So I'm kinda new to the photo game and am looking to to get some advice. I recently got a canon digi rebel xt and am thinking about getting a new lens. I have a EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 lens that I got with the camera which is alright but it doesn't zoom very far. I'm looking to get something with a little more zoom and something that will be good for shooting up in the mountains this winter, think snow. Right now its all about shooting biking which my current lens works for but I still would like something better. Any recomendations for what I should get next? I also want to get a better flash, thinking about the Canon Speedlite 430EX, looks pretty good, reasonably priced. Any thoughts? Where is a good place to buy stuff online? Places I go around Seattle are so expensive. Any input would be awesome, thanks.
lens choices
- Thread starter mcrae2112
- Start date
BHphoto.com
My choice would be a 70-200 f4 at around $550. Best sports tele going (well, the f2.8 version is sweeting, but also more than twice the price).
My choice would be a 70-200 f4 at around $550. Best sports tele going (well, the f2.8 version is sweeting, but also more than twice the price).
You say the 18-55 doesn't zoom very far. Do you meen you want more reach with the lens, or more zoom range (20-200 for example)?
The Sigma 18-200 zoom gets pretty good reviews and is less than $400. The Canon 70-300 IS lens is supposed to be real nice with a little more reach, if you can shoot with a tripod or have a really steady grip the 70-300 non IS lens is a little cheaper.
that's a great lens, and when the new IS version of that lens is released, you may either get a price break on new ones, or find a mint used copy for cheaper.
I'm not sure why you'd by an F4 IS lens tho, when an F 2.8 lens is available at the same price??
I do however agree on the pricing. The standard F4 may drop a bit, altho i do not think they are phasing out the non IS version.
Where might I find used lenses from a reliable source? Is it even a good idea to purchase a used lens? I'm just looking to get a decent lens for not too expensive. $400 or less would be nice.
i've never used the 2.8 but have heard it's considerably larger and heavier, and thus may not get packed and used when the f/4 lens might. canon may not change the MSRP/RRP, but maybe some current f/4 non-IS owners might change to the IS version.
for used lenses, i would try www.keh.com, www.fredmiranda.com, or www.photography-on-the.net.com
The 2.8 is a tank compared to the F4 for sure (67 vs 77mm front element), but the f4 is can't be a ton lighter as the IS unit weighs almost a pound.
KEH is great for used stuff with a warranty, bhphoto.com also has select used stuff. Used glass is a good deal if you want to save a few hundred bucks, just be aware that canon glass doesn't devalue much.
Here's a shot I had to take for insurance. 2.8 next to a 300 F4 and various other crap.
KEH is great for used stuff with a warranty, bhphoto.com also has select used stuff. Used glass is a good deal if you want to save a few hundred bucks, just be aware that canon glass doesn't devalue much.
Here's a shot I had to take for insurance. 2.8 next to a 300 F4 and various other crap.
How are sigma lenses? I've found some that are pretty cheap. I know that you get what you pay for but I have read a few good things about them, never shot with one though. I found a Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Lens for $315. Just been looking on Amazon.com and they seem to have some pretty good deals, free shipping and stuff. What is the main reason for some of these lenses to be so much cheaper? Glass quality, No IS, slow? Thanks for all the info!
i've got a sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens which is outstanding; better than any wide prime Canon's got aside from the exorbitantly priced L lenses. haven't used any of their zooms, but sigma is a well respected 3rd party lens (tamron and tokina being another two, but a notch or so lesser perhaps?).
for that sort of lens, you are asking it to do a lot (over 10x optical zoom), and you will likely suffer sharpness and image quality at both ends of the range. plus, it's not a constant aperture lens (meaning the f stop changes depending on the focal length), and that can be kind of annoying.
for that sort of lens, you are asking it to do a lot (over 10x optical zoom), and you will likely suffer sharpness and image quality at both ends of the range. plus, it's not a constant aperture lens (meaning the f stop changes depending on the focal length), and that can be kind of annoying.
Sigma makes a good lens, the most important thing is if the lens fits your needs. The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, but if you need a do-all workhorse it is a poor choice. Something more along the lines of the 28-135 IS would give you a decently wide end as well as a ice longish telphoto, you can also pick up a clean used copy for under $400. Tamron also make a good 28-135 and I beleive that Sigma makes something in that range aswell. An 18-200 would work, but I've found that lenses with that much range, aside from having poor low light abilities, tend to have poor IQ. If you can, go down to the local camera shop and play with the lenses, take some test shots and get a feel for the lenses you think you may like and then wait a few days before buying to avoid an impulse buy.
