| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2006 11:39:05 PM · #1 |
Hello all,
New to Photography and to the forum (which I really like..). I've been checking out many different sites regarding lenses and filters for my newly purchased REBEL XTi and I am completely confused !!
Would appreciate advice on a decent 'cost effective' Macro Lens, and the same price / performance (sweet spot) in a Zoom Lens for the Canon REBELS, I currently only have the "Kit lens".
As far as filters are concerned, to many of you use them other than to cut glare and protect the lens ?
Thanks,
/FC |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 01:06:39 AM · #2 |
| I've got the 60mm EF-S f/2.8 macro, it's a sweet little thing. Pretty sharp when you want it to be. You do have to get in pretty close with that to get 1:1 though - if you're after insects and such you may have to spend more cash to get one of the longer focal length macros. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 02:36:11 AM · #3 |
Let me answer backwards.
If you are using a lens of the caliber of a kit lens, using a filter would be advisable as a protective measure. On the other hand, with a really high end lens, most people don't like to use them because they tend to add another level of quality reduction.
I don't care because I use only high end filters and I've done testing that has yielded only the tiniest imperceptible quality compromise.
Those are typically UV filters or something similar for no real other purpose.
There ARE other types of filters, such as colored filters for B&W or color correction, but these are generally considered superfluous and unecessary for digital shooting. I personally have mixed feelings about this and I have my own suspicions that it causes complications because of things like metering. I would guess that if you did it right and compensated for everything manually, you COULD get better results with using physical filters for these purposes.
Additionally there are also neutral filters and polarizers. Both are highly useful for digital as they are for film. Neutral density filters can be used in flat or gradient. Polarizers should be circular or else they will mess up your autofocus.
Now on to lens suggestions. Please note that the 400XTi has the same extra sensitivity sensor as the 20D and 30D which allows it to work more ACCURATELY with lenses with a natural max aperture f/2.8 or wider. This includes lenses with a variable aperture including f/2.8, but only when they lens is at the appropriate focal length (ie the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-5.6).
It's really difficult to make suggestions with no budget posted.
If you have virtually no budget, go out and get a 50mm f/1.8 or something similar and a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro.... That will cost only around 300 bucks, but cover you pretty well. Macro will go to 1:2 which isn't insanely close, but it's decent for larger subjects such as leaves, dragonflies and some of the spiders that run around in my neck of the woods :)
Most of the 100mm ish f/2.8 macro lenses are excellent and worth the money. The biggest differences are focusing speed and whether the lens is internally focused or not. Considering that almost all macro is done with manual focus, and that 100mm is quite long and doesn't have a huge number of uses, the focusing speed is probably completely unimportant. I personally prefer lenses where the barrel does not extend for macro. Aside from that, any brand will do VERY nicely though.
For the rest of your lens needs, if you don't want to go as long as 300mm, but you wanted ultra-wide, you could do a Tokina 12-24 f/4 plus a Tamron 24-135, but that wouldn't give you the high precision autofocus that may or may not be important to you.
My personal choice runs:
Canon 10-22
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 (still a couple weeks away)
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
and a telephoto.
For your telephoto, there are a few options.
Outside of the bargain Sigma 70-300, you could also check out the well received Tokina 80-400 or the Canon 70-200 f/4L. Both are around 600 or so bucks...
Again, these are not really all that fast. If you want fast, you will have to dip into the pocketbook:
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (now with an even closer focusing distance so they can pretend it has macro!)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (YUM)
Canon 80-200 f/2.8L (second hand it could be found for an excellent price - WICKED sweet lens)
And the list goes on...... |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 05:25:53 AM · #4 |
| The kit lens (if its the 18-55) does a pretty good job at pseudo-macro. Its not 1:1 but its decently close, and 55mm you can get pretty close to your subject. With 10MP you could probably do a little cropping to get even closer, and best of all you don't have to pay anything extra since you already have it. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 05:43:58 AM · #5 |
My personal choices:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
All amazing lenses. All have different applications. You will not be disappointed in any of these lenses. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 05:51:13 AM · #6 |
I don't use filters of any sort (though I would like some grad ND's and polarizers maybe). Use your lense hoods and common sense, and buy the proper cleaning supplies.
