Need some lense guidence

[Nonamesleft]

Hello Everyone

I am so glad I found this site. Photography is a fairly new hobby to me and I need all the help I can get

I really enjoy taking pictures I will start by saying I am noooo professional and have no intention of ever being one. This is mainly a hobby just for pleasure for me, just so you can get idea of what my needs are. My main subject is my verryyyyy busy little 2.5 year old.

I currently have a Canon EOS Rebel T1i dslr and overall I am very happy with it and dont plan on upgrading as it fits my needs well. I have the standard 18-55mm is lens kit that came with it and a 55-250mm lens as well. Personally I find it a pain in the butt to change between the two lens and I have to do this often. I REALLY have my eye on the Canon EF-S 18-200mm because I think it would be nice to not have to interchange them all the time but I have a few questions, and you'll have to excuse my photography ignorance coming through.

I plan on taking some classes at some point....would having two different lenses be useful or not matter in that kind of setting? Also, would loosing an extra 50mm of zoom make a huge difference? That worries me a little because when I think of that I think of losing distance when DS is in school plays, lol.

The other lens I have my eye on for a more everyday lens without changing lenses all the time would be Canon EF 28-135mm. But then I would have 3 lenses to lug around (well 4 if you include my macro but I dont use that on all that often.)


Also, if I were to get the 18-200mm lens I would seriously think of selling my lenses (the 18-55mm and 55-250mm) on Kijiji. What would you ask for them? They are in like new condition.

Any guidance would be great. If you want to suggest another lens I have not mentioned that would be great as well (I am hoping not to pay more than $800 at this point though, thought I should mention that!)

[OsmosisStudios]

Instead of getting the 18-200, spend about the same on a 15-85. The main reason you're running into issues is likely the 35-90 range.

[Glenn72]

If your photographing your 2.5 year old then you should pick up the Canon EF 50 1.8 II lens. I just picked up one today and it is heads and shoulders above the kit lenses which I have as well.
50mm on a crop sensor will give you 80mm equivalent which is still enough frame to get some outstanding photos of your kid. Its the best $99 you can spend on your Canon camera and will make a huge difference in your portrait photos.

[inkista]

To me, the main point of getting a dSLR is because you can change lenses. So, are you absolutely certain that changing lenses is a serious PITA for you, or is it just a matter of being unaccustomed to the practice? I shoot primes most of the time, and i change lenses at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, sure, it's annoying, but overall, I've learned to move my butt a lot more, and not rely solely on zoom. Are you sure you can't do the same?

An 18-200 is a relatively expensive lens for what you get. It's slow, and image quality wise, it's going to be about the same as your 18-55, if not a little worse. The extra pricetag comes from the extended zoom range, not from increased image quality. To me, if I'm going to spend all that money, i want a better lens, not necessarily a more convenient one. YMMV.

Maybe it's just that you shoot in the 40mm-70mm range a lot, so you just need a lens that covers that, and that switching to telephoto comes more naturally to you around 100mm or something. In that case, simply swapping the 18-55 for something with a bit more reach, but not having to ditch both lenses could be good. There's the EF-S 18-135 and the EF-S 15-85 as two possible walkaround lenses with more reach than the 18-55. You don't have to go for a 10x superzoom.

And if you wanted more reach than the 55-250 gives you (as well as IS), you could swap for the EF 70-300 IS USM (non-L), or if you wanted better contrast/color/sharpness, the EF 70-200 f/4L USM.

You also write:

Originally Posted by Nonamesleft

Also, would loosing an extra 50mm of zoom make a huge difference? That worries me a little because when I think of that I think of losing distance when DS is in school plays, lol.

I'd say check the EXIF of the photos you have and see how many of them are shot at >200mm. That should tell you what you want to know. Everybody uses their lenses a little differently.

Secondly, your 55-250 or a 70-300 IS USM, or most of the other lower-cost telephoto zooms are probably not going to be good for the school play thing, unless you can blast flash all you want. This has to do with shutter speed and maximum aperture. The maximum aperture of a lens is something a lot of newbies don't quite comprehend and sort of skip over when they look at lenses, fixating more on focal length over other considerations.

Focal length is important, but so is the maximum aperture--that's why a lens is most common described by those two numbers. The maximum aperture is the widest the lens's iris can be set when taking a picture. The lower the f-number the wider the opening and the larger the aperture.

With a zoom lens, sometimes two max. aperture numbers are given: one for each end of the zoom range. The 18-55 kit lens is an f/3.5-5.6 lens. That means when the zoom is set to 18mm (zoomed all the way out), the widest the lens can go is f/3.5. When the lens is zoomed all the way in to 55mm, the wides the lens can go is f/5.6.

So, if you're sitting in a darkened auditorium and you can't use a flash, and you are zoomed all the way in on the DS in his costume on stage, you are stuck at f/5.6. Which may also mean iso 1600 or higher, and a relatively low shutter speed. The IS will keep you from too much camera shake blur, but if he's moving around at any speed---chances are good you won't be able to get a high enough shutter speed to freeze the action. Motion blur is likely to get you.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 II that Glenn72 suggests has a maximum aperture of f/1.8. It doesn't zoom at all: it's a fixed focal-length lens (aka "prime"). While the 18-55 kit lens is more versatile at framing, the 50/1.8 is more versatile at lighting conditions under which it can shoot. f/1.8 is 3 and a third stops faster than f/5.6.

