|
|
rec.photo.equipment |
In article <24db3d1e.0408100556.69b7e...@posting.google.com>, Peter Wang >I'm getting a digital rebel 300D and I'm shopping around for a second >I'm really excited about exploring photography more with the DR, but I If I know I will be looking for flowers, small wildlife etc I will take >I know that I will get a Canon 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) and possibly a 20mm >1. Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5; Pros: great reviews, great price, USM; >2. Tamron SP 24-135 f/3.5-5.6; Pros: more range, sharp at 24mm, macro; >3. Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6; Pros: big lens with lots of range, less $$, >4. Tamron XR 28-300 f/3.5-6.3; Pros: less $$, all-in-one lens, macro; Other lenses to consider: Canon 17-40 f/4L - never had one (I have a 17-35 f/2.8L instead) but Canon 85 f/1.8 - excellent lens, good value. 300 f/4L or 400 f/5.6L - both a bit pricey, but top quality If you develop your interest in architecture, there is only one "must >One thing I've noticed is that a lot of Canon's zoom lenses don't seem True macro work (1:1 or better) is demanding, and too complex to advise >I have a Meade ETX-90 telescope for casual observing, and it doubles >Thanks for reading my long post and TIA for any help,
<misterw...@gmail.com> writes
>Hi everyone, I find this surprising - many people find true macro work much more
>lens. I've done some light 35mm SLR work in the past, and mostly have
>been working on improving my framing and composition with a digital
>Elph S230 over the past few years
>(http://www.electrictao.net/gallery/portfolio). I like landscape,
>scenery, architecture, astro and people photos. I don't generally do
>any sports photos, though my fiance is an equestrian so I guess I'd
>better start learning how to clean horse muck off my camera. I also
>like taking macro shots of flowers and insects, but I feel these tend
>to be less challenging tests of composition.
difficult. Maybe you have not got close enough yet to realise how hard
it gets!
I have a 10D, so very similar in needs to your 300D, and have a similar
>suspect that the kit 18-55 isn't quite what I'm looking for. Though
>I like the idea of an 18mm wide-angle, I'm worried about distortion
>and sharpness at the 18mm end. Also, I'd like to have more of a
>25-125 zoom for walking around. I initially was looking for more of a
>70-200/300 telephoto, but I figure I'm only going to use that much
>telephoto for a small percentage of shots (i.e. wildlife shots), and
>having a more compact, optically sound lens with smaller range was a
>better option.
range of interests. The lenses which I take out most often with the 10D
are 17-35 f/2.8L, TS-E 24 f/3.5L and 28-135 IS. I don't do much sport
or "distant" wildlife, but for airshows and the like I would take a
100-400 L IS. I am also fortunate enough to have a range of other
lenses, including fixed focal length ones, which I take as required.
the 100 f/2.8 macro. IMO, there is no point in messing about trying to
do this kind of work with a zoom which focusses a few cm closer than
others. None of them are satisfactory except as close-up lenses. Get a
true macro lens (I know from experience the Canon 100mm macro is
excellent, and by repute, so is the Tamron 90mm; I wouldn't rely on most
others).
Very good by repute; I've never had one. Consider the 28-135 IS as an
>wide-angle prime at some point down the road. I'm also probably going
>to get a mid-range telephoto zoom at some point (100-300mm), or I'll
>just rent a 400mm prime from the local camera place for weekend
>wildlife trips. So the big question is, what to get as my second
>(first non-kit) lens? Here's what I've been looking at:
>Cons: less zoom, no macro
alternative; the IS is very useful.
Don't know it, but the Tamron SP range has a generally good reputation.
>Cons: more $$, not so great above 90mm
I have had 3 Sigma lenses and came to the conclusion I can't afford them
>macro; Cons: would still have to swap lens for 35-50mm range shots, is
>image contrast and sharpness sacrificed for the zoom range?
any more (as I always end up replacing them with decent ones later).
The only 10x zooms I know of which I would buy would be the Canon
>Cons: image quality at long focal lengths, and is such a wide range
>really that useful/valuable? (I got an SLR for a reason, after all)
35-350L and its 28-???L replacement - and even these are really special
purpose lenses for press work. All the small aperture 28-200 and 28-300
zooms I have seen reviewed just don't seem very sharp. The whole issue
of tele zooms is difficult; I never found one which combines low price
with good quality (the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6USM is not ultra sharp and
lacks contrast at the long end, and I believe the 75-300 may be the
same); you have to go to the L range to get this. Once you do, you
realise how feeble the others are; look at the 70-200 f/4L and 100-400
f/4.5-5.6 L IS.
from all reports it is excellent.
have" lens: the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L. I rarely leave home (photographically
speaking) without mine. It is unfortunate that the 10D/300D sensor cuts
the field of view so much, and for that reason it works better on a film
body, but I find it indispensable.
At a guess, it is because the quality you get from trying to make one
>to offer macro capability. Is there a reason for this?
lens do too many things just gets too poor, and Canon prefer not to
compromise too much. Cynics would say it's because they want you to buy
an expensive macro lens, or that they are complacent, but (having been a
Canon system user since the 1970s) I would not find either view
convincing. The company does irritate me in some ways, but not these.
> Any tips on See above. I would suggest a close-up lens set will work very well on a
>getting around this limitation (e.g. dedicated macro lens, etc.)?
>Also, any advice on how well/how poorly macro multifilter sets work
>would be appreciated.
zoom provided you don't expect top quality. I got one (Hoya +1, +2, +4
set) with my first EOS lens (35-135 zoom, back in the early 90s) just
for photographing my daughter's hamsters. It was perfect for this. They
are cheap and easy to use, you don't lose X stops of light and for
modest sized prints they are OK. Save the money you didn't spend on
other stuff to buy a proper macro lens later. I am told the Canon
doublet ones are worth the money, but have never tried them - they are
several times the price of the Hoya ones.
you in a brief post like this. I suggest you get a book, and decide what
it is you like to do, before you spend lots of money. A macro flash will
also be invaluable.
Try it, it will be fun even if the results don't match what a pro would
>as a 1250mm f/13.8 spotting scope, but I have no idea how well this
>works on terrestrial targets and with a dSLR.
get with a 600 f/4L etc. You will need a VERY good tripod though; expect
to pay at least £200/$300 for one good enough for this. However, for
trials you should be able to use a cardboard tube, gaffer tape and a
bean bag to see if it works well enough to spend money.
--
>Peter
David Littlewood