# dSLR lenses...



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

From another thread, I figure I'd present what I have an what I use it for.

I own several lenses:
- 18-55 kit. It's not used much.
- 24-70/2.8 - the 2.8 means it lets lots of light in. Payoff is that it weighs 800g. Front end is also 82mm in diameter.
- 50mm /2.8 macro - very close focus distances are possible here and that's what I tend to use it for. 
- 28mm /3.5 - old manual lens I use for video
- 135/3.5 - old manual lens I use when I want something small and light and reasonably telephoto. Don't use this much, either.
- 100-300/4 - most used lens at the moment, but it's a monster, over 8" long and 1.5kg. Needs a monopod and with its hood is a seriously imposing beastie. Does lovely things, though....


What I'd like in addition to these and why:
- 10-17 fisheye. Why? Because you get 180 degrees crushed into one picture. I don't think I'd use it much - I've had a 10-24 before and didn't get on with it. Alternative might be the 16-45/4 as this is convenient - either that or a 17-50/2.8.
- 70-200 / 2.8: sometimes the 100-300 is simply too long. 
- 50-135/2.8: indoor, conference / wedding photography: this is *the* lens range for people. Flattering portraits without having to get in their face. And 2.8 means it's easy to isolate away from a background.

When I photograph events, I have to have the 18mm end available for group photos. The 50 does the macro bits really nicely - so very close-up closeups of stuff and people - and the 100-300 enables candids from the other side of the room if necessary.

Remember that lenses have a price tag for a reason and cheap stuff is cheap because it generally ain't good.

I've seen and used an excellent 18-250. Some large zoom range zooms are very good but most are questionable at best - so test it before you buy it!

Sample shots from different lenses I'll post later. 

Bret


----------



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

what would you suggest a good lens for taking pics of cars? swirls and after pics please? 

youve seriously got me looking at the 60D and EVEN the 7D now, might flog my pot of vintage which i dont really use anymore and put it into a decent camera setup that i will get lots more use of


----------



## drive 'n' shine (Apr 22, 2006)

ianFRST said:


> what would you suggest a good lens for taking pics of cars? swirls and after pics please?
> 
> youve seriously got me looking at the 60D and EVEN the 7D now, might flog my pot of vintage which i dont really use anymore and put it into a decent camera setup that i will get lots more use of


24-70 2.8 is the one I use most, that's on a a full frame camera though, maybe a 17-50 2.8 on a DX body, although I do find it easier to use my compact p&s camera for capturing swirls, especially when using a handheld light source!


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

I can understand a 17-50, especially if it's "macro" - which in this context simply means that focussing is closer than it might otherwise be the case. If it's a single all-purpose quality lens you want, then that's probably the baby (for a 7d, that's the Canon 17-55 / 2.8 IS). Lovely lens. Some shots from it here: http://www.23hq.com/bretti_kivi/album/6295334 (cam is a 7d we have at work).

17 allows you to get most of the car in without stepping too far back or introducing distortion - which is the point of many ultra-wide-angle lenses and especially the 'fish - and may will allow you to get to 0.3x magnification, which should be enough for swirls.
I'd honestly suggest renting a 17-55, though, and see what it does for you on the body you currently have. I figured I'd love the 10-24 and yes, I have a couple of great shots from it, but it was far more work than I assumed and as a result it got left in the bag a lot. Not good. I lost some on that deal, not much, but enough to have justified renting it first.

Bret


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

For those who are reading and wondering: sensor sizes make a big difference to the angle of view that a lens presents (which is obvious if you think about it). It also affects the depth of field - so the amount of the picture which is in focus; the bigger the sensor, the smaller the DoF and the wider the angle of view. Small sensor = less DoF, "longer" telephoto.

Full Frame sensors are the same size as 35mm film was. Canon 5D, Nikon D700 fall here. 
APS-C sensors are 1.5 or so times smaller (trust me on this); these are in the NEX-5, K5, A55, D7000, 7D, 60D etc. 
Larger sensors *tend* to be better with noise, but this is not always true. It certainly holds for most compacts, where they pack 30 million sensors (1 per red, green, and blue x 10million pixels) onto a sensor not much bigger than a thumbnail. 

Bret


----------



## ocatoro (Oct 3, 2011)

i have a cruddy nikon dx 18-55mm kit lens that come with my d50...

and as im a poor-ist who can't afford new lenses i have a 1:1.8 55mm petri lens from the early 70s. and an 80-200mm sunagor mc from the 80s. 

neither has autofocus and both are great quality i can easily attribute the best photos ive taken with my d50 to these two lenses. and the best bit they cost me a grand total of £37 all in, and the petri came attached to a late petri ttl slr too


----------



## MR Ray (Jun 29, 2007)

I just have a 18-55mm kit lens but on the look out for an all round lens. thinking 18-200mm or 24-300mm


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I have but 3 dream lenses.

