Lens Upgrade help please

padocon

Hi all,
Thinking of upgrading my lens, I currently have the one that came with the camera. 18-55mm.
Want a better lens then that, and i'm not up to speed with lens.
Is something that produces a sharp photo better (F4+) or lees like (2).

Any help appreciated,
Thanks!

Ricky91t

First thing budget?

Is something that produces a sharp photo better (F4+) or lees like (2).

Don't understand that bit?

Nforce

A fast lens (F4 or less) will provide sharper images if you are shooting fast moving subjects in poor lighting conditions.

Ricky91t

Nforce wrote: »

A fast lens (F4 or less) will provide sharper images if you are shooting fast moving subjects in poor lighting conditions.

Not always true though,Alot of the f/4 or f/2.8 can be soft at their highest aperture

mdebets

You didn't say what type of photos you take and what your budget is.

If you take landscapes, you might want to go for a wider lens and you don't need to worry too much about the aparture if your budget is not too big.
If on the other hand you want to shoot music in loo light conditions, you need a faster lens. Or you need a longer lens if you want to shoot animals.

So if you tell us what type of photos you want to shoot and your budget, we might be better able to help you.

padocon

Ricky91t wrote: »

First thing budget?


Don't understand that bit?

I want something that produces sharp photos, for people pictures, yet not too sharp so that when photographing a flower I get nice background blur

Nforce wrote: »

A fast lens (F4 or less) will provide sharper images if you are shooting fast moving subjects in poor lighting conditions.

Thanks, thats good to know, I guess a bit lower than F4 so, for evening/night, low light pictures.

mdebets wrote: »

You didn't say what type of photos you take and what your budget is.

If you take landscapes, you might want to go for a wider lens and you don't need to worry too much about the aparture if your budget is not too big.
If on the other hand you want to shoot music in loo light conditions, you need a faster lens. Or you need a longer lens if you want to shoot animals.

So if you tell us what type of photos you want to shoot and your budget, we might be better able to help you.

I wouldn't have anything in particular, I like taking pictures of different subjects. From Landscape, Macros, Dogs, People, Portraits ect. Anything really.

Budget: 100euro-200euro I guess.
Too small?

PS Camera: Canon 400D

charybdis

padocon wrote: »

I want something that produces sharp photos, for people pictures, yet not too sharp so that when photographing a flower I get nice background blur


Thanks, thats good to know, I guess a bit lower than F4 so, for evening/night, low light pictures.



I wouldn't have anything in particular, I like taking pictures of different subjects. From Landscape, Macros, Dogs, People, Portraits ect. Anything really.

Budget: 100euro-200euro I guess.
Too small?

You want a fast, reasonably sharp lens that can produce a shallow depth-of-field for 100-200 Euro.

You want a 50mm f/1.8 lens, known as the "dead horse".

It does everything you have specified and at ~100 Euro is easily within your budget. My only caveat would be that you'd probably be better of getting a 35mm f/1.8 lens if you use a Nikon camera as Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 won't autofocus on many of the cheaper Nikon bodies.

A fast 50 is an ideal second lens that will really further your understanding of photography and probably produce some great photographs, and even if you decide you ultimately dislike it, you've invested very little money in one.

Just buy one.

CabanSail

The first thing I think you should ask yourself is where the lens you have at the moment is limiting you.

This is not a critisism, but it sounds to me like you do not fully understand how the optics of the lens you have now operate. The kit lenses are quite capable for most of the general uses that you have specified. You just have to be familiar with how to get the best out of it & take control of the exposure parameters yourself. Buying new lenses, when you do not understand the reasons you need the lenses, will just lower your bank balance.

Anouilh

CabanSail wrote: »

The first thing I think you should ask yourself is where the lens you have at the moment is limiting you.

This is not a critisism, but it sounds to me like you do not fully understand how the optics of the lens you have now operate. The kit lenses are quite capable for most of the general uses that you have specified. You just have to be familiar with how to get the best out of it & take control of the exposure parameters yourself. Buying new lenses, when you do not understand the reasons you need the lenses, will just lower your bank balance.

I'm in the same boat, as my ability to discuss lenses is limited, whereas I'm able to use a kit lens with relative ease.

