DSLR owners thread

SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
OK then. Once I play with them in Photoshop, I can make 'em look good. If that
is the way most of these types of cameras are, I'm fine with it. But the image stabilization feature suggested is enough to make me want a new lens.
If this feature can really replace the need for a tripod, it would be most worthwhile.

Now, is there anything else I would need to buy (accessories) if I was to get one of the IS lenses you suggested? Cap (do they come with a cap), polarizer filter?
Are there any other filters that I should take a look at, that might be able to impart a different "mood" to my photos?

I apologize for all these questions; I'm just an extreme beginner and I need to put together a Christmas list that has everything I need on it. :)
 
pisco

pisco

New Member
All Canon lenses come with a lens cap so you are good there. A lens hood and a polarizing filter are also good ideas. You should also get a UV filter and keep it on the lens at all times. UV filters don't really do anything to the image but do protect the front of the lens from getting scratched and are way cheaper to replace than the lens! As for other filters, I am of the opinion that it is easier to adjust the image in Photoshop that to get it right with a filter in the field. I realize that you will never learn all the ins and outs of proper exposure if you use Photoshop instead of filters, but for use novices it is easier and you are way less likely to blow the shot.

IS lenses don't completely replace tripods, particularly for night shots. The general rule of thumb for hand-holding a lens without shake is that the shutter speed should be the same or higher than the focal length of the lens. So if you are shooting with the 28-135 and 135mm you should have a shutter speed of 1/160 or better. With IS enabled you will gain 2-3 stops so you should be able to hand-hold the shot at 1/60 or 1/40 depending on how steady your hand are. But for night shots at low ISO your shutter speeds will wind up much lower than what the IS will allow you hand-hold. Plus IS will not compensate for motion blur do to a moving subject. But neither will a tripod. For that you need to get good a tracking the subjects motion.
 
SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
I see... ok. Sounds good, Derald.

Now, I've been looking. I'm still debating those two lenses previously mentioned, but how about a "telephoto" lens? I actually think that if I get a lens, I want an ample zoom. For example, how is the "EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM" lens? Or "EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM" lens? These lenses, too, seem to be more reasonably priced. Should I be looking, instead, into one of these telephoto zoom lenses? One of the things I am frustrated with with my current lens is the low zoom. So, now, in retrospect, it seems I should have asked for a bigger zoom all along!
 
pisco

pisco

New Member
I bought the 55-200 but have decided that it does have enough reach for me. For longer zooms I would recommend on of the following depending on your budget. The Sigma 70-300 APO Macro is a great buy at ~$200. Not only is it a 300mm zoom but it also has great macro capabilities. With no IS it will on be good for hand-holding in bright sunshine but should be good in lower light with a tripod. If you feel you need IS and can afford to spend more (or ask for more :)) the Canon 75-300 IS would be the way to go. With the current rebate on this one it goes for $399. To see examples from both lenses go the the 300D/Digital Rebel forums over at www.dpreview.com and search for either lense. I has seen some great shots from both lenses. Also expect to hear some complaints. At those prices they certainly aren't going to be flawless optically. But for most of us hobbyists they should do the job 90%+ of the time.
 
SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
I'm looking over the forums on the website whose link you provided, and it seems I could "get away" with getting the 75-300 IS. Quality seems fine, and I suppose I can touch up the photos back home on me' computer. So, forgive me for doing this, but, *puts on best Regis impression* is the 75-300 your final recommendation? :lol:

Are there any other lenses in nearly the same price range that would do a better job on, say, this webpage?
 
pisco

pisco

New Member
In that price range I wouldn't think that you will see much difference in optical quality. It more or less comes down to things like do you want a 70-300 or a 100-300, IS or not?

There are certainly better lenses on that page like all the L lenses and the 70-300 DO IS but they will set you back 2-3 times what the 70-300 IS will.

You can look at BH's web site to see the full range of Canon EF compatible zooms in that focal length class but I don't think you will find anything with better reach and more features for the price. Ultimately, my final recommendation is that you buy the lens that you think will work best for you. For me, I have also decided to get the 70-300 IS. Now I just need to find the money for it. :lol:

Let me know what you wind up getting. And of course we will want to see some sample pics. Preferably from WDW. :animwink:
 
SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
OK then! Just one quick clarification note: do you mean the 75-300 IS in your post above or 70-300 DO IS? I *think* I know which one you mean, but I can't assume when talking about lenses, since the slightest change of one number can bump the price up a grand (for instance, in this very case! lol).
 
SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
ROFL! I thought that's what you meant.

You're absolutely right, it gets to be alphabet soup after a while! :lol:

OK then. We all know assumption killed the cat (or was it rather curiosity?)... In any event, we're perfectly clear now and I think I'm ready to jot down that which belongs on my Christmas list... lol
 
imagineer99

imagineer99

New Member
Pisco, I just wanted to say thanks for all your advice.

Even though you haven't been helping me specifically, I've been reading your comments. They've taught me a significant amount.

As a fellow rebel owner, it's been great. I'm definitely thinking about going after a new lens. Thanks :wave:
 
PhotoDave219

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Im still a big fan of the 28-135 IS USM lens. Sharp at low shutter speeds.

The basic Photojournalist kit:

A fisheye, usually 15 or 16mm/2.8
17-35/2.8
28-80/2.8
80-200/2.8

Then the rest fixed length. 300, 400, etc.

Lately, ive had a 16, a 20, 24-85, & a 70-300 in my bag.

Go for Nikon or Canon glass. Avoid aftermarket stuff.
 
pisco

pisco

New Member
Imagineer99, I'm glad my comments were of help. I have spent a fair amount of time researching all of this and reading the forums over at dpreview.com in the year since I got my DReb. So I am glad if I can spare someone the time suck and confusion I have gone through. :) I had no idea moving up from a prosumer digicam to a DSLR would be such a steep learning curve. But I am having fun. Now I just need to improve the quality of my photos. :lol:

PhotoDave, I agree about the quality of the 28-135 but it sounds like Nim is looking for reach and that lens just doesn't have it. As for my camera bag, I currently have the 18-55 kit lens, a Sigma 55-200 (I agree here as well, aftermarket lenses are not that great) and 50 1.8. My plan is to dump the 55-200 in favor of the 75-300 IS and replace the kit with the 17-85 IS. That should cover all of my needs for focal length and will give me IS through the whole range. As a hobbyist I am unlikely to get in to fast primes because of the cost, weight and hassle of having to carry so many different lenses around but I realize that the quality of primes in unmatched by just about any zoom lens.
 
SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm looking for a little reach.

BUT... then again, I've got the 18-55 now, and if, relatively, the 28-135 is like a "whole new world" in terms of zoom capacity, though it isn't the the greatest zoom on the market, I could settle for it. I guess it is reach vs. quality. At longer distances, it seems, the 75-300 isn't the greatest, so there might be a problem there. Umm, what else? Basically, it boils down to whichever lens would be best for me, say if I was at Disney World, or perhaps on the streets of a European town. And it must be versatile; I do not have the luxury of time to stop and change the lens after every shot; I must be able to work with the same one for extended periods of time, at a time. So, in light of this, d'you think I should reconsider the 28-135 IS Dave?
 
DonickCo

DonickCo

Active Member
Original Poster
what i did was buy the 28-135 IS and a tamaron 1.4X TC which turns the 28-135 to a 40-190 and if you add if the 1.6 crop factor on the CCD it really makes it a 56-270... i love the that lens..... i also have the 75-300 USM which i picked up used on ebay for about $100.

-DonickCo
 
SirNim

SirNim

Well-Known Member
Ok then, folks. Thank you for all of your help. I think now I am going to go with the 28-135 IS, because many people have recommended it, and I like that it is sharp at low shutter speeds. The 75-300 seems to have the reach I'd like, but many reviews say it gets a little sloppy if you go too far out. Plus, with the 6 MP I've got in the Digital Rebel, all I have to do is crop the photo with Photoshop and I've got a virtual close-up. Plus, the 28-135 seems to offer a lot of versatility, which is essential for my use. So, that'll be it, unless anybody else has anything to suggest. :)
 
PhotoDave219

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Nah, just the basic 70-300 USM ... not the IS. You dont really "need" fast, long glass unless youre doing things like sports or indoor stuff.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom