# Beginners Lens Guide?



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

There are lots of beginners like me on the forum who are just getting into DLSR photography and perhaps looking at getting extra lenses. I guess i could join a photography forum to answer these queries, but i'm sure i'm not alone in only being a member of a couple of forums (my choice being detailing and car related). Besides which, it is evident there are some very knowledgeable photo chaps on DW who's opinion and advise is welcomed and respected.

So chaps, any chance of a noddy guide to lenses? I've fallen into the Canon camp, but it doesn't have to be brand specific. 

The reason this has come about is that i've got Canon 18-55 and Tamron 55 to 200mm which i got in a deal when i bought the camera, My lad had a gymnastics competition recently and whilst i got some great shots, the 200mm zoom wasn't quite enough, so i thought maybe to get one up to 300mm. Prices of the Canon alone vary massively depending on the "f" number, macro and other things, and this is where i'm getting confused.

I think it would be useful if someone could explain the variations in layman's terms, why one f range is so differently priced to another and so on.

To kind of explain what i'm getting at, Jessops (as an example) have the following 300mm Canon lenses all at very different prices (although i understand the "L" is a professional range, hence so much more money). But why is the 100-300 £50 more than the 75-300 when it has less range.

Canon EF 75-300 Mm f4/5.6 MK3 Non USM - £160
Canon EF 75-300mm f4/5.6 USM MK3 - £200
Canon EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM - £250
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - £380
Canon EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 DO IS USM - £900
Canon EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 L IS USM - £1550

Then there is the Macro etc and how all that works.

What do you reckon then chaps?


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

I am happy to do a guide, i'll get one done in the next day or so...


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

:thumb:


----------



## point blank (Dec 4, 2006)

I bought a 400d on Tuesday so this will be a big help to me aswell as I know very little about DSLR's at the moment.


----------



## GTV (Feb 13, 2008)

As a rule of thumb the smaller the F number of the lens the better, but as you will also discover the bigger the price. A fast lens i.e. one with a smaller F rating such as a 300mm F2.8 will cost a lot more than a 300mm F5.6 etc...

So why is a small F rating better, well its all to do with the amount of light entering the lens (the more the better), this a ratio of focal length (say 300mm) to the diameter of the lens. A bigger diameter lens lets in more light than a smaller diameter lens. So a 300mm F2.8 lens would require a diameter of roughly 100mm (F = Focal Length divided by Diameter) that is a big lens! By contrast a F5.6 300mm will be roughly half that diameter and a lot less in price. This is a rule of thumb the reality is probably slightly different as lenses are incredibly complex pieces of engineering. The precision require to make a large diameter lens is pretty immense and this is why they cost more!

What does all this mean in real life - The more light you have entering the lens the faster shutter speed and smaller aperture you can choose (generally desirable but not always). Faster shutter speeds minimise camera shake, smaller apertures give you a greater depth of field (object that are close and far are in focus) good for landscapes. Sometimes you may want to focus on a specific object and have everything else out of focus to do this you would use a wide aperture (smaller F number on your aperture ring). Many times I find myself with too much light entering the lens and having to resort to ND filters or change to a slower lens.

Do you need a fast (low F number) lens - probably not but this would depend on what you doing and how you use your camera. My advice is always spend as much as you can afford on a good lens. I'm amazed at the amount of people I have met over the years who think nothing of spending £1000 on a camera body and then dumping a £100 lens on it. The camera body will have very little effect on the quality of your pictures. Although the validity o this is skewing slight with DSLRs compared to 35mm SLRs - the sensor and electronics now come in to play. But in in my experience I find very little if any difference between my NikonD200 and my Nikon D70 using the same lens.

Getting back to the point spend as much as you afford on a lens but keep a check on reality! If you look at the pro lens you mention above it has a huge range 28-300 and a small F rating hence the price! Unless you really want to spend the money I would leave this lens.

To recap smaller F numbers with longer lens equal bigger diameter, higher precision lenses which cost a lot to manufacture!

It really is very hard to advise on what to buy. You really need to read some reviews of the lenses before you buy to get a feel for how they perform. If you can shoot some test shots using the lenses your interested in shot them at both ends of the zoom and also the middle. Shoot with wide and small apertures. Then look at the pictures on your PC and see what you think. Zoom up close on the detail in Photoshop (or your photo software) and see what you think. I always do this when i buy any piece of photographic gear - even 35mm I will always run a roll through! 

Just to confuse you remember a good lenses doesn't necessarily have to be an expensive lens which i realise contradicts what I have said previously - but a good non expensive lens can be hard to find.

I don't think that really answers you question does it!


----------



## fraz1975 (Jul 29, 2007)

Cheers GTV that makes a lot of sense in newbie or layman terms, thanks for your input


----------



## dsolds (Feb 13, 2008)

Just to add to the above, don't forget the aftermarket lenses. I have several DSLR's, NIkon and Fuji. Lenses are a mix of Nikon (AF Nikkor) and Sigma. I also have a Tamron lense which I bought secondhand and because it was too cheap not to.

How I use them is as follows:
General use. Nothing specific but take the camera incease there is a nice moment to capture.
Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G Dx VR Lense.
This is a nice all rounder with a decent zoom range of 18-300mm. It also has the vibration reduction system which can be handy in low light conditions. Not the best at the extremes of the focal lenght. Probably best between 30-250mm.
Portrait work.
Nikon 60mm f2.8 AF Micro D Lense
Fixed focal lenght or "Prime" lense and is fantastic for portrait work. The F stop will go low enough to blur out all but the intended subject. Nice and fast with fairly decent optics.
Landscape stuff.
well, a mix of the Sigma, sometimes the Nikon 60mm, if looking for the distant object then the Tamron which is a 200-500mm zoom.

The object of posting the above is for you to seek out similar items in the Canon fit. Ask yourself what you want to do with it and you will have a starting point.
For example, do you NEED a fast lense? (smallest F numbers)
What sort of subjects will you be photographing? Sport, landscapes, portraits, macro stuff etc.
If you don't really need the smallest F stops then buy the cheaper lenses. Hence also the VR (Nikon brand but they all do it now) which is a vibration reduction system. This will allow up to 4 shutter speeds slower than normal without camera shake becmoing a problem. Maybe spending money on the VR system would be better for you than the faster (low F numbers) lenses.

Guides are good and well worth reading but remember they are guides, not bibles. Only YOU know what is right for you, and more to the point, it's YOUR cash.

Best of luck

Dom


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Just to let you know gents i haven't forgotten about this, just been very busy over the weekend, will get it done but am trying to put together a format for some future ones (thought it might be good to have a few good photography guides to go with the lens one) so don't want to rush it!


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Cheers chaps :thumb:

Excellent explanation of the f no.s, makes a lot of sense.

I think i worked out last night whilst playing why it states f4/5.6, rather than just f4! I guess these are both the minimum available depending on the amount of zoom (or it may have been the light from the subject) as i noted the f changed from 4 to 5.6 automatically depending what i was doing.

What about macro? Why do some state macro and others not? Is this to do with the ability of a short focal distance?

Personally for me budget lenses are fine at the moment. If the missus knew what i've spent so far on the camera/lens/uv filters/remote/bag/tripod etc she'd string me up the testies! lol! So i'm looking for a something with a decent zoom over the 200mm i have at the moment, but retaining some affordability (hopefully around the £150/£200 area).


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> Just to let you know gents i haven't forgotten about this, just been very busy over the weekend, will get it done but am trying to put together a format for some future ones (thought it might be good to have a few good photography guides to go with the lens one) so don't want to rush it!


Filters and their uses would be another handy one :thumb:

Best we keep you busy :lol:


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

Good stuff chaps :thumb:


----------



## glennv6 (Mar 7, 2008)

Cracking post guys, helps me out loads with my next purchase... 
better get saving!!! :thumb:


----------



## GTV (Feb 13, 2008)

dsolds said:


> Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G Dx VR Lense.Dom


I would have to say that since I took up photography in the early 80s this has probably been the lens I have been most impressed with both from my own work and my clients work. I find I nearly always use this lens now - for nearly everything. It really is one lens does all solution. Whilst it has some weaknesses a bit of pin cushion etc... I would have to say it does every thing very well indeed, and whilst its not cheap I believe it is fantastic value for money.

