses sold on this and other forums that are in excellent condition (as new) and will stretch out your pounds a little further.
I would start by recommeding an EF 28-135 to supplement/replace your kit lens as a useful "walkabout" lens. A Sigma 105mm macro or Canon EF100mm macro would be your best entry into the macro area.

Bob
 
Cheers mr.

With regards to funds, depends how quickly I'd be buying more lenses really lol. I'd rather not go about £4-500 per lens at the moment. Then when I know what Im doing then I'll stretch to more.

One question tho, when u see lenses with max FD of say, 200mm, how "far" can that lens actually see? If u get my drift....

Shaun
 
Shaun Smith said:
Cheers mr.

With regards to funds, depends how quickly I'd be buying more lenses really lol. I'd rather not go about £4-500 per lens at the moment. Then when I know what Im doing then I'll stretch to more.

One question tho, when u see lenses with max FD of say, 200mm, how "far" can that lens actually see? If u get my drift....

Shaun
Click to expand...

It's a little bit hard to explain, but I can sort out some pictures later to give you an idea of different focal lengths (i'm going to do this for someone else too.) Or there's probably something on the web somewhere...
 
Meanwhile think of it like this:

The maximum focal length of your kit lens is 55mm. So if you have a 100mm lens it will be able to zoom in roughly twice as far. 200mm will be roughly four times as far and so on...Like I said, it's not very easy to explain. I'm sure someone can do it better than me!
 
Shaun,

200mm would be classed as being at the long end of "medium" zooms....longer zoom's would start about there.

A better way to get an idea would be to see if there's another member in your area and meet up and "look through' their view finder. You'll quickly get to know what to expect from a particular focal length.

Give an idea of your area in your signature and some local guys/gals may offer to meet up with you.

Bob
 
Hi Shaun, welcome to TP :wave:

If you aspirations are towards macro and wildlife then a dedicated macro lens and a long zoom are a must IMO. I would suggest the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6. With your initial budget of £400-£500 per lens you'll be able to afford the macro lens to get you going. The 100-400 will set you back about £1000 if you buy new so possibly a bit out of range yet. Might be better to save for it rather than get something with less reach now though. Just my opinion of course ;)
 
I did a little research into this and roughly 50mm is how we see it so 100 would be 2x zoom and 200mm would be 4x zoom. But then take the crop factor of your camera if digital (mine is 1.6x) so that makes my 200mm really 320mm so therefore roughly 6.4 x zoom.
 
Thanks for all your help so far people!

Whats everyones opinion on prime vs zoom lenses? Are primes really better quality overall? If so, in what way?

Say for instance you had the choice of 2 zoom lenses both made by the same company, same type of glass, the only difference being focal distance, 1 with FD of 100-200mm, and 1 with FD of 100-300mm. Is there a difference in quality of the images produced?

And the question that I really do need to ask is, why are there so many bl**dy different choices and combinations of lenses, all with different FDs, different max apertures etc, its just WAY TOO CONFUSING!!! Im actually quite lost
 
Put simply, a prime will always be better quality (ie produce sharper results) because the manufacture only has to deal with one focal length. A zoom will always be a compromise and will not be as sharp as a prime as the optics have to deal with a range of focal lengths. Most zooms will be sharper at certain focal lengths and softer at others. That said, there are some damn good zooms out there nowadays. There are so many lenses simply because there are so many applications for different lenses. I guess the ideal single lens would be a 10-600mm f1.2L but I reckon it may be a bit soft at the 10mm end lol
 
put simply a zoom is more complicated to make than a prim therefore the sacrafice some of the quality in maiking it. With a prime all of the effot goes into making the one lens brilliant so for the same money you get better quality.
I would imagine there are times when an expensive zoom is far better than a cheap prime though..
I'm still a beginner as well and the number of different lens's is really confusing... also look at the speed of the lens (lowest available appature value) and you will soon see why some are more expensive..
 
Hi Shaun,

I would say do some shooting with the 18-55mm first until you really know what you like to shoot. I'm not a big kit junkie and I like to be able to carry my kit around without getting a hernia!

This is my regular use kit
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Just replaced this with Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 Macro

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5 - f/4.5 USM
Good quality wide angle lens for Landscapes etc.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Excellent macro lens (and a good 100mm prime lens for portaits if you do that sort of thing)

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
This lens is just great - a good zoom plus image stabilizing so you can use it hand-held

Nothing too big or heavy and no lens over £500 (if you shop around)
See my pictures here focal length is listed in the text below each shot.
 
Good point!
I am hoping that things will become a lot clearer as time goes on, but hopefully u can appreciate its all a bit overwhelming at the moment (although VERY exciting).

For buildings/architecture, what would be a good starting lens? Would the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 give good results?
 
Canon Bob said:
Shaun,
The majority of people would use either Canon or Sigma lenses with your camera...the Sigma's are usually a little cheaper for the same zoom coverage or fixed focal length.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with Tamron macro lenses anybody? throught they were the business and have been saving up for one.
 
