Noob salivates for a dSLR

The quality and speed... could someone elaborate on that? Speed I assume means that when using let's say this SIGMA 28-300mm lens at 300mm I will need much longer exposure (due to long ass tube created by the zoom thus making it difficult for light to hit the sensor) to properly expose a scene; where with a 100-400mm lens at 300mm I would need much shorter exposure. Did I understand it wrong or is that what "speed" means.

As for quality I'm not sure... Well if my assumption that with 28-300mm lens less light hits the sensor is correct then it is more difficult to get properly exposed and sharp picture; as well as correctly represent the colors. Can anyone explain the "quality" you're talking about?


Thank... I'm so excited I'm learning things, and now I know a tiny bit about lenses =)

 

Speed is basically a term used for the size of the maximum aperture of the lens. The smaller the f. number, the faster the lens is, as the aperture can let in more light. The focal length of the lens doesn't matter unless the lens has variable aperture size as it zooms. The 18-200, for example, has a maximum aperture of 3.5 at 18mm, but that shrinks to 5.6 at 200mm. More expensive zooms, like the 70-200 f/2.8's from canon and nikon have the same large maximum aperture over their entire range.

Quality mostly comes down to the quality of the glass used, and so it's generally linked to price. The more you spend, the better the quality. Cheaper lenses can have chromatic aberration (coloured outlines on high contrast edges), poor sharpness or other distortions. More expensive lenses will have better glass and a better design to combat the problems.

When a lens designed for a full frame sensor is used on a smaller cropped one, only the centre of the image is used. The quality shouldn't be affected, but there will be a lot of glass in the lens that you're just not using. When you use a lens designed for a cropped sensor (as on most DSLRs), the image only covers the sensor without wastage, so the engineers are able to reduce the size and weight of the lens. It is also easier to reduce distortions when the image circle is smaller. The disadvantages of cropped sensors are that they make it much harder to have true wide angle, as the sensor size naturally reduces the angle of view. They also force the pixels to be put closer together, which increases noise (random spots of colour on the photo).

 

I've started about one year ago with a 400D + 50mm F1.8 (800euro). A few months later I started looking at used lenses and after some searching I got myself a Canon 17-40 F4 L in mint condition (500euro). I thought I'd get a bit of a tele aswell and got a used Canon 70-200 F4 L in mint aswell (another 500euro). Didn't wanna risk damaging the lenses, so got myself 2 Tiffen filters.. about 120euro. With the Tele the 400D body is a bit small and I found a mint condition, used, original Canon battery pack, 50euro. Offcours with a battery pack, you need extra battery's, another 50euro for 3 extra non-canon batterys. Offcours, you really need a tripod.. so I after some research I got myself a Manfrotto 190PRO with a decent ball head, about 180euro. I got myself a wired remote aswell for those long exposures.. 25euro. You need a bag to carry everything.. Lowepro had the answer for a 110euro.

Just this month, I got myself a smaller backpack for travelling, Lowepro had the aswer aswell.. for another 90euro.

So it starts out small at 800euro.. but now I'm in for about 2425euro, so yeah it tripled so far. And I'm still looking for a flash, macro, fish eye and an ultra wide lens.

 

I'm glad it's not just me, then. Exact same set of lenses, too (btw, how do you like that 70-200? I'm thinking of getting the f/4L IS but I'm thinking the 28-135 IS I've mentioned a few times might be better in the short term as a good walkaround without spending a fortune). Seems like a lot to spend on a backpack though - I just picked up the Canon brand for $35 or something and it's working pretty well for me.

 

I'm not really using the 70-200 that much. I even considered selling it so I could get a Ultra wide (10-22). But it is a very nice lens and I'm sure I'll miss it if I ever sold it. So I guess I'll hang on to it for now. I've read alot of positive reviews about the IS version, so I'm sure it is a very good lens, but if you are considering it, then I'm sure you really use the 70-200 range alot? If so, then I'd save up for the F2.8 IS .. You'll end up getting it anyway.

Lowepro packs are indeed not the cheapest.

 

Personally, I'd take F/2.8 over IS any day. While IS does give you that anti-hand shake which is ever so nice, larger apertures will give you more shutter speed, and that lovely DOP (or lack of).

 

Hm, yeah, that's what you guys were saying in the other thread. It's not going to happen for a while so it doesn't matter yet, and it does make increasing sense for me to get the standard f/2.8 as I tend to carry a tripod around now (unless it's really sunny out at least). I could certainly use a better walkaround first though, either the 28-135 IS or the 24-105 f/4L IS probably.

But enough threadjacking. Although it does go to show how expensive this becomes

 

Similar experience (but managing to curb it for the moment), I bought a Nikon D40 + 18-55 DX lens from ebuyer, together with the DX 55-200 lens from Dixons online (£100 - bargain!) Then, well, because my bag wouldn't cut it, I needed a new one and it may as well be a good one. Looking at the specs for Crumpler bags, a Pretty Boy XL looked to be suitable. Wrong.. I had to go for an XXXL to even fit anything in other than the body + lenses. There's space for another lens or two at a push (Sigma 10-20 looks good). Then I had to get a polarising filter and rocket blower.

Hmm.. I haven't gone as mad as some people.. I guess it does what I want it to for the moment, i.e. take some cracking photos!

 

Similar story here too I suppose. Invested in a 400D with the kit lens and used it for a bit. Then decided to take the plunge and get the Sigma 18-200 DC OS as an all purpose lens which I enjoy using. Then came a Crumpler bag, a battery grip and now I'm starting to look at the 50mm f/1.8 and 10-22mm lenses now. Need to look for a sturdy tripod too.

 

Mine's pretty bad too.

I got a Rebel XT off a loyalty points program, and the first thing I bought was the 50mm f/1.8. After a few months of that, I got the 70-200 F/4L (almost bought F/2.8). I had a Christmas party to shoot which was going to be pretty dark, so I bought a flash with the intention of trying it out and possibly returning it (bad, I know). I ended up liking the flash so I kept it. A few months later, I was stuck between a 100mm macro, or a 10-20 wide zoom. I ended up buying the wide zoom, but later found a used one in mint condition selling for less. So I bought the wide zoom used, and exchanged the new wide for the macro. Of course, with all this gear, I had to buy a bag, so then came the Lowepro sling.

Now I'm contemplating a 85mm f/1.2.

 

Oh hell, step away from f/1.2 gear.

Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 100mm macro, right? You couldn't be so kind as to send a couple shots my way of what they can produce, could you? They're on my... list. I hate lists.

 

personally i think the difference between f2.8 and f4 in terms of bokeh and DOF is not worth that much price difference (for example as between 24-70L and 24-105L) and IS gives you less missed shots @f4. IS compensates for 3 stops in shutter speed (8 times) so for 105 you could get away with times as long as 1/20 or even 1/15 (1/20 is definately usable). For bokeh and low DOF i'd suggest getting some primes, a bit more pricey but a hell lot nicer - it doesnt have to be an "L" lens, but there are some nice things like 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 (which is about 3 times more expensive than the former) 60/2 macro or 85/1.8


but when speaking of completely low end stuff i'd get 400D + 17-85 IS which is the crop equivalent of 28-135IS and is certainly a brilliant lens. Plus 50/1.8 to top so that you get to have some prime lens-wide aperture fun

 

What's wrong with F/1.2 other than ridiculously expensive ;p?

Anyways, for samples, go here. I hope you don't mind the form over function design right now. Anyways, for wide shots, visit the U of T collection. The wides were mostly (I believe all) were shot at 10mm. For macro pics, I don't have many. I have recently gotten some of bees and stuff, but for an idea, you can spot some macro flowers in the "Natural Set 1" collection.

 

What are these? polarising filter, rocket blower... and DOF?

 

Polarizing filter is a special piece of glass that sits on the end of your lens and changes how reflections happen. If you've got a pair of polarized sunglasses (most are, except really cheap ones), tilt your head to the side when you can see a reflection. Same idea.

Rocket blower is just a slang for a little... umm... how do I describe it... dust blowing thingey. http://www.amazon.com/Giottos-AA190...9?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1188397228&sr=8-1

DOF = depth of field. A larger DOF means more distance is in focus; a shallow DOF means less is in focus, and the bokeh (out of focus area) is stronger the further away from the sharp area you are. High aperture numbers, which are smaller holes, give you a greater DOF and more area that's in sharp focus; low apertures are wider holes and have shallower DOF - great for portraits where you want a blurred background but the person nice and crisp.

 

At this point, I would highly recommend looking at some photography basics. Either online or in a book. There are plenty of well written books that cover the basics. Shutter speed, aperture, ISO, DOF and all that should be understood in before spending wads of cash. It would be shame to spend all that money and be turned off in a few weeks because you can't understand what you are doing right and what you are doing wrong.


Edit: post #999, woot!