File :-(, x, )
canon lenses? Anonymous
Hey /p/ tomorrow I'm getting myself canon 400D. I know it has a shitty kit lens so I've got a question. What kind of lens would be good for a newbie. Canon will be my first SLR. So far I've been using Minolta dimage z6. I'm thinking of buying sigma 28-300 what do you think?
>> Zera060
i think u should use lens kit till u have some skill...but if u want my advice

28-300 is better for full frame or film u will feel bad using it

Tamron 18-250 is recommended for not very high quality need

for the best EFS 17-55 F/2.8 IS but ....HA very expensive
>> Zera060
For more information...

because 400D has small CMOS u have to times 1.6 from the mm. of the lens so

if u use 28-300 * 1.6 = 45 - 450

for tamron 18-250 * 1.6 = 29 - 400

17 - 55 * 1.6 = 27 - 88

NOTE for nikon 70s, 80s * 1.5
>> ac
The first lens I got besides the kit lens for my 400D (well, XTi. USA! USA! USA!) was the 50mm f/1.8. It's only like $70, it's sharp as hell, and it's as fast as you can get without paying for a red stripe.

It's a moderate telephoto on the 1.6x crop sensor, so my second lens purchase was the 35mm f/2.0.

But give the kit lens a chance. It's great in situations where it's bright enough to stop down to f/8 or so, and 18mm (~28mm equiv) is great if you like the wide angles.
>> Zera060
agreed with "ac" give that kit a chance
>> ac
>>47922
o/~ Alll we are saaaaying...
Is give the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II a chance o/~
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Fast primes fast primes fast primes fast primes fast primes.

Trust me on this one. You will be kicking yourself when you discover you can't take pictures indoors without cranking the ISO into arghhhhhhhhnoisy ranges. Don't get anything that isn't at least f2.8
>> Anonymous
you only half right "Mr.heavyweather" small F is not everything

have u ever heard something like ISO, Flash and tripod?

high ISO from Canon CMOS is the best use it wisely

using small F all the time is convenient but make the pics blur and unsharp
>> Zera060
Agreed and small F-stop lens are very expensive

except 50 F/1.8 (Best lens ever)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>47930
ISO: again, it's your personal call here. I fucking hate noise, and I've seen 400D images at 1600 ISO. I wouldn't print them larger than 5x7. At 8x12, that noise is just nasty. MAYBE it'd be alright after noiseninja or if you made it a B&W print.
Flash: Again, your personal call here. I find it extremely difficult to use flash well, so much so that I don't even try, at least not with the shitty on-camera flash of my D50. If I had an SB600 or something with an off-camera shoe, I might. But the results have just been terrible for me.
Tripod: Duh. Biggest duh ever. But c'mon. A tripod is not always feasible, often impossible (try lugging a tripod to a concert, see how far you get) and it's never convenient.

I don't even understand your last suggestion. Blur the pictures, and use the unsharp mask filter in photoshop? Fuck that, the results are unilaterally terrible, and no substitute for an actually sharp image.

And "small F"? Seriously?
>> des
>>47933
>>And "small F"? Seriously?

It's probably not worth it. Have a beer and a sit-down.
>> Zera060
well...... i understand u heavyweather

it'll be never ending story arguing about this.

because what lens u will use is up to what type of pic u gonna take.

if u use wide angle F-number no need to be small because it's gonna ruin the sharpness of the pics

but if u use telephoto F-number is criticle (smaller is better)

Did i say that right guys?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I just had a look-see at Canon's lens lineup, and it really depressed me. Canon folks... you're damn lucky. Canon's got more fucking fast lenses than you can shake a stick at.

Do yourself a favor and get a manual focus 50mm f/1.2 from Keh.com. Holy crap. :(
>> Anonymous
WOW 50mm. F/1.2
it's 1500$ well i can buy 30D with that kind of money or i could dream of tamron 17-50 F/2.8 plus sigma 10-20 and 70-300 all together

JC r u stupid?
>> ac
>>47935
>Did i say that right guys?
No. The word "you" has three letters in it, not just one.
>> Zera060
Cut it out guys
Len that heavyweather means is FD len 50 1.2 'manual" it's about 400$ but it can't use with digital only you've got some kind of equipment

but still i'll say that again it's manual
>> Zera060
LOL ...very funny "ac" very funny..... -*-
>> ac
>>47936
The manual focus lenses don't work on new Canons. Unlike Nikon, Canon completely redid the lens mount when they switched from FD to EOS.
>> Anonymous
PENTAX FTW!
>> c & n is shit Anonymous
Pentax ftw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Anonymous
LOL, you people fail, stick to the fucking topic please.

