Help Please - Lenses explained - for the Newbies to DSLR

HighWire

Ok so my Dad had a Nikon EM which he kindly let me borrow a long time ago
I did a photography course with it, and I have two digital cameras,
a Kodak DX7590 and Z1485IS, both have 5x optical zoom.
The two cameras are autofocus (which can be painful sometimes) they both have nice manual settings, but the autofocus is killing me which is why I want a DSLR.
But I want a DSLR, now Im caught between Nikon D60, Canon 1000d or 450d.
But here's the problem. While I have a basic understanding of photography

I havent a bogs when it comes to lenses.

So could some kind soul out there explain???
Im just lost when I read things like this on Pixmania
EF-S 18-55 IS Lens
EF-S 55-250 IS Lens
AF-S DX VR NIKKOR 18-55 mm Lens
AF-S VR DX 55-200 mm Lens

Rb

EF-S is a line of lenses by Canon designed specifically for their EOS cameras with cropped sensors i.e 450D, 400D etc. It's a smaller mount and the lenses are generally lighter and cheaper. They also have the EF lenses, which are generally a better quality of build and are also more expensive. An APC sensor (cropped) will happily use the EF lenses and EF-S lenses, however full frame Canons will not be able to use the EF-S series (such as the 5D)

18-55, 55-250, 75-300 is the focal length in mm of the lens. On a cropped sensor, such as the 450D, they have a longer effective length (1.6x on the 450D for example) making a 300mm lens 480.

IS = Image Stabilisation in Canon lenses. Speaks for itself really but from what I've read only makes a difference after 135mm. You'll notice from shopping around that non-IS lenses are signficantly cheaper than their IS counterparts and generally with good reason too.

I don't know much about Nikon but I'm fairly sure it's quite similar, with VR meaning Vibration Reduction.

HighWire

Cool thanks for that reply.
So the kodak I have which is 38-380mm so 10x optical zoom.
I know its not the same, but trying to get my head around it.
and on the other one there IS, so it has built in image stabilisation.

Does that mean though that the IS is in the lens or the camera has it?

The kids play a lot of ball, what type of lens would you recommend getting
for that something like?
I had a look on pixmania and some of the lenses are more than the camera.
6737 for a Canon EF 500mm f/4 IS USM

See now I get the 500mm but why is there an f/4 with it and USM?

Does Canon have a brand name lens, like Nikkor for Nikon?

nilhg

Some reading, should answer most of your questions.

F4 is the maximum aperture, and USM refers to the focusing mechanism, it being faster and more precise than the standard form.

Rb

HighWire wrote: »

Cool thanks for that reply.
So the kodak I have which is 38-380mm so 10x optical zoom.
I know its not the same, but trying to get my head around it.
and on the other one there IS, so it has built in image stabilisation.

Does that mean though that the IS is in the lens or the camera has it?

The kids play a lot of ball, what type of lens would you recommend getting
for that something like?
I had a look on pixmania and some of the lenses are more than the camera.
6737 for a Canon EF 500mm f/4 IS USM

See now I get the 500mm but why is there an f/4 with it and USM?

Does Canon have a brand name lens, like Nikkor for Nikon?

Canon produces their own lenses (which are the best for optics and build quality overall) but you can get cheaper third party lenses which are great too, such as Sigma and Tamron.

IS is in the actual lens itself and will obviously not be present in non-IS lenses.

F4, as said, is the maximum aperture. The wider the aperture, the more light hitting the sensor so the less time needed to capture the exposure i.e faster shutter speeds. At the moment my longest lens is a 55-250mm IS lens which preforms at f4 (at 55mm) up to 5.6 at 250mm (although I'm using a cropped sensor camera so this is effectively longer).

If, for example, I wanted to go to an evening/night/floodlit football match with this and get some good action shots, I'd be severly limited because at 250mm (5.6) and low light, I'd have to leave the shutter open for a relatively significant amount of time which just won't really cut it in a fast moving game such as football, rugby etc.

This is where you get prime lenses like the one you mentioned which have nice, wide (fixed) apertures at long focal lengths enabling the photographer to avail of fast shutter speeds under such conditions combined with a body with good frames per second capabilities, they can get the shots that make the money.

Regarding which lens to get for football, it really depends on what you want from it and where you'll be using it the most. There's a load of people much more qualified to recommend a lens for this as I'm still a newbie myself. It certainly wouldn't hurt if you could give a broad budget you'd be aiming for.

You'll pay a lot more for USM in general in any lens either.

HighWire

On the kodak I have DX7590 I get 30X total zoom
10X optical zoom, 6.32-63.2 mm (35 mm equivalent: 38-380 mm)
3X advanced digital zoom

If I use the full 30x with digital it comes out ok, but goes down in MP.

So I'd be looking to get similar close up in lens for a DSLR if at all possible.

For money I've about 700 in total for camera and lens.
Not sure if thats workable or not.

nilhg

HighWire wrote: »

On the kodak I have DX7590 I get 30X total zoom
10X optical zoom, 6.32-63.2 mm (35 mm equivalent: 38-380 mm)
3X advanced digital zoom

If I use the full 30x with digital it comes out ok, but goes down in MP.

So I'd be looking to get similar close up in lens for a DSLR if at all possible.

For money I've about 700 in total for camera and lens.
Not sure if thats workable or not.

If it's zoom you want at that money you wont beat this or if you can slightly exceed your budget look here, you wont get better and because the e520 has inbody IS the lenses are stabilised.

Keep away from digital zoom, it's only a cheap trick.

kumate_champ07

nilhg wrote: »

If it's zoom you want at that money you wont beat this or if you can slightly exceed your budget look here, you wont get better and because the e520 has inbody IS the lenses are stabilised.

Keep away from digital zoom, it's only a cheap trick.

u can get the e520 and both kit lenses for alot cheaper than 700euro new. i had that kit but with the e510. eventually sold it on because there was too much noise in above iso800.

id recommend a canon eos 40d and a canon prime lens while you save up for a zoom. untill then use your feet to 'zoom' . for 700euro u should be able to get a 40d and ef 50mm f1.8. im not a fan of the ef50 f1.8 but it will get the job done. warehouseexpress has the 40d on sale now

Rb

To be honest, you'd be better off keeping an eye on adverts.ie and picking up a well kept second hand 350D, 400D, 450D, 20D or 30D and a lens or two with that. Your 700 will go a lot further that way and there's some real bargains on adverts.

Forde-fotos

I would personaly recommend that you go for a Canon 40D and a Canon 70-200mm F/2.8. This is the best zoom lense available today. Also save yourself about 300 euro by going for the non IS version. I have IS on one of my lenses and I never ever use it. You deffinatelly will not need it for sport photography.

However to match your budget you could go for either the 400D or 450D and get a good copy of a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. You could pick these two up off e-bay for around 800-900.

kumate_champ07

Forde-fotos wrote: »

I would personaly recommend that you go for a Canon 40D and a Canon 70-200mm F/2.8. This is the best zoom lense available today. Also save yourself about 300 euro by going for the non IS version. I have IS on one of my lenses and I never ever use it. You deffinatelly will not need it for sport photography.

However to match your budget you could go for either the 400D or 450D and get a good copy of a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. You could pick these two up off e-bay for around 800-900.

an ef 70-200f2.8 wont suit everyone. if i could only have 1 lense it wouldnt be that. on a 450d its gonna be unbalanced. and on an eos 1d series which it would go with best the weight combined is over 3kg. and 70-200 will end up bein 112mm-320mm. what about wide angle, normal, and medium telephoto? most important focal lengths in photography


if i had to pick a second hand canon id go for the eos 20d. it actually performs better than the 30d in low light and around the same as the 40d. 8mp is plenty. you can pick them up for 250euro.
but for new id buy the 40d

kumate_champ07

HighWire wrote: »

s in the lens or the camera has it?

The kids play a lot of ball, what type of lens would you recommend getting
for that something like?

in that case a canon eos 20d and ef70-200mm f4. that lens is much lighter than the f2.8 and its actually sharper. the f4 IS version is sharper again but a few hundred euro extra and not really needed for sport. the autofocus of the 20d would be better than 400 or 450d, for sport good autofocus is needed

nilhg

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

u can get the e520 and both kit lenses for alot cheaper than 700euro new. i had that kit but with the e510. eventually sold it on because there was too much noise in above iso800.

id recommend a canon eos 40d and a canon prime lens while you save up for a zoom. untill then use your feet to 'zoom' . for 700euro u should be able to get a 40d and ef 50mm f1.8. im not a fan of the ef50 f1.8 but it will get the job done. warehouseexpress has the 40d on sale now

The first link I gave the OP is both kit lenses for 465 sterling, the other is the 14-42 and the 70-300.
He did ask for advice on a high zoom range with reasonable wide angle, advising him to get a 50 f1.8 is really not much use to him.
If really good high ISO is important to him then an Oly wont be the no one choice but then his budget for comparable zoom will be blown out of the water, like everything else in life, choosing a camera is about making compromises about what is important to you, besides if you are careful about your exposure and spend a little time in PP ISO 800 (even 1600) is very usable and would certainly blow any bridge model (like he has) out of the water.

Rb wrote: »

To be honest, you'd be better off keeping an eye on adverts.ie and picking up a well kept second hand 350D, 400D, 450D, 20D or 30D and a lens or two with that. Your 700 will go a lot further that way and there's some real bargains on adverts.

Hardly if he wants the zoom range, you are forgetting that the Oly's will be stabilized.

Forde-fotos wrote: »

I would personaly recommend that you go for a Canon 40D and a Canon 70-200mm F/2.8. This is the best zoom lense available today. Also save yourself about 300 euro by going for the non IS version. I have IS on one of my lenses and I never ever use it. You deffinatelly will not need it for sport photography.

However to match your budget you could go for either the 400D or 450D and get a good copy of a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. You could pick these two up off e-bay for around 800-900.

What about his wide angle?