Try out a 300mm zoom too, even with a 1.7 conversion factor I feel like I need a lens slightly longer than 300mm once in a while. I do a lot of wildlife shots though, maybe you don't really need a lens that long. If I had the money my next lens would be a Canon 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS, I'd probabally get a 1.4X teleconverter too. That would be like shooting through the hubble telescope though.
the 100-400 is a very popular wildlife lens. excellent reach and high quality optics, from the pictures i've seen taken w/ it.
Check out Glazer's Camera in Seattle. They have a lot of used equipment for sale that they've checked out. For new stuff they can be kinda expensive, but if you have questions they're pretty knowledgeable.
It's softer at the 400mm end though than a 300 + 1.4tc. It may however fit the OPs bill perfectly - although it's $1600 ish.
Many amateur sport shooters use it as well, FYI. I say amateur as ost serious guys just carry 2 bodies with big glass in one.
Many amateur sport shooters use it as well, FYI. I say amateur as ost serious guys just carry 2 bodies with big glass in one.
I'll have to go there and check it. I went to cameras west in bellevue and the lady that was helping me was a bitch, so I just left. Didn't get any help there.
So, I want to order my new flash but I just wanted to get some input on it. I found a good deal on a Canon Speedlite 430EX but I don't know much about these yet. I stoped at a camera place on the way home from work but the guy didn't have one in stock and couldn't answer too many of my questions about it. Mainly I want to know if it will keep up with my continuous shooting (3fps). Any idea how fast you can shoot with it? I can only shoot up to 1/200 with my current flash and it doesn't even come close to being able to shoot 3fps.
It will not*. There aren't very many flashes around that can do that, and certainly not if fed by 4 AA batteries. You will ponly be able to shoot at a maximum of 1/200 or 1/250th. This is a camera shutter limitation, not a flash one. You can set the flash to high speed mode, which will allow you to shoot at faster shutter speeds than 1/250th, but with greatly reduced flash power.
*On ETTL and at low power (ie: for fill) it MAY be able to keep up, but i have a 550 and a 580 and neither of them can keep up, even at low power and charging off of a quantum battery pack. 0 - full power on a quantum pack takes about 2 seconds. Figure 3-4 on fresh AA batteries.
I have a 430EX, and it will keep up with my Mk2 at 8.5 fps just fine, provided I dial down the power to 1/32 or thereabouts. That provides fill, but not much else. Transcend is right the shutterspeed is limited by your camera, not the flash.
The 430 is a great little flash, it's light and compact enough to fit easily in my back pocket for when I don't want to carry a camera bag. If you want a little more power from the flash, check out a used 550EX, they can be had pretty inwxpensively too.
The 430 is a great little flash, it's light and compact enough to fit easily in my back pocket for when I don't want to carry a camera bag. If you want a little more power from the flash, check out a used 550EX, they can be had pretty inwxpensively too.
It'll fill, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what he has in mind judging by what he said in his question.
You're right, I sorta read that wrong. Mcrea2112, Fraser's right if you want to illuminate the scene with the strobe as your only lightsource you're going to have to get something pretty pricey for it to work.
VS the internal flash you mean? You will have the following advantages:
-TONS more power
-less redeye (due to being further from the lens)
-adjustable direction (bounce up to the roof or off of a wall for indirect lighting)
-you can use diffusers on it
-high speed mode
-second curtain mode (if the camera body supports this)
I haven't actually looked into all the custom functions on a Rebel but I know my EOS camera will do 1st or 2nd curtain flash with the pop up flash, if the manual didn't say I couldn't do it I would have never known, try it there's a good chance it will work. Unfortunately it isn't powerful enough to really be useful for freezing action except at very close distances with low ambient light.
A hot shoe flash may give you a little different white balance than the popup flash, not a big deal with digital though. I have a Pentax flash that gave film a really warm tone, so much that I quit using my warming filter when I shot with the flash.
Got my flash today, pretty stoked about it. I'm gonna go out and test it at the skatepark tonite so we'll see how it works. Went to Glazer's in Seattle to check out some lenses too and the guy told me he just sold a used canon 70-200 f4 for pretty cheap... son of a... They had a new one but it was spendy, definitely would buy it online. Seems like a really good lens and is perfect for what I want, although it is pretty big and felt heavy on my camera. I'm definitely contemplating buying this lens soon.
Pics with the new flash last nite, worked pretty well, I'm happy with it. The only problem I was having was my lens kept going out of focus before alot of my shots, I really need to step up my lens game soon. In the first pic it there is some dots or smudges on the pic, is that just because of dust or something?
Attachments
Those spots are bugs/dust/dirt being lit up by your flash.
A 2.8 lens will help immensely with focus in low light as the sensors (on most canon bodies anyways) becomes sensitive to contrast difference both horiontally as well as vertically, instead of just vertically (cross sensor).
Try pushing up the ISO and slowing down the shutter speed to let in a bit more ambient light. Then the rider won't look like a spot light is on him.
Good luck and enjoy.
A 2.8 lens will help immensely with focus in low light as the sensors (on most canon bodies anyways) becomes sensitive to contrast difference both horiontally as well as vertically, instead of just vertically (cross sensor).
Try pushing up the ISO and slowing down the shutter speed to let in a bit more ambient light. Then the rider won't look like a spot light is on him.
Good luck and enjoy.
If you do a lot of shooting like the pictures you just posted, you should consider the Canon 50mm f1.8, for under $100 it's the best lens you can buy and better than most if not all lenses twice the price. Shooting prime lenses means having to be a little more careful with setting up your shots, or being willing to crop the heck out of what you end up with. F1.8 is stupid fast, you'll get much better autofocus, the only down side is you really have to watch the DOF. If you do a lot of stuff outside of a skate park it might not be enough lens for your needs though.
the 50mm f/1.8 is a fast lens aperture-wise, but it's not the fastest focusing lens...the f/1.4 w/ USM would be a better bet. but it's a lot more $.
The build is also complete crap.
what do you expect for $80?
you cannot deny that it can take pretty great photos.
you cannot deny that it can take pretty great photos.
hey, I'm just saying. You get what you pay for. Too many guys get that lens on recomendation from others and expect from crazy uber lens.
It takes decent shots in low light, but it focuses slow as molasses, is noisy and is all plastic. Plastic lens mounts suck.
i've never not been able to mount that lens on my camera body.
maybe i got some special plastic.
again, it's a quarter the price of the f/1.4 version...are photos from the more expensive lens four times better?
maybe i got some special plastic.
again, it's a quarter the price of the f/1.4 version...are photos from the more expensive lens four times better?
The bokeh is much better, the focus is tons faster and it holds up a hell of a lot better for people like me who don't baby their equipment. My stuff gets tossed around, it's a tool, not a baby.
The lens mount on my 1.8 is worn and loose after only about 18 months of use. Granted, I use my gear a ton more than most would, and in pretty crappy conditions a lot of the time.
Sure, I sold a ton of stuff from this lens last year, but i'd be replacing it every few months due to the slop in the mount if i used it like i do my 70-200. It is almost nearly impossible to manually focus due to the lack of a real focus ring and I want to MF it most of the time, as the focus is so horribly slow.
There isn't much point spending $1000+ on a camera to turn around and use an $80 lens on it.
I'm with Transcend, I don't know that the 50 1.4 is really 4x better than the 1.8, but it has held up almost 3x longer than my 50 1.8s did, so that's gotta count for something.
agreed, but this isn't a pro or high-end level lens; it's aimed squarely at the entry level DSLR buyer (for whom these things are toys, not tools).
it's also a good and cheap way to introduce people to using prime lenses.
i will be upgrading mine to the f/1.4 version, but mainly for the faster AF properties. i rented one for 2 weeks and came to enjoy it very much.
my eyesight is pretty bad, so i don't use the MF function much at all so the tiny focusing ring didn't bother me.
So what you're saying is that for a professional photographer the f1.4 lens is much better. I have to agree with you, but I can't see how you arrive at the conclusion that because there is something better out there it makes the f1.8 inherently bad. For the price there isn't a better lens than the Canon 50mm f1.8, the amature with a limited budget will get better pictures with with that lens than any other lens under $300. For someone who wants to experiment with prime lenses or larger apertures $80 isn't a big investement and it's quality is comparable to lenses costing 3 times as much, I feel confident recommending the lens knowing that if it doesn't work out it is either because the guy just didn't like prime lenses or is a meat fist and abuses his equipment. For the average weekend warrior this lens will last a very long time, most guys will have a zoom that covers the 50mm point so it would only be used on rare occasions where a larger aperture is wanted, for most photographers even the 50mm f1.4 isn't the most used lens in the gear bag. Why not cheap out and get something that won't break the bank for a lens you might use once a photo shoot?