Talk To Me About Lenses...

[allie5]

Ok guys, thank you all for you input on my "agonising over which DSLR" thread and I think you are right. I need to focus (geddit ) on some good quality lenses rather than pay to much for the body (of which Im still undecided on, as Ive still not found a Pentax K10 which Id like to see before I make my final desicion).

So, the range seems mind boggling. Reviews seem to slate the lenses that come pre packaged with the Rebel and 30D - why is that? What should I be looking for instead?

Ideally, Id like something in the 18-85 range, a decent zoom - 70-200 or even a 70-300 and possibly a 55mm as well. Anything else I may need?

Can someone point me to what is a "good lens" and why?!!! What should I be looking for? Lets assume Im buying a Canon for the moment if that helps matters!

Thank you!

Allie

 

[YEKCIM]

I can't speak to Canon or Pentax, but did find the Nikon-oriented forums over on www.dpreview.com to be very useful in trying to decide how to spend my lens dollars. What lenses you will need will depend, to a great degree, on what kind of photography you intend to use them for. For example, if you plan to do a lot of low light stuff, you will probably want to consider some fast primes. On the other hand, if you do outdoor sports photography, a long-ish zoom, or prime should be considered. Close up work may dictate a dedicated macro prime, and so on. You may want to browse some of the dpreview forums to help you narrow your choices down. Once you decide on a system (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony), your choices will be somewhat simpler. Keep in mind that there are some very good third party lenses (Sigma, Tamron) available in mounts for most popular dSLR's, as well.

~YEKCIM

 

[boBQuincy]

Lenses often come in three somewhat distinct quality ranges, at least from the manufacturer. The entry level range may be about $100 and is ok, the mid-range maybe $300 and is good, the best range is usually excellent in both build quality and optics and can run upwards of $1000.

Some good reviews of lenses can be found on photozone.de and Fred Miranda's website. Luminous Landscape also reviews some lenses.

As an example of what range to carry, I usually pack a 24-105 on the camera, with a 10-22 and 70-200 in the bag. The 18-200 "one size fits all" types are just not sharp/fast/quick focusing enough for what I want.

 

[handicap18]

Can't speak so much for Canon, but with Nikon they have a very good range of average "walk-around" lenses. 18-55, 18-70, 18-135 and 18-200. These are typically "kit" lenses. I have the 18-70 and the 18-135 (which I just picked up recently). I used the 18-70 for over a year, but really wanted something with a longer reach. The 18-200 is great because it also has VR (vibration reduction), but is expensive and hard to come by. These are not "fast" lenses as their f/stop range starts at f/3.5 at the 18mm end and then gets smaller (f/5.6 at the 135mm & 200mm range). I like the convenience of the wide 18mm end and being able to reach as far as the 135mm end.

There are also more expensive "fast" lenses within that zoom range. Nikon has a 17-55 f/2.8 as well as an 18-35mm f/2.8. The f/2.8 is constant throughout the zoom range, thus making these lenses more expensive (upwards of $1200). They typically produce sharper images than the lesser expensive zooms and are better in low light conditions because of the wide aperture.

For the medium to long telephoto zoom, I have a 70-300. Again, not very fast at f/4.5-5.6, but it does have VR so it works better than most in lower light conditions (with a non moving subject) and also I don't get any camera shake from hand holding at the long end which I like as well. If you were to get a 70-200mm lens, then your talking again about an f/2.8 (or in a few cases f/4) constant aperture, which again adds a lot of money. They are shaper lenses than their smaller aperture counterparts. Least expensive 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is a little under $800 and that is for the Sigma brand. Nikon and Canon's version with VR/IS go for as much as $1700. My 70-300 with VR was $550. There are non VR 70-300mm lenses for a little as $150.

I also have the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. This lens is very sharp, especially in the f/4-f/11 range. It does very well in low light situations as the aperture opens up to f/1.8, however the drawback with this wide aperture is that your focus has to be spot on because it lacks depth of field.

Lastly I have a 90mm f/2.8 macro lens. Again the wide aperture of f/2.8 which is handy in low light situations (very good for indoor sports, though an 85mm f/1.8 might be a bit better). Also because its a macro lens I can focus on a subject as close as 3 inches away. With my 70-300mm I can only get as close as about 18 inches.

This is a quick rundown of just what I have to give you a bit of an idea. Though keep in mind that everyone has different needs and wants (and wallets ) so you may find other lenses your drawn to. For landscapes a super wide angle might be appropriate, like Sigma's 10-20mm, Nikon's 12-24mm, Canon's 10-22mm. If outdoor sports, then consider the long zooms, 70-300, 70-200, 200-400, 80-400, 50-500. Keep in mind these types of lenses are expensive and BIG.

A good recommendation is to start with a "kit" lens, they're generally less expensive, but gives you something to go with. Once you start getting into photography and you develope your style and what you like, add more lenses from there. Once you get the dSLR bug, there is no cure. Your lens addiction will go on forever. There will always be another lens that you'll want.

Happy shopping.

 

[mabas9395]

Just buy a bunch of big white canon lenses with red rings on them. Then you'll be happy! Broke, but happy.

 

[tinksdad]

Just buy a bunch of big white canon lenses with red rings on them. Then you'll be happy! Broke, but happy.

I'm trying to do that, except their big black Nikon lenses with gold rings......

 

[DueyDooDah]

I think I've mentioned this before, but cream-colored paint and red pin-stripping tape is MUCH cheaper. You Nikonites can just buy the some gold tape, I guess.