(D)SLR Owners, Lens selection?

N

Night0wl

Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2000
Messages
876
So, I just invested into my second major hobby. Camera's. First computers, Now Camera's. I figure in a few years when I've recovered finacially I'll find another expensive hobby to add to keep me poor, but well stocked with gadgets.

Just recently I purchased a DR, the kit version with 18-55mm lens. I also purchased a 55-200mm lens as well.

What sort of lenses are you utilizing? Are there any lenses you've purchased and don't use often?
 
Get a good tripod.

And yes, it is indeed a wallet-draining hobby
 
the 18-55 is an amazingly decent lens for the price...

if you want something a little better the new 17-whatever IS looks nice for the EF-S mount...

if you want really good optical quality the 17-40 f4L is awesome.. i love mine

the 50mm 1.8 is a nice and cheap lens that i use every now and then especially in low light

zooms i love my 70-200 f4L, and its also the cheapest "L" lens there is with some of the best quality there is (wide open) if you really want to blow cash the 70-200 f2.8 IS is definately droll worthy and next on my list

if you want something inbetween you should look at the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di or whatever, amazing optical quality, although build quality and speed of focus is still second to the canon 24-70 f2.8L

those are some generic recommendations, if you tell us exactly what you plan on doing with your camera, we can help you more ;)
 
D70 would have been my first choice.... but either way you go get some nice Filters to put on the front of the lens, either UV, Skylight or Polarizer. They will make all the difference in the world, and will protect your lens MUCH better.

I recoment the Hoya Professional Grade (Green box) They run between 15-35 on ebay, depending what one and what size.
 
PS-RagE said:
Get a good tripod.

And yes, it is indeed a wallet-draining hobby
Click to expand...

I picked up a monopod actually, At this point I see my self utilizing it more then a tripod. :)
I've dabbled in several other little hobbies...but with the ammount of funds in computers and now camera's, these are deffinitely declared hobbies. heh. :-\

nirkillerangel said:
D70 would have been my first choice.... but either way you go get some nice Filters to put on the front of the lens, either UV, Skylight or Polarizer. They will make all the difference in the world, and will protect your lens MUCH better.

I recoment the Hoya Professional Grade (Green box) They run between 15-35 on ebay, depending what one and what size.
Click to expand...

I also picked up a 58mm UV Filter and a 52-58mm Step up ring. :)

FLECOM said:
those are some generic recommendations, if you tell us exactly what you plan on doing with your camera, we can help you more ;)
Click to expand...

I'll deffinitely keep those suggestions in mind the next time I get a lens craving. Thank you for that. As for what I'll be using it for, I don't know that I can really define that yet. At this point I'm finding my way through it. Though I can deffinitely forsee my self working with people and candid shots. (I run this site which is a collection of photo's from a Summer Camp I have attended for quite some time) Not a whole lot of action in the forseeable future, though probably some late night situations in low light to darkness. We'll see. :)
 
Night0wl said:
As for what I'll be using it for, I don't know that I can really define that yet. At this point I'm finding my way through it.
Click to expand...
Don't buy anything else then. You already have 18-200mm covered. The next step is to go out and shoot, shoot, shoot. You'll get a feel for what your style is and what you like to shoot most, then you can start thinking about upgrading to good quality glass once you know what focal range you'll need for your style.

And UV/Skylight filters are typically worthless. It's just another piece of glass in front of the sensor degrading the quality. For the least degradation you'll need the highest quality multi-coated filters, which once you get quality lenses will be in the 72-77mm range cost $80-100 a pop. Say you have 3 lenses and you buy 1 quality filter for each one at $80/ea; $240. Then one breaks and you replace it. You have spend $320 on filters. Now say you bought no filters and that accident that broke the filter broke the front element of your lens instead. Repairing a front element costs around $150. You'll go years and years without damaging a front element as long as you aren't reckless and have a lens hood on at all times. For those who are that worried about damaging a lens you might as well spend that money on an insurance policy for your gear.
 
Polarizer filters and UV filters are very nice for high light pictures, especially outdoor shots. Helps smoth out the image, making the contrast more linear and making an overal better picture, I personally never shoot without one, both for the protection (dust, fingerprints, scratches, etc) and becuase it makes my shots that much better for the little price paid.
 
CANiSLAYu said:
And UV/Skylight filters are typically worthless. It's just another piece of glass in front of the sensor degrading the quality. For the least degradation you'll need the highest quality multi-coated filters, which once you get quality lenses will be in the 72-77mm range cost $80-100 a pop. Say you have 3 lenses and you buy 1 quality filter for each one at $80/ea; $240. Then one breaks and you replace it. You have spend $320 on filters. Now say you bought no filters and that accident that broke the filter broke the front element of your lens instead. Repairing a front element costs around $150. You'll go years and years without damaging a front element as long as you aren't reckless and have a lens hood on at all times. For those who are that worried about damaging a lens you might as well spend that money on an insurance policy for your gear.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting argument you make. I'm going to have to think about it. A UV filter has saved my ass once already, but that was because I didn't have the lens cap on when I stowed the camera. This was an Olympus E-10, which has a fixed lens, though that probably wouldn't affect the repair price much. Bent the rim of the filter and cracked the glass, but the main lens was unharmed.

I'm curious about that $150 repair figure. It sounded low to me at first, but then the front lens is really just one of many components (optical or otherwise) in a lens. Would that rough number include shipping to/from some kind of certified repair center? I guess you'd also lose the lens for the duration of the repair, but given the frequency with which lenses get damaged, that's probably not a big deal.

Interesting indeed. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
 
CANiSLAYu said:
Don't buy anything else then. You already have 18-200mm covered. The next step is to go out and shoot, shoot, shoot. You'll get a feel for what your style is and what you like to shoot most, then you can start thinking about upgrading to good quality glass once you know what focal range you'll need for your style.

And UV/Skylight filters are typically worthless. It's just another piece of glass in front of the sensor degrading the quality. For the least degradation you'll need the highest quality multi-coated filters, which once you get quality lenses will be in the 72-77mm range cost $80-100 a pop. Say you have 3 lenses and you buy 1 quality filter for each one at $80/ea; $240. Then one breaks and you replace it. You have spend $320 on filters. Now say you bought no filters and that accident that broke the filter broke the front element of your lens instead. Repairing a front element costs around $150. You'll go years and years without damaging a front element as long as you aren't reckless and have a lens hood on at all times. For those who are that worried about damaging a lens you might as well spend that money on an insurance policy for your gear.
Click to expand...

Bingo, exactly. Like any one I plan to have these lenses for there life, forbaring any major urge to part with one, be it to finance it's replacement. So for my initial purchase I am very pleased with what I have. I've been shooting point and shoot 35mm, and mid-to-high range digital for years now, so my experience camera wise is limited. This is an opening to find out what I really like, and now to be limited only by my skills as a photographer and to improve on them.

And, for your suggestion of 80-100$ a lens... Isn't that rather cheap? :)
 
If you were to add one lens now, I'd suggest a fast prime lens. For that camera maybe something in the 35mm range although the 50mm 1.8 is a steal and optically quite good.

I use my 50mm 1.4 all the time.

Additionally, as mentioned keeping a filter on the lens at all times isn't generally necessary and particularly not advisable especially if you're using cheap uncoated ones. I have UV filters for many lenses but I don't keep them on them at all times. They are however all multicoated and at least hoya HMC which really are pretty much just as good as the much more expensive B+Ws which I also have some of or the Heliopans.

FLECOM, I want to get that 17-40, and I probably will once I get a 20D this winter. I love my 70-200 2.8L, and would love to get a nice wide angle. With those and a 50mm 1.4 I can cover most any situation.

One thing you might like to get would be the battery grip for the Drebel. These grips add to the handling of the camera signifigantly and are a good purchase IMO. Even though the grip for my EOS 3 is over $300 I bought it and use it almost all the time on the camera. Unfortunately that thing weighs a ton, but the grips are nice to have for almost any camera.