Surfing the Flickr groups associated with specific lenses is one way to improve knowledge, especially as posters compare different lenses in the discussion sectors.

I came across a useful tip yesterday:

shoot with a kit lens at a set focal length (say 35mm on a crop sensor) for a day and see whether this is the sort of photo one likes (or not).

I've been looking at the Canon 35mm f2 prime, which becomes a "normal" lens on my Digital Rebel and allows for indoor shooting at night. It also has the advantage of allowing for close work as the minimum focusing is about 9 inches. It seems to be used for street photography quite a bit and I would appreciate any advice posters here might have. There is a rumour of a new 30mm Canon prime, designed for crop sensors, but this is not a certainty.

The OP could go into a camera store and try out different lenses and ask for advice.

Ricky91t

charybdis wrote: »

You want a fast, reasonably sharp lens that can produce a shallow depth-of-field for 100-200 Euro.

You want a 50mm f/1.8 lens, known as the "dead horse".

It does everything you have specified and at ~100 Euro is easily within your budget. My only caveat would be that you'd probably be better of getting a 35mm f/1.8 lens if you use a Nikon camera as Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 won't autofocus on many of the cheaper Nikon bodies.

A fast 50 is an ideal second lens that will really further your understanding of photography and probably produce some great photographs, and even if you decide you ultimately dislike it, you've invested very little money in one.

Just buy one.

That's probably the worst recommendation for what the OP is asking,He's looking for a replacement 18-55 something like a sigma 17-70 or 24-70 and you recommend a fixed focal length 50mm lens that he'll have to struggle to use to get group shots of people...

The lens is good but for someone who's looking for an upgrade from the 18-55 the 50mm f/1.8 is not an upgrade..

Anouilh

padocon wrote: »

I want something that produces sharp photos, for people pictures, yet not too sharp so that when photographing a flower I get nice background blur

If you look up DOF and depth of field you will understand a bit better.

A sharp lens relies on good glass and optics for the sharpness.


How you use the lens is what causes background blurring, not the actually sharpness of the lens.

Setting the lens for a shallow depth of field will cause the object in focus to be sharply recorded, while the oof (out of focus) areas will be blurred.

padocon

Thanks for your replays, I know about the aptitude & DOF & manual, raw etc. I understand the F, lower = more blur. I always thought that the glass on the kit lens was not the best. Is there not a lens that will produce quality shots of the above with better glass?

Or can one lens not do all of the above?

Ricky91t

padocon wrote: »

Thanks for your replays, I know about the aptitude & DOF & manual, raw etc. I understand the F, lower = more blur. I always thought that the glass on the kit lens was not the best. Is there not a lens that will produce quality shots of the above with better glass?

Or can one lens not do all of the above?

TBH with your budget they are very few lenses in it,My sigma 20-40 f/2.8 does most of the thing you did but set me back €250 used!Most canon lenses for that range will be way out of your budget and you might want to consider some sigma glass as they are good quality and cheaper than canon!

padocon

Thanks Rich,
I must look into those!

silverside

look around and you should find a used Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for around 200 euro (i paid 150 sterling for mine) and it is a dramatic improvement on the kit lens.

I also have the 50mm f1.8 mentioned - paid about 70 sterling - it is very good picture quality (especially in low light) but it is not an all-round lens, which the OP is looking for.

Ricky91t

silverside wrote: »

look around and you should find a used Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for around 200 euro (i paid 150 sterling for mine) and it is a dramatic improvement on the kit lens.

I also have the 50mm f1.8 mentioned - paid about 70 sterling - it is very good picture quality (especially in low light) but it is not an all-round lens, which the OP is looking for.

+1 to the 17-70 would be better for you as it gives 70mm reach at the long end

padocon

silverside wrote: »

look around and you should find a used Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for around 200 euro (i paid 150 sterling for mine) and it is a dramatic improvement on the kit lens.

I also have the 50mm f1.8 mentioned - paid about 70 sterling - it is very good picture quality (especially in low light) but it is not an all-round lens, which the OP is looking for.

Thanks, the 50mm lens is for macro's and good DOF blur, and low light. I think something like that sigma is the best for me.
Only bad thing about Sigma is when your used to Canon.

Thanks

CabanSail

My lens evolution has gone something like this.