85mm F1.4D
70-200mm F2.8 VRII
135mm F2 DC

All Nikkor.

I already have the 35mm f1.8 that is as wide as i need to go really.

Those 4 would do everything i could want ever.


----------



## RP Stevie (Jan 24, 2007)

On the subject of lens I just bought a Canon G12 which 'only' has a 10MP lens. Is this because the sensor is bigger?

The pictures seem to me to be better than the pictures from my old 12MP Fuji S8000FD bridge camera.

Stephen


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Stevie, the 10MP refers to the sensor, not the lens.

Although the Canon has 10MP not 12MP, the sensor may be of a newer design and resolves the image better or the lens infront of the sensor may be better.

If you imagine the sensor to be like the film in an old camera, the sensor will only produce an image as good as the lens infront of it projects. Hence why we are all drooling over really nice lenses.

Our sensors in our cameras are capable enough.


----------



## RP Stevie (Jan 24, 2007)

Cheers Gruff, thought that was it. I'm tempted to buy the telephoto lens but I don't think I really need it. Only 1.4 magnification anyway. So glad I didn't buy an D-SLR - would have cost me a fortune!


----------



## nickfrog (Nov 29, 2010)

RP Stevie said:


> On the subject of lens I just bought a Canon G12 which 'only' has a 10MP lens. Is this because the sensor is bigger?
> 
> The pictures seem to me to be better than the pictures from my old 12MP Fuji S8000FD bridge camera.
> 
> Stephen


Manufacturers are now realising that too high a pixel density is not particularly a good thing, especially on small sensors, as they are only so many photons available for each photosite. The amount of MP has nothing to do with quality, it just allows you to print bigger or crop smaller.


----------



## EddieB (May 13, 2006)

I own the following for my 500D

Canon - 17-55mm kit lens - it's ok nowt to write home about
Canon - 50mm F1.8 - awesome peice of kit for the price - I'm at the age where I go to about 6 or 7 weddings a year and this is the lens I use.
Canon - 55 to 250mm - I use this lens quite a bit although I did buy it originally purely for motorsport shots.


Now I am looking to the future I want to ensure that all my lenses fit a full frame body. 

My wish list are:

Wide anlge lens - something like the Sigma 10-20mm - although this isn't a full frame lens so might have to pay a bit more and get the Canon.

Macro Lens - love macro shots so want to get myself a half descent Macro Lens

Then I want to upgrade my 17-55mm lens at some point...

Photography is such an expensive hobby!


----------



## buckas (Jun 13, 2008)

*Static stuff*

*Landscape kit - 1 body*

9 times out of 10 is 5D Mark II with 17-40/4 (sometimes 24-70 for a bit of distance compression), LEE WA Adaptor, LEE Foundation Kit & LEE Grads/ND/Big Stopper (sometimes Hoya CPL), Benro Tripod & Ballhead, Shutter release

*Wedding kit - 2 bodies*

24-70 stuck to the 5D Mark II most of the day, I'd say 99% of the photos taken during my weddings are with this pairing

70-200/2.8 IS lives on the 7D, and might swap to the 5D2 if I need the length along with low light capabilities of the 5D2

*Portrait session, high key pets/babies etc - 1 body*

Again, pretty much 24-70 stuck to the 5D Mark II - rarely use anything longer or wider

*Moving Stuff*

*Indoor horse jumping at my local - 2 bodies*

Always 7D & 70-200/2.8 IS, sometimes 24-70 on the 5D2 (second body) if action is closer - always low light so generally shooting 3200 ISO minimum to get the shutter speed up

*Local triathlon - 2 bodies*

Generally 7D & 24-70 for runners and then swap to 7D & 70-200/2.8 IS for cycling/swimming

*Motorsport - 1 body

Always 7D & 70-200/2.8 IS - sometimes have done 7D & 24-70 for closer action....and even sometimes 7D & 17-40/4 but tend to be on very close corners for those when trying to include a good background

Birding & Wildlife

7D & 300/2.8 IS with extender sometimes (making 420/4 IS) - mostly on the fly handheld, but sometimes use Benro Tripod & Gimbal head or just Gimbal head clamped with Manfrotto Superclamp in hides to the bench

Airshows - 2 bodies

7D & 300/2.8 IS for in flight shots & 5D2 with 24-70 for wides (red arrow displays etc)

drew *


----------