A stop is a doubling of the light. With iso, going from iso 200 to iso 400, or iso 400 to iso 800 is increasing by one stop. With shutter speed, going from 1/100s to 1/50s is increasing by a stop.

That means that under the same lighting conditions, the $100 50/1.8 II, if it's set to f/1.8, can gather 10 times more light than the 18-55 can if it's set to 55mm and wide open at f/5.6. You could use iso 100 instead of iso 1000. You could use a shutter speed of 1/200 vs. 1/20s.

So, to me, an EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS is not a good stage shooting lens. Something more like the $2000+ EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II or $1000 EF 135mm f/2L USM is. But if you're on a budget, then there's the EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus, EF 100mm f/2 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, or EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

[Happy_Mummy]

Just thought I would say that I'm so happy that you posted this. Hubby and I are thinking of upgrading from our point and shoot camera to an slr and I am very unsure about the switch due to changing the lenses out. I too have no want to ever go professional, but I love taking photos of my 3 kids, who are also fast moving at 4.5yo, 2.5yo and 1yo!!! We are considering Canon's T2i. Currently I miss photos because it takes so darn long for the camera to zoom out, or the kids are in swings and the auto focus is slow (sometimes the camera takes the pic 30 seconds after I push the button!). Thus my draw to slr is that I can adjust the zoom as fast or as slow as I need to, and hopefully faster shutter speeds, which it seems depends on the lens. That said, my fear of the slr is that I don't have the right lens on, so I miss the shot because of that. My argument in my head is that when in doubt I would go with a wider lens. My reasoning is I can always crop the photo since the mp will be high and photo quality would be higher than I'm used to as well. The other way I look at it though is that typically one would expect a wide angle lens to take photos of vistas rather than indoors, so it may not allow enough light in? I'm not sure... Anyone have input to this question?

As part of my looking into what I may purchase Mcbain Camera suggested I think the lens that you were referring to, which I'm guessing was made for people like us. I thought it was a good idea to have the zoom, however I also thought what is the point of the slr if I don't have lenses for certain tasks. Really it would become an expensive point and shoot, since most point and shoots still have manual modes. The other thing I thought of is the saying "Jack of all trades, expert of none." Seems that something that can do everything, may not do everything well.

I too am very novice at this camera stuff, moreso than you since I don't actually have an slr. That said, my first camera that I got when I was 12 was an slr and I managed to figure out how to use that, so I'm sure it will come back. I really wish I knew someone close to me who knew slrs though! there is definitely something to be said for someone who has used them lots. I have so many friends who used airmiles to get the Xsi or the T1i, but they all use it in full auto or scene selection for every pic, so they aren't much help!!!

I am also curious about the lens called nifty fifty What is this? I have also noticed that some lenses that are mentioned have only one "mm" number does that mean the lens doesn't zoom? I look at the info on lens and get completely lost in all the terms. I did manage to teach myself a bit about apperture, focal length and shutter speed from Peterson's "Understanding Exposure." What a great book to simplify those things, however I have forgotten so much of what I learned (it was a library book, and very popular!), so I'm really struggling to figure out what lens would work best for my needs. I'm leaning towards purchasing the camera body separate from the lens so that I can get the lens that would best meet my needs. I have also heard that the kit lens that comes with the rebels aren't the greatest anyways.

Sorry to steal the original post, but I think my questions are on the same track. I will also add that we don't have a tonne of money to put down on lenses, so I'm hoping to just get one to start. For the entire purchase I don't want to spend much more than $1500, which needs to include memory cards (my current camera currently uses cf), an extra battery and a wireless remote (never thought I would use it, but with kids we use it all the time for bday or holiday dinners...) and a carrying case. By the time I get the "extras" I don't think I will have much left over for many lenses, and would prefer a good, all round lens to get me started. Over time as my needs change I would look at getting other lenses. As I already said my main subject is my kids. I too want to get photos at school concerts, sporting events and candids in the house, on the playground, etc etc...

[inkista]

I'd give you my whole "a dSLR is not an upgrade to a P&S camera" dealio, but I'm feeling lazy today. Just know that a dSLR isn't going to be better at everything a P&S does (especially at being low cost, portable, and macro-capable). A lot of us who shoot with dSLRs also keep a P&S in the bag for those times we want to travel light.

First piece of advice: read this. It will give you the basic low-down on lenses and their features and what they mean in practical shooting terms.

If shutter lag is an issue, then yes, a dSLR will help. But....

Originally Posted by Happy_Mummy

Currently I miss photos because it takes so darn long for the camera to zoom out, or the kids are in swings and the auto focus is slow (sometimes the camera takes the pic 30 seconds after I push the button!). Thus my draw to slr is that I can adjust the zoom as fast or as slow as I need to, and hopefully faster shutter speeds, which it seems depends on the lens.