2005 - Nikon 18-70mm & 70-300mm Kit lenses (with the Nikon D70S)

2007 - 18-70mm died. Replaced with Nikon 18-200mm VR. Have not used the 70-300mm much since then.

2008 - Sigma 10-20mm Bought mainly to use for Landscapes but was invaluable for the Kilmainham Gaol project.

2009 - Nikon 50mm f1.8 Well you have to have one, don't you?
Nikon 85mm f1.8 For portrait use in the Studio.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR + TC17 II Convertor. I want to try to get some nature shots here & when I get back to Australia, so this should give me the reach & speed.

That is the present stable,well apart from the 70-200mm which I get to hold for the first time next week when I receive it in Malta

padocon

CabanSail wrote: »

My lens evolution has gone something like this.

2005 - Nikon 18-70mm & 70-300mm Kit lenses (with the Nikon D70S)

2007 - 18-70mm died. Replaced with Nikon 18-200mm VR. Have not used the 70-300mm much since then.

2008 - Sigma 10-20mm Bought mainly to use for Landscapes but was invaluable for the Kilmainham Gaol project.

2009 - Nikon 50mm f1.8 Well you have to have one, don't you?
Nikon 85mm f1.8 For portrait use in the Studio.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR + TC17 II Convertor. I want to try to get some nature shots here & when I get back to Australia, so this should give me the reach & speed.

That is the present stable,well apart from the 70-200mm which I get to hold for the first time next week when I receive it in Malta

I have a cannon so, don't think they will fit. Pitty

CabanSail

padocon wrote: »

I have a cannon so, don't think they will fit. Pitty

Well you can't help that now you are already committed.

It was just to illustrate adding lenses when the need (and available budget) are there.

Ricky91t

padocon wrote: »

Thanks, the 50mm lens is for macro's and good DOF blur, and low light. I think something like that sigma is the best for me.
Only bad thing about Sigma is when your used to Canon.

Thanks

The 50mm isn't the best for macro's as the minimum focusing distance isn't the best,Very little difference between low spec canon/sigma lenses you'll only notice the difference if you're using a canon L and a sigma lens..

padocon

Ricky91t wrote: »

The 50mm isn't the best for macro's as the minimum focusing distance isn't the best,Very little difference between low spec canon/sigma lenses you'll only notice the difference if you're using a canon L and a sigma lens..

The bigest one for me is that canon twist opposite to sigma.
Its fine if both lens is sigma, but 1 canon and 1 sigma is a bit auquard.

Ricky91t

padocon wrote: »

The bigest one for me is that canon twist opposite to sigma.
Its fine if both lens is sigma, but 1 canon and 1 sigma is a bit auquard.

Not a major issue really and it will only take a second to notice your error,As the end of the day,You either go for sigma or buy the canon equivalent for a lot more just to save you a tiny bit of hassle

Heres some images shot with the 17-70 anyway http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=270

padocon

Ricky91t wrote: »

Not a major issue really and it will only take a second to notice your error,As the end of the day,You either go for sigma or buy the canon equivalent for a lot more just to save you a tiny bit of hassle

Heres some images shot with the 17-70 anyway http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=270

Ya your dead right Rich, I'd get used to it.

charybdis

Ricky91t wrote: »

That's probably the worst recommendation for what the OP is asking,He's looking for a replacement 18-55 something like a sigma 17-70 or 24-70 and you recommend a fixed focal length 50mm lens that he'll have to struggle to use to get group shots of people...

The lens is good but for someone who's looking for an upgrade from the 18-55 the 50mm f/1.8 is not an upgrade..

I didn't mean to suggest the 50mm would be a direct replacement for the kit lens. Given his budget and unfamiliarity with different lenses, I don't think a marginal upgrade of the kit lens is a worthwhile exercise and was suggesting a lens that I thought would compliment his kit lens and further his understanding of photography.

I do not recommend seeking out an inexpensive, marginal kit lens upgrade as you are unlikely to see much difference in the results without understanding the subtle differences between them.

The 50mm is well within budget, meets many of the criteria, and will be able to produce significantly different images to those of the kit lens. Even if you decide to get a slightly better lens with a similar focal range to the kit lens, I still recommend you by a cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens.