[buildyourown]

ok, photo newb for the most part.
I picked up a used Rebel for cheap to try out the DSLR thing to see if I actually use it. It came with a 18-55? kit lens which sucks and 50mm f1.8 lens which takes great pictures for a $70 lens.
I'd like to get a decent all-around lens. The terminology and price range is overwhelming. The low F stop of my 50mm lens makes me think I want a f2.8
I'd also like something with a close focal point so I can do some macro stuff.
Since light is such a huge challenge for shooting bikes, I'd like something that lets the most light in. Whatever that means. What does a wide angle lens get you?
I've read about the drawbacks of getting a larger range zoom lens. What is a good size to stick with?
Help a newb out.
Oh, and I'm not rich and this is just a hobby so no Canon L stuff for me. $300-400 is my range.

Edit: Just looked up Wide angle lens for myself. If I go that route, what is the drawback. Does it mean you can't focus on stuff far away, or is it the distortion that is the issue?

 

[Quo Fan]

Get yourself to a local camera store and talk to the people behind the counter. Tell them what you want, and your price range. They can point you in the right direction.

Super wide lenses, like the 10mm range, are more for really wide landscapes, or tall buildings close up.

To shoot bikers, I use the Canon 17-40mm f4L lens. Tamron and Sigma make good third party lenses, that are much less expensive than Canon glass.

For some information, clicky linky. This should help.

 

[Toshi]

ok, photo newb for the most part.
I picked up a used Rebel for cheap to try out the DSLR thing to see if I actually use it. It came with a 18-55? kit lens which sucks and 50mm f1.8 lens which takes great pictures for a $70 lens.
I'd like to get a decent all-around lens. The terminology and price range is overwhelming. The low F stop of my 50mm lens makes me think I want a f2.8
I'd also like something with a close focal point so I can do some macro stuff.
Since light is such a huge challenge for shooting bikes, I'd like something that lets the most light in. Whatever that means. What does a wide angle lens get you?
I've read about the drawbacks of getting a larger range zoom lens. What is a good size to stick with?
Help a newb out.
Oh, and I'm not rich and this is just a hobby so no Canon L stuff for me. $300-400 is my range.

Edit: Just looked up Wide angle lens for myself. If I go that route, what is the drawback. Does it mean you can't focus on stuff far away, or is it the distortion that is the issue?

you want too many mutually exclusive things!

macro means you can focus closer. you can get macro lenses in many focal lengths: 50 mm, 100 mm, 180 mm just to name a few off the top of my head. true macro lenses will focus down to 1:1, which means when you're focused at the minimum focusing distance objects at that distance will project on the camera's film or sensor at exactly the same size.

you might be wondering how different focal length lenses can all focus down to 1:1, and the answer is that they achieve 1:1 at different distances. (trivia: it turns out the distance is 2.5x the focal length: a 50 mm macro lens will focus at 1:1 when the subject is 12.5 cm away from the camera's sensor, and a 180 mm macro lens will focus at 1:1 when the subject is 45 cm away from the camera's sensor.)

a true macro lens will let you get shots like this:

many budget lenses have "macro" written on them but only will get down to 3:1, which means that objects at that not-really-macro lens's minimum focusing distance will project on the camera's sensor at 1/3rd of their actual size.

"focal point" doesn't really mean anything and sounds dangerously close to focal length, which is the "zoom", as it were: short focal length, e.g. 20 mm == wide angle, long focal length, e.g. 135 mm == telephoto. what you're searching for is the phrase "low minimum focusing distance", but again keep in mind that what this actually will get you in terms of "macro" depends on the focal length, too.

ok, enough with macro.

aperture sizes: as you've noticed having "fast lenses" with low maximum f-stops is a good thing, especially if you want to shoot sports or shoot indoor shots with ambient light. the downside is that you either have to stick with prime lenses (non-zooms) or you have to pony up teh big dollah for constant aperture f/2.8 zooms (as opposed to variable aperture zooms, like the 28-135 mm that goes from f/3.5 at 28 mm to f/5.6 at 135 mm).

the problem with wide angle lenses, as it were, is that they're wide angle. there's nothing inherently wrong with them except that they're generally not the sharpest lenses out there but that's only a concern really if you're getting paid to do this or if you really like shooting photos of brick walls. if you want a long lens then a wide angle will not do. simple as that.

the problem with getting a wide angle lens with your digirebel, however, is that your camera's sensor is 1.6x as small as a real piece of 35 mm film. this is the crop factor. anyway, the crop factor means that to get the same field of view ("wideness") as a lens of X mm on a 35 mm camera you'll have to mount up a lens that's nominally X/1.6 focal length. follow me with that? example: to get the equivalent of a 16 mm focal length on a 35 mm camera you'll need a 10 mm focal length lens on your digirebel.

(this issue is also why people like me who like to shoot wide pony up for cameras like the 5D that don't have a crop factor since their sensors are the same size as film.)

ok, i think that's enough of a brain dump. if you want more reading material you can read up on the lenses that i shoot with, none of which are particularly cheap, unfortunately:

Sigma 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM DG EX, where HSM is hypersonic motor (== ultrasonic motor below, just different company terminology), DG means that it works on digital bodies, and EX is their own meaningless "trim line" term. this lens is not fast at all but is ridiculously wide: keep in mind my camera has no crop factor so 12 mm really is 12 mm, which is quite ludicrous in reality.

12 mm above

Canon 50 mm f/1.4 USM, where USM means ultrasonic motor, a quiet and quick focusing motor, even if this particular lens has an old style

Canon 135 mm f/2.0 L USM, where L is canon's top of the line range that can be identified by the red ring running around the end of the lens. L == nice but also $$$$

Canon 24-104 f/4.0 L USM IS, where L is as above and the IS means image stabilization, which makes up for the slow f/4.0 maximum aperture

 

[stevew]

^

teh tanks for this post.

 

[buildyourown]

Wow, thanks for all that.
Couple of follow ups...

Does a wide angle lens mean anything more than " it zooms way out"?
The fact that I have a crop body just means that I'm only getting 1/2 of the image that the lens is giving, right? Doesn't seem like a huge deal at my level.
If I get a zoom lens that can focus at 13", am I giving up anything on the long end?
Several lenses I'm looking at have reviews claiming poor performance at full zoom @ f2.8. That so, is spending the money on a constant aperture lens worth it? If i never use 70mm @ f2.8, why pay for it?
Am I right by going with a 28-75 lens vs getting the 28-200. The money doesn't really seem to be any different.


So far, I'm looking at:
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8

There seem to be decent reviews and deals on both of those.

I should go to a shop, but there is something to be said for getting info from people who aren't trying to sell you something.

 

[RUFUS]

dpreview.com is the site that you should be looking at for all reviews on any piece of camera gear.

 

[buildyourown]

dpreview.com is the site that you should be looking at for all reviews on any piece of camera gear.

Yeah, except all of their lens reviews are on super spendy units.

 

[narlus]

dpreview.com is the site that you should be looking at for all reviews on any piece of camera gear.

fredmiranda.com has a good collection of user-submitted reviews as well.