Another Equipment Question

[JohnRushing]

Ok well I let go of the money for a camera body and now I'm looking at lens. I hope I don't get flamed for my choice of cameras after all the very appreciated advice I recieved on here. I ended up going with the Canon 20D mostly because I really like the way it felt. It was heavier and just felt better to me than a lighter camera. I really liked the Nikons and it was a very hard decission to make but I really think I will be happy with it.

My question now is about the different lenes out there. I have been seeing Some canon EF lens that said "L" type. The one thing I do know is they are quite a bit higher and of course they look more along the professional line. What is the advatage of these lenes? I doubt very seriously I will be dropping the money for one of these right away unless I get an extremly good deal on one but maybe in the near future. I plan on looking then up on the net tonight but figured there was probably a few out there using then and they could give me the laymans terms. The camera cam with a 50mm but I will be adding a couple of lens to it in the next few weeks.

Another question. Does anyone use filters with their digital cameras or is it all done through a photo program? Man I have been out of this for to many years and it seems eveything has changed now that digital has came along.

Thanks in advance for the help. Hopefully pretty soon I will get to meet some of you.

John

[cmalana]

It would be easier to first understand what kind of photos you plan on taking and what your budget for lenses is going to be. I don't use filters since I can simulate most of it through post-processing (and I shoot RAW).

which 50mm do you already have?

[Jim Victory]

We will gladly help you spend your money. :lol:

I have a pretty extensive collection of Canon lenses and one by Sigma and Tamron. In addition I have had the pleasure of using allot of different Canon lenses and have own every "L" lens except the 400 f/2.8L IS and 600 f/4L IS. Having said that there are plenty of less expensive lenses out there that will give you great results.

The first thing you need to consider is your photographic interest and budget. I certainly wouldn't advocate you go out and buy all "L" lenses if it is not within your budget. Canon makes some really nice consumer level lenses that perform just as good as the "L's" and so does Sigma and Tamron.

Go slow and make sure you spend your money wisely so you don't find yourself strapped for cash or unsatisfied with the performance of your equipment.

First decide what focal lengths you will need and whether you want zooms or primes.

Filters are a personal choice and most people use them more for protection of their front element than for their effect. I don't use them because I don't like having anything on my lens that may degrade the image. I use hoods to protect the front element and UV filters in extreme environmental conditions like blowing rain or sand.

[JohnRushing]

I seem to have a talent for finding people that will help me spend my money. J/K, everyone on here has been very helpful. I haven't done much photograhpy since the late 90's and most of it was landscapes. I really want to get into portraits and anything involving people. When I sold my atv and dirt bike (had to do because of a back injury) I set aside $3000 for some camera equipment. After buying the body I have a little over $1500 for some lens. Forgot to mention that I purchased a flash tonight of ebay. I already have a Bogen tripod and fluid head left over from my 35mm stuff so thats one less thing I will need to buy. I don't plan on buying any L lens for a while or at least until I get some more experiance and increase any talent I might have, someday I probably will but not right now. I do want to buy good quality lens so I'm going to stick with the canon brand or at least a good brand. What exactly is the benefit of the "L" lens over the regular lens?

[swanny338]

Originally Posted by JohnRushing

What exactly is the benefit of the "L" lens over the regular lens?

Build quality, sharpness, contrast, color, apeture is normally better, glass is freaking awesome... most of the canon L lenses are weather sealed
and bokeh is normally much better, nice and smooth

[suzyjazz]

The lenses I have are all Canon: 18-55 EF-S, 50 1.8, 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS, 70-200 f4 L. It all depends on what you want to shoot. I got the 50 1.8 because I didn't have an external flash and I needed a fast lens to take pics indoors (particularly of the dog). It was so cheap that I bought it very quickly. Next was the 28-135 which I use a lot while traveling and at the park. It's versatile and performs well. My main interest is in nature and animals, so I sprung for the 70-200 much sooner than expected. It's still not long enough, but it will have to do for quite some time. I'm very happy with it. The pics are clear and sharp and give you more elbow room for cropping. If I ever win the lottery the first thing I will do is buy the 100-400 L! I won't be upgrading a wide angle lens for a very long time because that just isn't my focus. I don't have much experience but I thought I'd share my lineup in case that helps you.

[cmalana]

$1500 and you want to shoot portraits and people - can definitely be done.

I'd recommend the ff:

Canon 50mm/f1.8 II (decent portrait lens)
Either a Canon 85mm/f1.8 or 100mm/f2.8 Macro - half body and head portraits
You'll have room for 2 more lenses, maybe 3.
18-55 for a wide angle when needed (if you have a flash, you can stop this down...and just keep using wider end)
and a Sigma 70-200/f2.8 paired with a 1.4TC (versatile zoom) or forget the Teleconverter and just pick up a versatile zoom for days you don't want to lug equipment (I like the 28-135 IS).


that should be right around your budget especially if you are patient and look for good deals. It'll leave you well-covered and have the ability to take very high quality people shots. I didn't leave you anything longer than 280mm, but that's probably all you'll need for now.

Of course, if you look at my equipment, you'll see most of my recommendation (except I do have a Tamron 17-35 to cover the wide angle side instead of the 18-55). My next lens will be a Sigma 70-200/f2.8...at least until I can afford a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS.

Hope that helps.

[Jim Victory]

Here is a good set of lenses in your price range and it takes you from 17mm - 200mm with quality glass. Who said you couldn't afford "L" glass?

70-200 f/4L: $568.97 - $25 rebate = $543.97 shipped.

http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/fr...ate=06_21_2005

17-40 f/4L: $679.63 - $25 rebate = $654.63 shipped

http://www.canogacamera.com/e/env/00...m=invnew:50855

50 f/1.4: $313.80 - $15 rebate = $298.80 shipped

http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/fr...ate=06_21_2005


That is a total of $1562.40 - $65 rebates = $1497.40

That gives you two very good "L" lenses and an excellent low light lens for under $1500.

All of the online stores listed are very reliable. I have spent thousands of dollars with them on cameras and lenses.

[dminton]

Heres an actual answer. The "L" originaly stood for luxury. L lenses have low dispersion glass which means, there is less chromatic abberation and better resolution. Chromatic Abberation is the when light rays go through a piece of glass and not all wavelengths travel at the same speed. Red dissapears first, which is why lenses that have bad CA give a purple or green hue to hard egdes. the second advatnage of L lenses is the autofocus mechnics. All L lenses have the ring type USM (ultra sonic motor) which spin a ring which moves the focusing elements of the lens. (They are all internal focus.) the major advantage of the Ring USM is fulltime manual focusing. There is no need to flick a switch to go manual, you just move the focus ring. Lastly are the build quality and larger apetures. Even the lowliest of L lenses, the 17-35 f4 and the 70-200 f4, are still L quality and will out perform anything made by Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina.