File :-(, x, )
Lenses catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
I dont really have any decent lenses. I dont know what i'm looking for with lenses. Can you folks give me some advice? I need something I can use in low light situations, so I understand that means i need a "fast" lens something with a low f number? (My current lens stops at 5.6 and thats really not adequate for most the situations I'm in unless I want to crank the ISO .

I'm shooting on a canon d 20

Also, How do you folks feel about Sigma lenses on cameras? Is the difference in price a dramatic difference in quality?

How Bad are sigma lenses? Are any of the 200-400 Canon lenses better quality than the 200-400 sigmas?
>> Anonymous
Some Sigma lenses are good, some are very bad. Some Canon lenses are great, some are terrible. With lenses, you usually get what you pay for. For something in the 200-400mm range, you'll be looking in the $500 range for marginal quality. Good quality lenses will start in the $1000-2000 range.

The first thing to consider is if you really need a 200-400mm lens. Lots of beginners think they need very long focal length lenses when the most that 99% of photographers ever need is a good 70-200mm, especially on an APS-C sensor digital body. Since you're shooting Canon, you can get the 70-200mm f/4L which is a fantastic lens. Other than being a little slow, it's superbly sharp and well built and since the IS version came out recently, you can probably get the non-IS version for around $400. There is no better tele-zoom in this price category. If you're dead set on a "fast" lens, consider the 70-200 f/2.8L, it costs 2-3 times as much as the F/4 version but has comparable optical quality and is one stop faster. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX is pretty good. It's not up to L standards, but it costs half as much as the comparable Canon and is much better than the consumer-level zooms in the same range. You won't find any 200-400 lenses faster than f/4 for under $1000.
>> Anonymous
First off, tell us a budget.

Then, get yourself a flash because it will be far more versatile and flexible than any fast lens. Cheaper too.

Also, make sure you know what you're getting into with a 70-200 or any telephoto lens. 70 is LONG on 1.6x.

If possible, you can get Canon's new EF-S 55-250 IS which is reasonably good for its price along with a flash for less than 600$.
>> Anonymous
>>115255

can you even get the EF-S 55-250 IS in the states yet?
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
oops, op here. Sorry about that, I meant something in the 200-400$ range for a lens with some decent glass that I can use in low light situations. I dont need to be able to zoom in super duper close. I just need something I can use for pictures of things and most likely people in low light situations.

Sorry about that, wrote this when I was a little stoned.

Everyone keeps talking about flash and that strobist stuff.

I dont like the way the FLASH ontop of my camera makes things look. Why would i want 2 or 3 more flashes? I like lighting. I like lighting I can control. Camera Strobes are too bright and white for me.
>> Anonymous
>>115342
The reason why your on-camera flash makes things ugly is because you don't know how to control it. Learn how to use flash well, and then you'll appreciate how much an extra flash or two can help you (hint: much more than a new lens)

You want light you can control? Time to do some reading.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>115342

I think your problem with flash is that you don't understand lighting. It is a complicated business that people spend a long time learning and developing.

If you want a cheap Canon lens for low light then the 50mm 1.8 is one of the cheapest and widest aperture lenses you'll get. None of the zooms will be as wide as even this bargain basement FFL lens. The expensive zooms will be 2.8 at best. You're obviously on a tight budget, so it is worth considering if lowest light shooting is all that matters.

You generally get what you pay for with lenses and cameras, but you can spend your money carefully and get more out of it if you know where to cut the corners.

Sigma and the rest tend to be about 80-90% of the lens for 60-70% of the price. The higher priced Canon ones tend to be better but with the increase in prices comes diminishing returns. If you simply don't have the budget then get the cheaper Sigma and enjoy. No point worrying about lenses you can't use or afford. The usual warning is to watch out for copy variation. I know the Sigma 1.4 is loved and hated by some here.
>> Anonymous
>>115240

OP: What sort of things do you usually shoot?

There's two lenses that will do you for most things, though. The first is a normal prime, either a 28 or 35mm. Sigma makes a 30mm, but Sigma lenses tend to have problems autofocusing on Canons.

A "normal" prime is one that provides similar perspective to human vision, and for that reason, it's extremely versatile. Unless the goal is some specific visual effect or you're trying to get something far away, a normal prime will do the work, and equally importantly, that it's close to human vision will help you learn composition faster. Fits like a glove with your eyes.

Canon makes a 28/2.8, 28/1.8, and 35/2. Look around for photographs taken with them- Flickr is actually good for this, just type in "Canon 28/2.8" or whatever and get the one whose look you like the best, taking into account budget and lens speed.

Then get the 50/1.8 as somebody said. It's insanely cheap, so there's no reason not to get it, and it'll give you another option if you need it.

>>115255
>Then, get yourself a flash because it will be far more versatile and flexible than any fast lens.

What are you talking about? There's loads of situations where using a flash is impossible or impractical. If he's shooting some event or trying to be discreet, or if he's just walking around and doesn't have time to set up the flash off-camera, or if he just doesn't want to schlep around a big flash on top of his camera.

