Augustine1 wrote:.
Hello all,.
I am in the process of buying a Canon 30D, my concern is the cropfactor that digital SLRs have, ie. 1.6x for Canon and which lenswould be a GOOD starter for this camera. I should say that I liketo take a lot of architectural photography, but my subjects do varyfrom scenic to landscapes, from people to wildlife and other sortof subjects. Now this is the thing, I am somewhat troubled withwhich lens I should buy (budget is paramount of course) I have beenlooking at just getting a 50mm prime, just so I can learn thecamera and how digital photography works and upgrade to a moreversatile lens later. I have also scouted a 28-135 IS USM Canonlens and 28 - 200mm USM Canon lens as well. So I ask all those whoare more learned than I am in the digital field to offer up anyadvice or opinion.
Your landscape and wildlife shots will be difficult with the 50mm lens. I have an 18 to 200mm lens with a 1.5 factor which gives me 27 to 300mm. I find this gives me a great amount of flexibility..
What works for me may not work as well for you..
FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...
I know nothing about Canon but I do know SLR so I'm betting the 28-135 is better than the 28-200/Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
Two points....
I have beenlooking at just getting a 50mm prime, just so I can learn thecamera and how digital photography works and upgrade to a moreversatile lens later..
To do this the 18-55 kit lens that Canon bundle cheaply with a lot of their cameras is perfectly adequate - get familiar with the camera first using this..
I should say that I liketo take a lot of architectural photograhy, but my subjects do varyfrom scenic to landscapes, from people to wildlife and other sortof subjects..
The lenses you mention starting at 28mm were probably designed for 35mm cameras - they will work fine on digital but with the smaller sensor the field of view is equivalent to about 40 - 45 mm on a 35mm camera (a 'standard' lens field of view). This will probably not be wide-angle enough for you for architectural and landscape photgraphy. For a reasonable wide-angle field of view (much more useful than telephoto most of the time) you want something that starts at about 18 mm. Canon make plenty of good possibilities but they are expensive; one of their cheaper ones is the 17-85 f4-f5.6 which is about 320 in the UK..
Sigma and Tamron both make affordable long-range zooms (e.g. 18-200) starting at about 200 (UK) which may be the only lens you'll ever need. Just remember that the wider the zoom range, the more compromises there will be in terms of distortion and resolution, especially at extremes. Not a problem for day-to-day pics / holiday snaps etc printed at 5x7 inches, but if you want a high quality big pic of some piece of architecture with exactly straight lines you'll have to pay more.....
In your position I'd stick with the kit lens for a few months, and then see where your preferences lie..
MikeMike..
I have beenlooking at just getting a 50mm prime, just so I can learn thecamera and how digital photography works and upgrade to a moreversatile lens later..
This is exactly what I did. But I don't htink it was such a great idea. I very quickly got fed up of the 50mm's (focal length) limitations and bought a Sigma 17-70..
If you could afford it, a 17-70 and 70-300 would cover a huge range in two lenses..
Androohttp://Androo.smugmug.com..
... and (following Androo's comment) both Tamron and Sigma have pretty good, cheap 70-300 lenses (about 130 UK). For Sigma make sure you get the one labelled 'APO' which is superior to the non-APO cheapie. The Tamron has the advantage of a macro mode for real close-ups if that's your thing.Mike..
Architectural photography REALLY needs a W I D E lens. 28mm is not wide enough, IMO. You need at least 24mm, and 20mm would be better. To get something around 20-24 (in 35mm terms), you need a REAL 14mm lens. Canon makes a really nice 14mm f:2.8 lens, but it costs about $1750. You might like the Sigma version for $550 better..
"Pick the lens first, then the body.".
Common knowledge says that Nikon is stronger in WA lenses and Canon is stronger in Tele lenses. You might look into a D80 with the Nikkor 12-24 f:4.0 zoom. It's a great lens for what you want to do. It too is a bit expensive at about $1000 (lens only). There are other choices that cost less..
Augustine1 wrote:.
Hello all,.
I am in the process of buying a Canon 30D, my concern is the cropfactor that digital SLRs have, ie. 1.6x for Canon and which lenswould be a GOOD starter for this camera. I should say that I liketo take a lot of architectural photograhy, but my subjects do varyfrom scenic to landscapes, from people to wildlife and other sortof subjects. Now this is the thing, I am somewhat troubled withwhich lens I should buy (budget is paramount of course) I have beenlooking at just getting a 50mm prime, just so I can learn thecamera and how digital photography works and upgrade to a moreversatile lens later. I have also scouted a 28-135 IS USM Canonlens and 28 - 200mm USM Canon lens as well. So I ask all those whoare more learned than I am in the digital field to offer up anyadvice or opinion.
Charlie DavisNikon 5700 & Sony R1CATS #25PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htmHomePage: http://www.1derful.info'I brake for pixels...'..
Andrew Butterfield wrote:.
I have beenlooking at just getting a 50mm prime, just so I can learn thecamera and how digital photography works and upgrade to a moreversatile lens later..
This is exactly what I did. But I don't htink it was such a greatidea. I very quickly got fed up of the 50mm's (focal length)limitations and bought a Sigma 17-70..
If you're going to get one prime lens and "zoom using your feet", 50mm is the focal length to get on a 35mm film SLR or on a digital SLR with a similar sensor size (such as the EOS 5D)..
On a Canon body with a 1.6x crop factor, 30mm or 35mm is a closer approximation to a "normal" prime...