I am comparing this with some lovely Nikon lenses that I have including my beloved 300mm F2.8 and my other fav the 35-70 F2.8!!!

If I am working in a studio they I would obviously use a fixed lens but then again I probably wouldn't be using a SLR either.

I have colleagues who have ended up buying a Nikon body just to have this lens!

Not sure what the availability is like now but when I bought mine I had a long (3 month ) wait for it and paid £100 over the odds for it but it has paid for itself now about 100x over!

I cant recommended it enough!

PS I don't work for Nikon - honest (although I feel like I should have shares in the company)!!!!


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm still struggling a bit with this.

I currently have a Canon 18-55 & Tamron 55-200 for my EOS400D. It's my birthday next week so i'm hoping to sort out another zoom lens as the 200mm wasn't quite enough at a recent gymnastics competition my lad went to the other week.

I'd like a good range, so something like 55/70 to 300 (i think 400 will be too pricey). looking for a budget lens, compatible with the 400D and with autofocus. Looking at spending less than £150, but still confused by the choices -

http://www.jessops.com/Store/s26774...kuOfferingPriceASC&IsInStockOnly=False&comp=n
http://www.jessops.com/Store/s29861...kuOfferingPriceASC&IsInStockOnly=False&comp=n
http://www.jessops.com/Store/s12276...kuOfferingPriceASC&IsInStockOnly=False&comp=n

Any sugestions? I take it the "non USM" Canon is still autofocus, just not their silent motor thingy?


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Shiny said:


> So i'm looking for a something with a decent zoom over the 200mm i have at the moment, but retaining some affordability (hopefully around the £150/£200 area).


I use a 400D and can recomend the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 DG APO Macro. About as good as you can get for under £200. My mate tried it on mine and then bought one for his nikon to replace his nikon 70-300. They also do a non-APO version which is cheaper, but not as good.
Here it is

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product/default.aspx?sku=1008569

Macro on a lens does mean it has close focus. True macro lenses give 1:1 reproduction but often with utility zooms like the one above they will say macro to signify a close focus distance without it being 1:1. This lens is 1:2 I think.

This link is for the canon virtual lens plant. Very informative, even for Nikon users:thumb:
Lets you see what goes into lenses nowadays.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/f_index.html


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Shiny said:


> I'm still struggling a bit with this.
> 
> I currently have a Canon 18-55 & Tamron 55-200 for my EOS400D. It's my birthday next week so i'm hoping to sort out another zoom lens as the 200mm wasn't quite enough at a recent gymnastics competition my lad went to the other week.
> 
> ...


The second one on your list is the one I would recomend. The canon is pretty poor and the first sigma is the same but without the apochromatic glass.
Yes, a non-USM lens still has auto-focus, just not the Ultra Silent Motor.

If you have some spare cash you should get rid of the 18-55 kit lens. It is not very good


----------



## clipstone (Nov 29, 2006)

swiftshine said:


> The second one on your list is the one I would recomend. *The canon is pretty poor *and the first sigma is the same but without the apochromatic glass.
> Yes, a non-USM lens still has auto-focus, just not the Ultra Silent Motor.
> 
> If you have some spare cash you should get rid of the 18-55 kit lens. It is not very good


+1 - just sold this lens on ebay - in terms of pic quality it was ok, but quite slow, and virtually impossible to shoot handheld past 150mm.

Given that you have a 200mm lens already, it might be worth seeing if a 2x extension might sort you about, before forking out on a new lens - not sure if something like this would work:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SIGMA-2X-2-TE...VQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

The problem with tele convertors though, is auto-focus won't work unless you have a really fast lens. They reduce the max aperture by one or two stops, so unless you have an f:2.8 or faster, they are not that great.


----------



## clipstone (Nov 29, 2006)

swiftshine said:


> The problem with tele convertors though, is auto-focus won't work unless you have a really fast lens. They reduce the max aperture by one or two stops, so unless you have an f:2.8 or faster, they are not that great.


Didn't realise that - not any real use unless you have a pro-quality zoom then.


----------



## Naddy37 (Oct 27, 2005)

swiftshine said:


> I use a 400D and can recomend the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 DG APO Macro.


Thats the one I've just got for my D40. Just a shame it didn't arrive in time for the first Duxford airshow...


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Something else to remember - the focal lengths quoted are for 35mm cameras so you have to take into account the scaling factor to your DSLR.

For example, the factor for a 400D is 1.6x so the 18-55mm kit lens gives the same results on the 400D as a ~29-88mm does on a 35mm.

So, a 80-300 lens is the same as using 128-480 on a 35mm - that's a big difference. It will be better for long shots but it isn't as wide as the bottom end as it seems.

One other point; on a 35mm camera a 50mm lens gives the same perspective as human vision but on a 400D you need a 31.25mm focal length for the same effect.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

swiftshine said:


> If you have some spare cash you should get rid of the 18-55 kit lens. It is not very good


Don't actually get rid, keep it in case you sell the camera :thumb:

400Ds have a reputation for under-exposing by about 1/3stop but I read somewhere that this is only with the kit lens - not sure how that works though


----------



## freon warrior (May 31, 2006)

What a really interesting thread, thanks guys.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I've managed some quite decent shots from the kit lens, half of these were with the 18-55 http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=69265

It may not be the best lens in the world, but as an amateur it is hard to justify spending money on something i already have but will be a little better.

Is the APO lens on the Sigma worth the extra £60?


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

As much as I hate it - I've got the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and once you've tried L glass, you'll never want to go back.. it's fast (thanks to the USM motor), VERY sharp focus.. I'm also really fond of my 50mm f1.4 USM - it's a fixed focal length but at f2.8 it's so unbelievable sharp.

So for me personal, there's nothing that beats L glass - while it's a lot more expensive it's well worth the money. I'm looking to replace my 400D kit lens with L glass also.

On the other hand - the kitlens is a good start capable of capturing amazing stuff in great detail. So it's still a good allround lens. If you however find yourself shooting late at the evening, indoor, etc. I'd invest in a quality f2.8 lens.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Tom Claessens said:


> As much as I hate it - I've got the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and once you've tried L glass, you'll never want to go back..


Am I missing something - you hate it, but think it's great? 

BTW, what's 'L' glass?


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

parish said:


> Am I missing something - you hate it, but think it's great?
> 
> BTW, what's 'L' glass?


Hate it for the price 
'L' glass are the "high quality" Canon lenses. Usually an 'L' lens is the normal lens x2 or x3 on the price tag..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

If i spent £600 on a lens, my wife would be dishing out the divorce papers (now there's a thought....). She can't understand why i need another lens when i already have two!

It's a hobby for me and it has to be an affordable hobby.


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

Shiny said:


> If i spent £600 on a lens, my wife would be dishing out the divorce papers (now there's a thought....). She can't understand why i need another lens when i already have two!
> 
> It's a hobby for me and it has to be an affordable hobby.


Yeah I know what you mean. My own company has a job description of detailing / photography as I do both so I can take the VAT of the lenses but usually a zoom L lens ranges around £1000 and up


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

I guess it's like anything - including detailing - there's a point in the price vs. quality curve which gives you the optimum "bang for buck" for amateurs where your skills won't be able to get the most from spending any more on your kit.

As a general rule, how do third-party lenses, Sigma, Tamron etc., compare to the camera manufacturers lenses (not talking about "pro" lenses like the L-series)?