Flashes are generally for shaping the light, not just adding it, and if he's a beginner, he should learn how to spot good light before he starts making his own.
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
>>115355

People, friends (christmas card stuff) girls in various situations, Random things I set up in the garage to photograph, nature, things in cities, I like playing with macro, too. Im going to be making some connections to start shooting at events. Well, I have the connections, now I need some gear.

I dont really like using autofocus. Perhaps I should start using it more often?
>> Anonymous
>>115409
A normal lens and then the 50/1.8 for tighter portraits sometimes should do you fine.

I don't like using autofocus either, but most people do, so I assumed you did and ruled out the Sigmas.

If you like doing macro work, Sigma makes a 28/1.8 that works as a macro lens. If you want something different/faster, you could always do that little trick where people reverse their lenses and use that for macros.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115409
A new lens will help more with:
Girls (in some situations)
Nature
Stuff in cities
Events

An external, off-camera flash will help more with:
Girls (in other situations)
People
Friends
Random stuff in your garage
Macro

I've very much drunk the Strobist kool-aid, but I'd still advise picking up the 50/1.8 before getting an off-camera flash setup.

And get used to autofocusing, because manual focus on a 20D with a lens faster than f/2.5 is somewhere between "Tricky" and "Impossible". Your viewfinder won't actually show you the DoF at anything wider than f/2.5, so with a larger aperture than that, you're not actually going to be accurately seeing what is and isn't in focus.
>> Anonymous
>>115420

I tried to use a little off-camera flash to get a girl once and now I have to do community service. :(
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
>>115421

haha. ah hahah. ah ah ahhh


noble effort.
>> Anonymous
>>115420
The flash would help more if by "people" he meant "staged portraits," but otherwise (street, playing-around-with-camera-while-hanging-out-with-people-portraits, etc.) the faster lens would work better.

>Your viewfinder won't actually show you the DoF at anything wider than f/2.5

I've heard this lots of places, but I don't buy it. I've manually focused at f/1.4 on a 40D and 5D. Never had any problems except if I just pick up the camera after not shooting for some time. An hour or so and it's fine.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115434
>The flash would help more if by "people" he meant "staged portraits,"
I assumed that's what he meant. I lumped non-staged people pictures into the other categories when making my list.

>I've heard this lots of places, but I don't buy it.
Possibly. Part of it is that I generally only resort to manual focus when it's too dark for my camera to AF, and usually for pretty close. I.e., in the least forgiving situations for manual focus.
>> Anonymous
>>115439when it's too dark for my camera to AF

Too bad the 400D can't use a Speedlite AF assist beam without the flash firing. ;_;
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
     File :-(, x)
>>115446
Once or twice I've used the on-camera strobe-the-flash AF assist and then put my flash back down for the actual shot (pic related. Still turned out shittily, though, 'cause I only have the two hands and it was windy).

It's annoying, but effective.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number0420104373Lens Size18.00 - 55.00 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:01:19 17:02:56Exposure Time1/2 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length21.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardCamera Actuations-251658224Color Matrix129Color Temperature5200 KExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalSubject Distance0.410 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed288
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
>>115467
is that sum niagara falls?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115526
Indeed it is
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
>>115529

hah, i live about 15 minutes from the falls.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115555
Hey, so do I. Canada side or New York side?
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
New York side. I need to start spending more time in canada. cleaner women, nicer place. But eh, you just cant beat the grimey wholesome good ol' scum of WNY>
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>115642
Yep. I live on the New York side too.

Both sides of the border have good photography opportunities. If you're into urban decay type photography, you just can't beat Western New York. If you like taking pictures of tourists and glitzy casinos, Niagara Falls, ON is fantastic. And, of course, there are good angles on the waterfall on both sides, if you're into that sort of thing.

(I've lived in Niagara Falls, NY for the past four years or so, so I'm kinda bored with the waterfall itself at this point)
>> Anonymous
>>115642
Oh shi-!

I live in WNY as well, but I've never had a camera with me while at the falls. But Buffalo's not bad for photo's, as long as you're not out at night.
>> catswiththumbs !!kNKksjfYe0p
>>115672

pfft... you're actually afraid of being out at night around here? This place is dead dude. Leave people alone, Dont make eye contact, and avoid anything between like Palmeris and 4th street. Well, I mean theres some obvious spots to avoid. But uh... yeah.

>>115644

The old psych ward is pretty cool looking at night. They've started rennovating it. A few years back you could break into that place at night and really get a good walk around. But I was far too young and cameraless back then. Now they're slowly turning it into part of one of the colleges. I cant remember if its buff state, or UB. I dont know. I could be entirely wrong.
I haven't been to the falls with my new camera yet. I got some great pictures a long time ago with a little point and shoot. Well, It was a decent point and shoot at the time. But I lost the original files. I lost a lot of good old pictures. But yeah, Living around here sort of desensitizes you to even wanting to go down there to take photos of it. I'd like to go hiking around down there when the weather gets better. Probably some very interesting spots for cool shots. I think theres even a small cave or two. But once you start going off the steps you find theres a lot of shale so climbing around is rather risky for photo gear =/
>> Anonymous
You'll want something with a lower f-stop than a f/4. Look for something closer to a f/1.8 or so.