Ref Tamron lenses...especially the macro lenses

Apart from the Tamron 90/2.8, they do not get much of a look in amongst serious amateurs.
Macro lens usage from a poll in an international forum;

Canon 60 f2.8 12.35%
Canon 100 f2.8 51.41%
Canon 180 f3.5 3.88%
Sigma 50 f2.8 3.09%
Sigma 105 f2.8 9.61%
Sigma 150 f2.8 10.05%
Sigma 180 f3.5 1.76%
Tamron 90 f2.8 6.17%
Tamron 180 f3.5 0.88%
Tokina 100 f2.8 1.76%
Canon MPE65 4.41%
LS Converter 3.79%

Bob
 
I have one last question before I leave u people alone for a while. Here goes

How long would u say it would take for an "average" person to get to the stage where they can look at a scene/image/view or whatever and think "right, im going to need this FD, this F-stop, this ISO setting, this shutter speed". Or does that actually happen? I know that may sound a stupid question, but I dont want the camera to do everything for me. Obviously at the moment i havent a clue what settings id need for a particular shoot but im hoping that will change. Ok, Im not wanting to get it spot on all the while, but having a rough idea would be good. Any ideas?

Cheers people :)
 
Well, it took me about 3 or 4 months to get to that stage. I still don't completely get it all now. But that was 10,000 photos (yes, 10k shutter clicks in 4 months) and I was totally obsessed by it ;)

A more balanced person would probably take longer, but would keep most of their friends and not annoy their family too much :D
 
Wow that's a tough one Shaun :eek: You'd have to be a pretty confident tog to really be able to know all those settings when looking at a scene. Bear in mind that the camera will always do some of the calculations for you (unless you use full manual mode). ie if you set apeture priority, the camera will work out the shutter speed, if you sent shutter priority the camera will set the apeture. If you increase / decrease the ISO then your camera will adjust exposure accordingly. Even if you use full manual, the exposure meter on the camera will show you if you are over or under exposing.

TBH mate I think you're thinking a bit too deeply into this. Just get out there and take some photos, it's the best way to learn - trial and error. If you take some shots in a particular situation and they're over exposed, you'll know next time, in a similar situation, to under expose a little. Experience is everything but you'll only gain it by making mistakes and seeing how to get it right next time.

/waffle mode off
 
Grendel said:
TBH mate I think you're thinking a bit too deeply into this. Just get out there and take some photos, it's the best way to learn - trial and error. If you take some shots in a particular situation and they're over exposed, you'll know next time, in a similar situation, to under expose a little. Experience is everything but you'll only gain it by making mistakes and seeing how to get it right next time.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Get snapping!
 
Canon Bob said:
Ref Tamron lenses...especially the macro lenses

Apart from the Tamron 90/2.8, they do not get much of a look in amongst serious amateurs.
Macro lens usage from a poll in an international forum;

Canon 60 f2.8 12.35%
Canon 100 f2.8 51.41%
Canon 180 f3.5 3.88%
Sigma 50 f2.8 3.09%
Sigma 105 f2.8 9.61%
Sigma 150 f2.8 10.05%
Sigma 180 f3.5 1.76%
Tamron 90 f2.8 6.17%
Tamron 180 f3.5 0.88%
Tokina 100 f2.8 1.76%
Canon MPE65 4.41%
LS Converter 3.79%

Bob
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - so the tamron 90/2.8 is a good bet then?

Was thinking about a tamron 28-75/2.8 instead in order to be more versatile - any good do you think?
 
Many zoom lenses have a "macro" setting although this is strictly not macro.
Macro is usually defined as producing a 1:1 size image. When used on these zooms it is used to imply that close focussing is possible but the image may still be 1/3 or even 1/4 size.

Most if not all of the stunning images seen in the macro section of this forum will have been taken with a prime macro lens. Generally speaking, they all produce a life size image on the sensor but the working distance is greater as the focal length increases.

If you want to photograph bugs that won't let you too close then a 150 or 180mm would be required but for flowers or less nervous creatures then 50-105mm works fine.

Sorry that we've hijacked your thread Shaun but hopefully it's good info for you.

Bob
 
Shaun Smith said:
How long would u say it would take for an "average" person to get to the stage where they can look at a scene/image/view or whatever and think "right, im going to need this FD, this F-stop, this ISO setting, this shutter speed". Or does that actually happen?
Click to expand...

Once you get used to your camera it shouldn't take too long to get to the point where you can take clearly exposed sharp images. The great thing about digital is that you can see the results instantly and you can chage parameters and not the difference. (I began with film and print and hand developing 25 years ago and so the learning process was a little longer).

That said - getting a clear sharp image is just the beginning. There are millions of different ways of shooting the same scene. (tulips for example)

The truth is that you will never stop learning - and that is one of the best things about photography.
 
THANKS U GUYS!!! That lot has really helped!!

Ive just been browsing some lenses and was wondering what the difference is between Canon EF and Canon EF-S lenses?
 
I was in your position when i got my 400d some mopnths ago, i wanted to take exactly the same type of pics.
I now have a Tamron 70-300mm 1:2 "macro" and a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro and the 18-55 kit lens. The 70-300 is very good for its low price (you can get one for £110 ish) but thats the one i want to change most, id love the canon 100-400 IS L, but thats a bit out of my price range at the mo. The Tamron 90 macro is a fantastic lens, extremely sharp, great as a 90 prime and great at true macro's.

EF is the old canon mount, EF-S is the newer version, for digital cameras with small sensors. As far as i know an EF lens wont work on an EF-S camera because the mirror can hit the back parth of the lens when you take a shot... i might be wrong though
Edit: after looking at gooogle for a bit i found that its EF-S lens that can't go on a EF mount (film and big expensive digital canons), but both EF and EF-S will go on an EF-S mount (your camera) so you should be ok no matter what you buy :)
 
Dan,

EF lenses will work on ALL Canon cameras, EF-S lenses will NOT work on full frame cameras...the reverse of what you stated/thought.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top