isn't it awfully quiet on here today???

[jann1033]

probably cause i ordered my Rebel xt so no more annoying questions from me!!

well at least till i get it

and emailed Canon( duh why didn't i think of that sooner) and any Eos lens will fit any Eos camera so Yipee!

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Also because I've just revived my suddenly dead 300 Gb HDD filled with my photos and 120 Gb HDD filled with legitimate MP3 (not downloaded, but converted from my own 1,000+ CD collection, including the stuff my old performances that I don't have the master tapes anymore).

 

[jann1033]

lol

any way i lied...i just thought of a question
my old lenses would be 1.6 x ( guessing that is the standard since i keep seeing it) the mm for the digital rather than the film? so my telemacro would be instead of 100- 300,, would be 160-480mm and my macro which is infinity to 1.5 would be ? to 2.4m and my 28-80 would be 45-128??? just trying to figure out which other lens to buy... i probably will still get the 18-125 since that is more a general purpose( and I'm not sure how well the 28-80 is working, unfortunately the honking huge 700 lb tele works fine but i can use a tripod for it) but saw some macro lens on ebaby for pretty cheap ( $24) and started wondering how my old lens would work out now

 

[Kelly Grannell]

the focus distance will remain the same 1.5m to infinity.

Your other calculations are correct. Your 28-80 will be a "useless" range for me because the wide is far from wide and the long end is not far too short. I think it's eBay time for your 28-80 (unless the 28-80 has macro capability). Keep the 100-300.

FYI, Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro can focus as close as (approx) 3" to 5"

 

[jann1033]

it was pretty worthless to me when i got it but it was the kit lens..it does have macro and that does still work i think for sure. so then i'd be good for macro but the 18-125 would cover me for pretty much everything else up to the tele lens...

you mentioned a fixed lens once...50mm i think it was..that would be useful for what ???( since i'm spending money, might as well do it right )

 

[JR6ooo4]

lol

any way i lied...i just thought of a question
my old lenses would be 1.6 x ( guessing that is the standard since i keep seeing it) the mm for the digital rather than the film? so my telemacro would be instead of 100- 300,, would be 160-480mm and my macro which is infinity to 1.5 would be ? to 2.4m and my 28-80 would be 45-128??? just trying to figure out which other lens to buy... i probably will still get the 18-125 since that is more a general purpose( and I'm not sure how well the 28-80 is working, unfortunately the honking huge 700 lb tele works fine but i can use a tripod for it) but saw some macro lens on ebaby for pretty cheap ( $24) and started wondering how my old lens would work out now

The field of view is more narrow compared to full frame cameras. So a statement like "my 28-135 is now 44.8-216" is correct as far as how wide of a frame will be captured.
The 1.6 crop does not make any object opticaly closer than a full frame camera. So do not expect any more zoom.

Not sure if you were familiar with this. If you are skip to the end of my post.
Mike

 

[JR6ooo4]

Rarely will a photographer find ONE lens that will do everything. Therefore a compromise is needed. I love my 28-135 IS. Most my latest Disney trip was shot with it. I did run into a few situations where I needed a little more width, but not too many.
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is nice, very fast for a lens under $1000. ($920 under) I used it for the spectro-magic parade. It is great for low light / medium light situations.

If you do not shoot very wide or very long the 28-135 will work well. Then you can add a lens for either end if you feel the need.

I also do not mind overlapping my lenses. 28-135 IS and 70-300 IS. I like the combo, the wide goes a little long and the long lens goes a little wide so I do not always have to switch to get the middle depth shots.

Mikeeee

 

[jann1033]

The field of view is more narrow compared to full frame cameras. So a statement like "my 28-135 is now 44.8-216" is correct as far as how wide of a frame will be captured.
The 1.6 crop does not make any object opticaly closer than a full frame camera. So do not expect any more zoom.

Not sure if you were familiar with this. If you are skip to the end of my post.
Mike

well crud, i totally misunderstood that, so an 80mm film will look as close as an 80 mm digital but the the digital will capture a larger or smaller area than the film?would it basically be like cropping? ( same effect i mean)

 

[Kelly Grannell]

yes. Same focal length, different field of view. Now because of the field of view have been affected, the 28mm is no longer wide enough, so you still need 17 or 18mm to have the same field of view of a 28mm on a 35mm film.

Another way of explaining it:
field of view affects the side-to-side coverage
focal length affects the perspective.
therefor using a dSLR with 1.6 crop factor you'll have the unaffected perspective but severely affected side-to-side coverage.

 

[JR6ooo4]

well crud, i totally misunderstood that, so an 80mm film will look as close as an 80 mm digital but the the digital will capture a larger or smaller area than the film?would it basically be like cropping? ( same effect i mean)

The 1.6 crop cams will be smaller field of view.
Mikeeee