Slickchik lists all the main players. I would only swap the 50mm 1.4 for the much cheaper and 99.9% as great 50mm 1.8 for a few hundred bucks less. Also the Sigma 105mm macro is worth looking into as the quality is on par with the canon, but it is a bit less pricey. The 10-22 is a great wide angle. Also own the 70-200mm F4 and it is a fine piece of glass, though having to buy the tripod collar separately is very irritating.
Kit lense is not a macro by any stretch. Getting close to something doesn't equate to a macro shot, nor does cropping to fill a frame. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:09:34 AM · #7 |
If you want to be cost effective and kill two birds with one stone, the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is a fantastic lens for about $230. Very very sharp in the center, not too bad in the corners, and it does a good job with macro work. And, taking macros at 200-300mm is great because you don't scare away the bug or have to get down on your knees!
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:21:02 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And, taking macros at 200-300mm is great because you don't scare away the bug or have to get down on your knees! |
I agree with this, although the downside is the need to be very steady (tripod or lots of light) to overcome wobble.
An alternative to using a dedicated macro lens is to use a macro lens filter. I use a Canon 500D (which is a two lens kit that screws on the end of a zoom lens and allows for magnificent macro work). Costs vary depending on the size and make - I paid about £100 for a 77mm 500D that I use on my 70-200 2.8., but if you have a lens with a smaller filter size then the price drops (I previously paid about £40 for a 58mm 500D which I used on my 75-300 f4-5.6). Importantly to me, this saves carrying around a dedicated macro lens in my bag and I have been very pleased with the quality. Here is an example:
|
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:25:05 AM · #9 |
| Canon USM f3.5-5.6 28-135 IS Macro. This is a good walkaround lens at a good price. Its not as sharp as L series but alot less in price. I do use the 60mm EFS macro for shooting my macros personally, and use the 10-22 for shooting landscapes. Its hard to just name one good lens too many to chose from. If I was going to get one and only one and wanted to stay under $500 I would go for the 28-135 USM IS. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:45:16 AM · #10 |
Lots of people banging on about the Canon gear despite you saying your on a budget.
For your Macro gear, go for the Sigma 105mm F2.8 Macro if you want a lense specifically for macro shooting, if you want a lense that offers more options as well as macro, then the Sigma 70-300mm APO is a good choice. I used to have this lense and it does give brilliant results.
My only gripe was that it couldn't focus very close up, so you have to be quite a distance from the subject your trying to take a macro of, but its still a good option, and of course, you then cover the telephoto option too. Just make sure you get the APO one, it has a red ring around the top for the lense.
You should be able to get by with the kit lense for now, if you take a look at some of the shots in the equipment section of this site you will see lots of great examples of what can be accomplished with it (//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=1115) .
When you are in a position to upgrade the kit lense there are lots of options, if you can afford it the Canon 17-40mm is universally accepted as a dazzling lense, otherwise, you can pick up some great Sigma or Tokina variations at a fraction of the price. I haven't used these lenses but have seen some very favourable reviews in the British mags.
Also, as mentioned elsewhere, the Canon 50mm F1.8 II is a real bargain!
Message edited by author 2006-09-19 10:50:19. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 06:56:59 AM · #11 |
| I have the Rebel XT ... and the kit lens ... I bought the 50mm f/1.8 for about $60 ... and love that lens ... I recently got the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro for under $200 shipped ... and love this lens even more ... I rarely take this one off of my camera ... the macro isn't really true macro ... it's 1:2 ... but does a good job anyway ... |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 09:12:51 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Canon USM f3.5-5.6 28-135 IS Macro. This is a good walkaround lens at a good price. .... If I was going to get one and only one and wanted to stay under $500 I would go for the 28-135 USM IS. |
Yeah, I use that lens too, it's good for general purpose stuff. You may find it a bit soft, but it depends what you're used to I guess.
Edited to add, whilst it does say "macro" in the description of this lens and even has it written on the side, I don't believe it does 1:1, it just focuses close. I did my gold challenge entry "macro" shot with it.
Message edited by author 2006-09-19 13:14:08. |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 12:10:20 PM · #13 |
Wow,..Thanks again for all the great info ! It's nice to get REAL feedback, and GOOD advice. I almost picked up the 70-300 APO (the 75-300 anti-shake were being recalled..) when I bought the camera, but wasn't sure what I was getting. I wanted to talk with some actual "users" first, before I made any additional purchases. I've also heard a lot about the 50mm f/1.8 and everyone seems to be happy with it's price / performance ratio.