>>47915
It's not so simple, I would need to know more about what kind of photos you are going to take, to answer you question. Personally I wouldn't be happy with 28-300 at all, I like it wide and fast.
>> Anonymous
28mm isn't wide enough for a kit lens on a digital IMO.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>47950
Oh wow, I didn't know that. Nevermind, lol, Canon is once again completely out of my price range. Now I feel good about going Pentax again. :D

If you want a pretty inexpensive, very fast prime, try out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I hear good things. It'll be the equivalent of a ~45mm lens on a digital body, which is slightly wider than a normal. A Canon 28mm f/2.8 wouldn't be a bad choice either. 28s are notoriously sharp, PJs have used them for decades, often as their only lens.
>> thefamilyman
i've been using a 20mm f/2.8 on my D70 for a wile.
its quite a nice lens, but like all fast lenses (especially wide fast lenses!) the edges are very soft wide open. Its a beautiful lens to use on film but on digital you just notice the softness when open wide.

if your looking for low light performance, i actually strongly recommend a speedlite.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
dont use the fucking kit. I have a 400D, and even for a newbie, 55mm isn't enough. i would go with the Canon 17-85mm IS lens. it's ~$400, and very very high quality. No vignetting, crisp, clear images, and a great defocused look.

besides, the 18-55 kit lens doesnt even have a manual focus, does it?

It's just all around one of the best mid-zoom lenses canon makes.
>> thefamilyman
>>48061
this the lens your talking about?
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>48064

yeah. i should restate the vingetting thing. it does have SOME, but not too much. Personally, for general use, i rather like the light effect.

as for their statement about chromatic abberations, I can't understand that one. I have NEVER noticed any abberations between hard lines and colors.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiLens Size17.00 - 85.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.4Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420136841Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:03:26 21:14:55Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastUnknownShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance7.950 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed288Camera Actuations-1867120576Color Matrix129
>> Anonymous
>>48061
The kit lens is fine for a newbie. What the fuck does '55mm isn't enough' even mean? Focal length applies only to the type of photographs one takes, it says nothing about the quality of the lens or the skill level of the photographer. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is leaps and bounds better than your 17-85 even though it only goes to 55mm.

Every single lens Canon makes has manual focus.

I really just wish every crop sensor DSLR came with a 28mm f/2.8 lens as the kit instead of a shitty zoom. That way we'd all start out with a 50mm standard prime equivalent like film photographers have been doing for decades.
>> Anonymous
>>48069
That's odd, without any filters or a hood attached, there should be NO vignetting on a lens.

Also, please resize your pics for /p/
>> ac
>>48061
Of course the 18-55 has manual focus. Canon doesn't make any lenses that don't have manual focus as an option.

>even for a newbie, 55mm isn't enough.
Should be "If you're a newbie, 55mm isn't enough." Once you're past the newbie stage, you'll find that you don't need humongous zoom to get good pictures. Cameras used to come with a 50mm prime lens as their kit lens, and something like 75% of all prizewinning photographs were taken with normal focal lengths (or even kit lenses).

>>48074
>That's odd, without any filters or a hood attached, there should be NO vignetting on a lens.
Just about all lenses exhibit some amount of vignetting. Some are better than others. Look at any good lens review and it'll have pictures of blank white walls to show off how much the lens vignettes. Unless your lens is pretty crappy, the vignetting will *only* show up if you're taking pictures of blank white walls, but it's still there.
>> Anonymous
The 18-55mm kit lens plus Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 (APO) DG macro will give you a nice start covering a wide zoom range.

The APO version costs about 250 eur while the non-APO is like 150.

Canon 50mm f1.8 is also recommended though usually it is best for many to first get some reach and then start getting other stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>48061
Yeah, if you're looking to upgrade, this lens will do you well.

Frankly, though, the kit lens is only around $90 more. Use it, and learn how to work with it. Once you understand what it's limitations are -- by using it -- you'll know where to spend your money on more lenses.

Oh, the cheapo Canon 50mm 1.8 lens is well worth the money. In fact, you may want to start off using that instead of the kit lens.

I own a near-godly 24-105mm f4 L USM/IS lens (it's $1400, more than my camera body), but I wouldn't give up my kit lens. It's still great as a basic walk-about lens.
>> Anonymous
Thanks guys (: I've got my canon without any other lens than the kit lens. If i going to have any problems like 'I couldn't make a photo like that because of my lens' I'll post in on /p/ :P but now I must gain some experience with my SLR. Thanks again for all the advices.