Regarding third-party lenses, this Wikipedia article says:

_Third-party lenses compatible with EOS electronics are manufactured by Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. The manufacturers of these lenses have reverse engineered the electronics of the EF lens mount. The use of these lenses is not supported by Canon. Sometimes compatibility problems arise, as no third party has access to Canon's specifications for camera-body communication [1]. It is not accurate to call these lenses EF mount, as that term is reserved by Canon for its own lenses exclusively._

Are there any known issues with this? I guess the same thing applies to Nikon mounts as well.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

TBH, the Tamron lens i have seems a better lens than the Canon one.


----------



## tmclssns (Dec 28, 2006)

It all depends - I've got some friends with Tamron lenses and they're generally happy about their work. However it's like with all things in life - they compare their work with mine (the L lens) and my photographs are sharper, more vivid in color, etc. (same camera).

But it all depends on what type of photography you're after. The Tamron has good quality, no doubt about that. It's probably good enough for a lot of amateurs but once you enter the "pro" scene (which I'm certainly no member of, given the fact that my camera is not a full frame) it becomes a different thing.

My experience is that there are still some important differences. The Canon 50mm f1.4 USM for instance gives one of the most beautiful bokeh results you'll EVER find on a current day lens. The USM motor is really fast and quiet, compared to the tamron motors. Thanks to the USM focus is really fast also, something you want when photographing sports cars etc.

However if that's not your kind of photography and you have time to set a scene - the focus speed becomes irrelevant. So again, it all depends on what you want to do / use your camera for.


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

L for Luxury lenses are the best available. But way out of reach for most of us. I have the cash to buy the 16-35L that I lust after, but just can't justify it for what is just a hobby.

The 18-55 canon kit lens that came with the 400D is well known for being pants. I still have mine but it just sits in the box of the sigma I replaced it with (17-70 f2.8-4, about £250). Sigma also do a 18-55 or 18-50 for about £50 which is way better than the canon.

As you may have guessed, I like Sigma lenses. According to people who know a lot better than me, at a specific price point, a Sigma will be better than the corresponding canon lens. So for £200 buy a sigma over canon. Obviously, if you have the cash or the need, nothing will beat an L series lens, but as I said, way out of reach for most of us. 

I have never had any problems with auto-focus on any of my sigmas (nor have mates who have them), or with quality control (ditto).
Can't speak for Tamron.

But I doubt I'll buy another make than sigma as long as I'm a Canon user. The focus seems just as fast as the USM canon I have, though maybe a touch noisier, but unless you are photographing wildlife really close it doesn't matter. I'm looking at another 2 sigmas as possible purchases just now.


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Shiny said:


> Is the APO lens on the Sigma worth the extra £60?


Yes.
The extra apochromatic element in the lens cuts down on chromatic aberation (colour fringing you can sometimes see between high contrast areas).


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Lots of useful info there Tom and Swifty. There must be websites around where they put up identical photographs taken with different lenses but using large images. Mostly when you see this sort of thing it's in an article and the pics are (relatively) tiny making comparison difficult.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Shiny said:


> TBH, the Tamron lens i have seems a better lens than the Canon one.


Shiny, was this pic from your WSM thread (hope you don't mind me re-posting it here?) taken with the Tamron lens? It's a cracking shot :thumb:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Yup, that one was with the Tamron with a fair bit of zoom. The lens was £199, or £99 if bought with the EOS400 on one of Jessops multibuy deals, so i thought "what the hell..."


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Shiny said:


> Yup, that one was with the Tamron with a fair bit of zoom.


200mm to be exact - 1/250 @ f/5.6 ISO 400 using the Action Program even though there's not much action  - maybe you were expecting it to fly away?



Shiny said:


> The lens was £199, or £99 if bought with the EOS400 on one of Jessops multibuy deals, so i thought "what the hell..."


Sounds like a bargain at £99 and not excessive at £199 either :thumb:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I've just checked the Exif too and i can't understand why it shows Action Program, i'm 99.9% sure it was on aperture priority. I haven't really used any of the automatic functions and nearly all my shots are on the AV setting. I was sober too. I guess i must have been playing around when i took that one, as the ISO at 400 is higher than i would normally set during the day. It might have been because i was shooting the pigeons flying at the same time.


----------