Budget is always a concern, but as I said, I'm pretty green so I want to experiment a little first, before selling one of the kids to buy some really sweet glass. I'll serioulsy consider many of these suggestions, and go to the camera store and try out some of these lenses.
Thanks again !
/FC |
|
|
|
09/19/2006 12:13:26 PM · #14 |
Again, these are not really all that fast. If you want fast, you will have to dip into the pocketbook:
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (now with an even closer focusing distance so they can pretend it has macro!)
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L (YUM)
Canon 80-200 f/2.8L (second hand it could be found for an excellent price - WICKED sweet lens)
And the list goes on...... [/quote]
Kudos to you for that great post .
Nice explanation regarding some of these lenses (Probably took some time too...)
Thanks for that !
/FC |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 12:50:26 AM · #15 |
Thanks for the appreciation.
the Sigma 70-300 range does not come with anti-shake and the Canon 70-300 does not come with macro (which is essentially just close focusing).
macro is defined truthfully as 1:1 ratio, being that the size of the object on the forward side of the lens is the same as the size on the back end of the lens. It is an optical ratio for the lens. It IS a result of being able to focus closely. That's WHY extensions work and HOW macro filters work.
What is really nice is that because your imaging happens in a specific context of crop factor, the effective magnification can APPEAR to be even better.
What is nice about the Sigma is that with a 1:2 on a 1.6X crop factor body will appear to be roughly the same as around a 1:1.3 ratio macro lens on a Full Frame or film body. Of course it's still kind of apples and oranges, but it does mean that you will get some pretty decent results. Note that you must be at the telephoto end of this lens to achieve this level of magnification.
It's a great choice for the interim so it makes a great choice for experimentation. Some people never feel a need to get anything better once they've had a play with it.
Others such as myself are never satisfied. :) |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 01:49:52 AM · #16 |
I like my Tamron 28-75mm XR Di, but for really close up shots, I use a very expensive setup called the kit lens and a +3 close-up adaptor. Ok, so it's not eally expensive, but does a damned good job!
 |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 03:58:05 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I like my Tamron 28-75mm XR Di, but for really close up shots, I use a very expensive setup called the kit lens and a +3 close-up adaptor. Ok, so it's not eally expensive, but does a damned good job!
|
Which just shows that it is possible to get decent results out of the kit lens... |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 05:48:04 AM · #18 |
.... and that some people will do just about anything to get some comments on yet another 'woody' shot...
:) just kidding. It sure does look like a woody hand that it's perching on. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 09:06:41 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
the Canon 70-300 does not come with macro (which is essentially just close focusing).
|
I would re-emphasise the budget/lightweight option of a close up "filter" for a zoom lens - for another £30-60, you can add macro to a non-macro lens with good results.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2006 11:30:55 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by mist:
Originally posted by BradP:
I like my Tamron 28-75mm XR Di, but for really close up shots, I use a very expensive setup called the kit lens and a +3 close-up adaptor. Ok, so it's not eally expensive, but does a damned good job!
|
Which just shows that it is possible to get decent results out of the kit lens... |
Wicked Hopper! Can't believe that's the same type of lens as mine...! I think maybe I'll compare a bunch of them. The adapter suggestions by a few of you really make sense (budget w/good quality). Thanks for the pics and the insight...!
/FC |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 11:46:03 AM · #21 |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 12:18:19 PM · #22 |
For me the 100 2.8 from cannon is a fantastic macro lens! Runs around 500 I think. For zoom the 70 -200 F4 is great quality for less than 600. I am not sure what your budget is but extention tubes can do great on a lens like the zoom I mentioned. Maybe instead of buying both. I use the kenco and they work great.
I have never used close up filters but who can argue with brads photo!
As far as filters in general I would get higher end ones when you get them and don't recommend a cheap UV for protection. Plan out your lens purchases before getting filters because lens can have different sizes. You don't want you buy a 75 dollar circular polarizer only to find out it doesn't fit the lens you buy next month. |
|
|
|
09/20/2006 04:53:05 PM · #23 |
The best way to deal with a circular polzarizer and multiple lenses is usually to just buy the one at 77mm and use cheap step-down rings.
Message edited by author 2006-09-20 21:29:39. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 03:23:22 PM EDT.