Rb

nilhg wrote: »

The first link I gave the OP is both kit lenses for 465 sterling, the other is the 14-42 and the 70-300.
He did ask for advice on a high zoom range with reasonable wide angle, advising him to get a 50 f1.8 is really not much use to him.
If really good high ISO is important to him then an Oly wont be the no one choice but then his budget for comparable zoom will be blown out of the water, like everything else in life, choosing a camera is about making compromises about what is important to you, besides if you are careful about your exposure and spend a little time in PP ISO 800 (even 1600) is very usable and would certainly blow any bridge model (like he has) out of the water.



Hardly if he wants the zoom range, you are forgetting that the Oly's will be stabilized.



What about his wide angle?

Something like this would surely be sufficient, then spend the balance on a good body?

nilhg

Rb wrote: »

Something like this would surely be sufficient, then spend the balance on a good body?

For 100 sterling more, the first link I gave the OP gives two very good lenses and (even though it doesn't have Canon or Nikon on it) a good body.

Anouilh

I've started having nightmares about prime lenses, the choice is so great and, when you throw in the crop factor on my Digital Rebel (Canon eos 400d), a bit puzzling.

You might find news of a new Canon interesting:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/02/500d-ef-s-30-f2/

A lens is usually chosen for the sort of photos one wishes to take.
Do others here think that the new 30mm f/2 with an EF-S mount would be useful for street photography.

Then there is the question of whether or not it will be available as a separate lens or will be offered as part of a kit.

kumate_champ07

nilhg wrote: »

The first link I gave the OP is both kit lenses for 465 sterling, the other is the 14-42 and the 70-300.

i bought an e510 with 40-150 and 14-42 for 550euro 2 years ago, new.

did u mean both lenses or the camera and both lenses?

464sterling for e520 with 14-42 and 40-150
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1026833



the camera alone is 320sterling so you are getting 2 great lenses for an extra 144 which is a bargain. i loved both lenses, only problem is i needed f2.8 or better, but image quality was great for the price and bokeh was smooth

kumate_champ07

Anouilh wrote: »

I've started having nightmares about prime lenses, the choice is so great and, when you throw in the crop factor on my Digital Rebel (Canon eos 400d), a bit puzzling.

You might find news of a new Canon interesting:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/02/500d-ef-s-30-f2/

A lens is usually chosen for the sort of photos one wishes to take.
Do others here think that the new 30mm f/2 with an EF-S mount would be useful for street photography.

Then there is the question of whether or not it will be available as a separate lens or will be offered as part of a kit.

the 500d came out a few months ago i think. that lens sounds nice, its always cheaper to buy it with the camera but they will sell it separately.

and it would be perfect for street photography. 35-50mm is what is considered the best focal length for street photography as you are closer to the subject/s, its better to be in the action rather than observe it from afar with a telephoto lens

HighWire

Thanks for all the feedback, gives me a lot to think about.
Both on the camera front ie which make to buy, then either
new or second hand.
Then on the lenses thanks for the advice of staying awy from digital zoom. There are so many different types to choose from so its great
to get some advice from people with more experience.
I had a look through all the links, and tbh I still havent made up my mind,
though the thought of having a brand new DSLR is appealing, I can get
a bit more if I go second hand for my budget.
Then again I could just save up more money

Thanks again for the advice.

Anouilh

Forde-fotos wrote: »

I would personaly recommend that you go for a Canon 40D and a Canon 70-200mm F/2.8. This is the best zoom lense available today. Also save yourself about 300 euro by going for the non IS version. I have IS on one of my lenses and I never ever use it. You deffinatelly will not need it for sport photography.

However to match your budget you could go for either the 400D or 450D and get a good copy of a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. You could pick these two up off e-bay for around 800-900.

Although I got a good deal (for the time) on a Canon eos 400d and kit lens, I think you might do well by looking at the Nikon system.

The D40 is a really nice camera and this lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

it would give some much needed zoom for sports and natural history subjects that are at a distance.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3468526621/in/photostream/

So far, all my lenses are zoom and I'm studying primes with almost forensic interest.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/primes/discuss/72157600006047386/

If you plan to graduate from a small sensor camera to a full frame digital, be sure to buy lenses that will be compatible.

HighWire

Anouilh wrote: »

So far, all my lenses are zoom and I'm studying primes with almost forensic interest.

Just wondering what is the difference betwee "zoom" and "prime"?
Told you I was a newbie

Anouilh

HighWire wrote: »

Just wondering what is the difference betwee "zoom" and "prime"?
Told you I was a newbie

That is quite easy. A zoom lens does just that... it can change focal length.
For example a 70-300 zoom offers a choice from 70mm to 300mm.

A prime is a fixed focal length lens and is useful in low light situations as it allows a lot more light in than an average zoom lens.

At the moment I'm trying to work out the best prime to buy for my Digital Rebel, which has a crop sensor.

I've almost decided on the Canon 35mm f2, but could do with some advice. I need to look to the future and get a lens that can be used on a full frame body.

If you read the discussion pages on Flickr it helps build up understanding of what is available.

Photo.net is good too:

http://photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00DuHo

There is also the question of whether a lens is "fast" or "slow". I haven't worked that out fully, but when buying, the lower the F number on the lens, the faster it will be and the more useful for night photography, astrophotography and sports.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-55714.html

If you have a Flick account, asking questions there will help.