If you had an external flash I'd recommend getting a flash cord for it (either the pricy Canon OCSC 2 or something comparable) because then you get a lot more lighting control and can move your flash futher from the camera at times.
 
yes, i'd agree with the above...

personally, i have:

Canon:
80-200 USM
50 f/1.8 prime
kit lens

Sigma:
105 mm f/2.8 macro.


if i had money, i would probably try to purchase either 1. a bigma (sigma 50-500) or probably 2. 70-200 L
 
I'm not a canon user anymore, but i recently grabbed the nikon 50mm 1.8 and i'd like to second the mentioning of adding such a lens to one's collection. The sharpness of f1.8 and the rather acceptable perspective of the 50mm are a very nice combo. I'm moving towards some prime glass now though, the f1.8 85mm is looking very tempting.
 
I own 3 lenses, but i never use the Tamron. Once i got my 70-200 f/4L and 17-40f/4L ill never go back. those lenses are just so phenominal. Plus they are not too expesive comparatively, only 700 for the 70-200, and 800 for the 17-40, depending on where u look.
 
The only reason I use a UV filter is to protect the front element, and for no other reason. I'd definitely recommend them.... if I buy from a private seller on Ebay or something similar, I almost always look for the lenses which come with UV filters.

By the way, FLECOM, it is a 17-85 in case you were not sure, and I have heard mixed things about it. But if you've got money to burn, check out the new EFS 10-22. Wow! But if $900 is not your thing there is always the fantastic plastic....
 
emorphien said:
FLECOM, I want to get that 17-40, and I probably will once I get a 20D this winter. I love my 70-200 2.8L, and would love to get a nice wide angle. With those and a 50mm 1.4 I can cover most any situation.
Click to expand...

the 17-40 is on my camera when its in my bag, its a great lens... this is probably the only lens i would urge you put a UV filter on becuase the lens is sealed except for the front element

so a filter on the front would prevent dust or anything from getting in your lens... also with a 1 series camera it makes the entire camera/lens sealed :)

and i envy your 70-200 f2.8 i want that lens so much ;)
 
FLECOM said:
and i envy your 70-200 f2.8 i want that lens so much ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, well as nice as it is there are times I could really use the IS. If I had the extra money I'd sell the 70-200 2.8L and buy the newer IS version.
 
Whew....the question has to be asked..What are you planning on shooting? Man you have had a bunch of ideas thrown your way, and unless I missed it I still don't know what you are shootin. Long lenses will do you no good for street shooting for example. As well as a 75 MM really wont get a bird in flight. Something that will stay constant however is light. There is a huge differance between lenses with a fixed 2.8 appeture vs. the variable 4-5.6's. The "L" glass lenses are worth the money if you plan to do alot of printing but you will get by fine with lesser lenses if alot of you work is for web use.

I have the luxury of working for a large studio and have several lenses availible to me. I have shot and compared 8 lenses on my DR. I personally own a 75-300 IS ($400 area) and love is for sports work outside. The IS really makes a differance as the sun goes down. I do notice a big difference when compared to Canon's 75-200 L IS ($2200 area) but heck if I had to pay for it I couldn't justify it. The none IS L is a good mid-range choice ($800 area). Tameron does make some good glass but my expierience has prooved to me it doesn't measure up to the Canon stuff, but costs a bunch less.

My 2 cents on filters...We have had $23 UV filters save us over $6000 in lenses in the past year. Don't go outside without one on you expensive glass. Effects can be argued but protection cannot.

Bric
 
BricRoth said:
Whew....the question has to be asked..What are you planning on shooting? Man you have had a bunch of ideas thrown your way, and unless I missed it I still don't know what you are shootin. Long lenses will do you no good for street shooting for example. As well as a 75 MM really wont get a bird in flight. Something that will stay constant however is light. There is a huge differance between lenses with a fixed 2.8 appeture vs. the variable 4-5.6's. The "L" glass lenses are worth the money if you plan to do alot of printing but you will get by fine with lesser lenses if alot of you work is for web use.

I have the luxury of working for a large studio and have several lenses availible to me. I have shot and compared 8 lenses on my DR. I personally own a 75-300 IS ($400 area) and love is for sports work outside. The IS really makes a differance as the sun goes down. I do notice a big difference when compared to Canon's 75-200 L IS ($2200 area) but heck if I had to pay for it I couldn't justify it. The none IS L is a good mid-range choice ($800 area). Tameron does make some good glass but my expierience has prooved to me it doesn't measure up to the Canon stuff, but costs a bunch less.

My 2 cents on filters...We have had $23 UV filters save us over $6000 in lenses in the past year. Don't go outside without one on you expensive glass. Effects can be argued but protection cannot.

Bric
Click to expand...

A lot of candid people, it's what I've done most of so far. But The equipment at hand has been limited so far, this will open a lot off oportunity up. Particularly with 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses. So there is a lot that will be opened up to me. This was less of a query as to what I should get, but more of what is out there that people are using. And I've learned a lot. :)
 
esr2 said:
I'm not a canon user anymore, but i recently grabbed the nikon 50mm 1.8 and i'd like to second the mentioning of adding such a lens to one's collection. The sharpness of f1.8 and the rather acceptable perspective of the 50mm are a very nice combo. I'm moving towards some prime glass now though, the f1.8 85mm is looking very tempting.
Click to expand...


currious, why would you PERSONALLY buy the 85 prime? i have the 50mm and a 105mm f/2.8 prime... i am just currious if the extra 25mm is the reason, or if that particular lens is just know to be extremly sharp? (i am assuming u r talking about nikon glass?)
 
KevySaysBeNice said:
currious, why would you PERSONALLY buy the 85 prime? i have the 50mm and a 105mm f/2.8 prime... i am just currious if the extra 25mm is the reason, or if that particular lens is just know to be extremly sharp? (i am assuming u r talking about nikon glass?)
Click to expand...
I'd say it's probably the extra 25mm. The 50mm 1.8 from Nikon is excellent, as is Canons. Nikons 50 1.4 isn't quite so nice. I own it (Nikon 50 1.4) and the Canon 50 1.4 USM. The canon is a wee bit better optically I think, although it is more expensive.
 
I'm new to the hobby too. My gf is a seasoned photographer and has got me into it. Now she's jealous of my Rebel setup. Because I'm a "noob with pro equipment." But I'll learn into it.

I bought a Tamron 28-200mm xr lens with my rebel. I was really considering the 24-135 tamron lens. but it was $100 more and didn't see the justification since I'm just starting out. But I saw some pics taken with that lens and it is extremely sharp. I was jealous. It doesn't have as much of a range. But the quality is excellent for $400.
 
swoop56 said:
I'm new to the hobby too. My gf is a seasoned photographer and has got me into it. Now she's jealous of my Rebel setup. Because I'm a "noob with pro equipment." But I'll learn into it.

I bought a Tamron 28-200mm xr lens with my rebel. I was really considering the 24-135 tamron lens. but it was $100 more and didn't see the justification since I'm just starting out. But I saw some pics taken with that lens and it is extremely sharp. I was jealous. It doesn't have as much of a range. But the quality is excellent for $400.
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty typical for a non-L peice of glass in that range...for instance, the popular Canon 28-135 is about that same price....
 
currious, why would you PERSONALLY buy the 85 prime? i have the 50mm and a 105mm f/2.8 prime... i am just currious if the extra 25mm is the reason, or if that particular lens is just know to be extremly sharp? (i am assuming u r talking about nikon glass?)
Click to expand...

personally? because my 70-200mm (cheap as all hell) is much better at 70mm then the kit, and i find myself frequently at the back of crowds during events or shooting things which are far away... so it's the extra 25mm which has mattered before to me. i'm talking nikon but i'm rapidly starting to look at other brands for non prime stuffs

-esr
 
Yeah, the Nikkors are awful expensive. Sigma's EX line seems like pretty good stuff from what I've seen and read. I can't help but eye that 300-800mm
 
Canon snob here, expensive proposition, I know... but they are so nice! :D

300/2.8L IS - use this and the 1.4x/2x TC's far too infrequently for what it cost me, good luck finding a better lens than this though
70-200/2.8L IS - use it often
100/2.8 Macro - hardly ever use this one, my brother won't give it back!
28-70/2.8L - hardly ever use, like the primes better
50/1.4 - I love this lens, use it often
35/2 - bought it 'cus it was cheaper than $1k for 30/1.4L... only to have it be loud as hell up until the moment it died on me... wishing I had paid the extra $$$
14/2.8L - damn if this thing is wide! sometimes too wide for my uses. like to find new and interesting ways of using it though

Oh yeah, also have a 17-35/2.8L lying around too, its dead though... killed it.

All this is on a EOS-1Ds. Used to use them on a 1D... 'till I killed that too.
 
canislupy said:
Canon snob here, expensive proposition, I know... but they are so nice! :D

300/2.8L IS - use this and the 1.4x/2x TC's far too infrequently for what it cost me, good luck finding a better lens than this though
70-200/2.8L IS - use it often
100/2.8 Macro - hardly ever use this one, my brother won't give it back!
28-70/2.8L - hardly ever use, like the primes better
50/1.4 - I love this lens, use it often
35/2 - bought it 'cus it was cheaper than $1k for 30/1.4L... only to have it be loud as hell up until the moment it died on me... wishing I had paid the extra $$$
14/2.8L - damn if this thing is wide! sometimes too wide for my uses. like to find new and interesting ways of using it though

Oh yeah, also have a 17-35/2.8L lying around too, its dead though... killed it.

All this is on a EOS-1Ds. Used to use them on a 1D... 'till I killed that too.
Click to expand...

Will someone think of the equipment? :( In all my reading, contemplating, browsing. I think knowing how I shoot that something like the 28-70 you have would probably be next on my purchase list. But I will see what the numbers tell me first, then put some more money down for glass.
 
canislupy said:
Canon snob here, expensive proposition, I know... but they are so nice! :D

300/2.8L IS - use this and the 1.4x/2x TC's far too infrequently for what it cost me, good luck finding a better lens than this though
70-200/2.8L IS - use it often
100/2.8 Macro - hardly ever use this one, my brother won't give it back!
28-70/2.8L - hardly ever use, like the primes better
50/1.4 - I love this lens, use it often
35/2 - bought it 'cus it was cheaper than $1k for 30/1.4L... only to have it be loud as hell up until the moment it died on me... wishing I had paid the extra $$$
14/2.8L - damn if this thing is wide! sometimes too wide for my uses. like to find new and interesting ways of using it though

Oh yeah, also have a 17-35/2.8L lying around too, its dead though... killed it.

All this is on a EOS-1Ds. Used to use them on a 1D... 'till I killed that too.
Click to expand...

I hope you've got a good reason to own all that.

I love my 100 2.8 USM Macro, probably one of the best lenses I've used on any system at any focal length.
 
Night0wl said:
Will someone think of the equipment? :( In all my reading, contemplating, browsing. I think knowing how I shoot that something like the 28-70 you have would probably be next on my purchase list. But I will see what the numbers tell me first, then put some more money down for glass.
Click to expand...

The 28-70 is a great lens, though the extra field of view that the new 24-70 brings would be far more useful to me. I have just found that the extra speed of the 50/1.4 more than makes up for its lack of zoom versatility. I can still get the compositions I want/need out of it, sometimes in conditions that the 28-70/2.8 can't handle. If however, you are using a camera from the D10/D20 line, a 50mm is not going to be as ideal with the 1.6x crop factor. Many recommend the 35/1.4 or 35/2.0 instead. Although, if I had to choose between the 35/1.4, or 24-70/2.8, I'd be hard pressed to decide on which to get.
 
emorphien said:
I hope you've got a good reason to own all that.

I love my 100 2.8 USM Macro, probably one of the best lenses I've used on any system at any focal length.
Click to expand...

Nope, no good reason here. Just a hobby. :D
 
emorphien said:
I'd love to know what you do for a job.
Click to expand...

Software/QA Engineer for a certain company that makes the hardware this message is going to get routed through as soon as I hit submit. Not that I did, or do have anything to do with all that... I work on other stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top