Yes, and no. The zoom, you do manually with a zoom ring on the lens, rather than waiting for that damn rocker switch and motor to do it for you, so yes, you can zoom more quickly. But shutter speed is going to depend on your aperture and iso settings. The dSLR can help you achieve higher shutter speeds by a) being capable of them, b) letting you use a wider-apertured lens, and c) having better high iso performance. But the flip side is you're going to have to figure out how to get that higher shutter speed yourself.

...My argument in my head is that when in doubt I would go with a wider lens. My reasoning is I can always crop the photo since the mp will be high and photo quality would be higher than I'm used to as well.

But then, you're losing the higher resolution when you crop. But mostly, you just want to use a smaller aperture setting to get a deeper DoF, so that focusing isn't quite as critical. The big difference between a dSLR and a P&S camera is that you actually have to pay attention to getting things in focus. It's much easier to get things out of focus with a dSLR.

The other way I look at it though is that typically one would expect a wide angle lens to take photos of vistas rather than indoors, so it may not allow enough light in?

Not quite right. The amount of light depends on three things: aperture, shutter speed, and iso. The focal length can influence these things (particularly aperture), but exposure isn't directly related to it in the same way.

The other thing I thought of is the saying "Jack of all trades, expert of none." Seems that something that can do everything, may not do everything well.

Yup. Pretty much my opinion as well. The basic analogy I always make is that a P&S camera is like a swiss army knife: low-cost, small, compact, easy to carry, very versatile, but not necessarily the best tools for the job, and missing some of the more important tools. A dSLR is like a big red toolbox: big, heavy, expensive--and you still have to buy the tools to put in it. OTOH, you get exactly the right tool for the job you need.

I am also curious about the lens called nifty fifty What is this? I have also noticed that some lenses that are mentioned have only one "mm" number does that mean the lens doesn't zoom?

Yes. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is the one most-often referred to as the nifty fifty (or "thrifty fifty" or "plastic fantastic"), although it can also refer to the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. They are both 50mm "prime" lenses (lenses that don't zoom), with very large maximum apertures. They are what are known as "fast" lenses, because the large apertures can let in more light, and you can use faster shutter speeds with them. While they don't zoom, they will shoot in lower lighting conditions, can create a much thinner DoF (read: background blur), and are small, light, and relatively inexpensive. Also, because they have a fixed focal length, they are optically very very good. Zoom lenses often have compromises to cover multiple focal lengths.

I'm leaning towards purchasing the camera body separate from the lens so that I can get the lens that would best meet my needs. I have also heard that the kit lens that comes with the rebels aren't the greatest anyways.

I'm from the other school of thought. The whole "getting the body/lens separately" thing only works great if you're an experienced SLR photographer who already knows what lens they want (although in this case, you typically already HAVE the lens you want, which is why you only get the body). But if you have absolutely no experience with SLR lenses at all, it may still be better to waste the money on the kit lens for the following reasons: 1) it's only $100 or so when kitted with the camera. This is dirt-cheap in lens land. b) it's something to shoot with right away, so you can start getting that lens experience that's going to help you figure out what you want your next lens to be. c) it's not THAT bad. Given the pricetag, it's actually damn good. And having a not-so-great lens can seriously teach you a lot about technique and lens sweet spots, as well as how much you're willing to pay to get a lens that's sharper or longer or wider or faster. d) it's designed for the most common type of photography: vacation snaps. People in front of landscapes/architecture.

[Happy_Mummy]

I will start by saying, that I would guess that most slrs can get a better photo than most point and shoots, assuming the slr has all the manual setting correct (aka I won't be getting better pics with it right away!!! lol) and the jump in the sensor quality I'm guessing will help get the crisper photos that I see from my friends' cameras who have slrs. They just use the cameras on full auto, where I would like to start playing around with more control on things, but when the kids are being cute at first I will toss it on auto to capture the moment, then play around with settings. I plan on keeping my p&s for times that I don't want to lug the slr around, or if I think the kids may want to take photos since my 4yo is starting to get into taking pics. My first camera was an slr from the 70s which I was given in grade 6 (my Grandad passed away and no one else wanted it, so it was given to me). I remember it was easy to use, especially compared to ones I see now. There was a focus ring, light meter ring (with the wand that you could see in the lens to make adjustments. Mostly I went for right in the middle, but I eventually figured out over/under exposure and when and how to use them. There was also shutter wind and iso speed, which I pretty much left at the film iso that was put in unless I was using the flash. THe camera back then was slr, but so easy to use! I only had the one fixed lens for it and it took nice photos. I miss it! I think my Mum's camera (same type) broke and they combined the parts from the two cameras to fix Mum's as something was worng with mine too.

Thank you for the website, it has helped a bit, but I still feel a bit lost with some of the terms.

Just to confirm it is shutter lag that is the issue and it is due to the focusing being slow, not the shutter speed. The blur in the photo is due it being out of focus, not a slow shutter speed - you can hear the camera trying to focus as well as seeing it on the screen. My current p&s is old, and I think that may have something to do with the slowness as well. If all conditions are perfect it takes really nice action, but getting fast movement can be hard, and when are kids not in fast movement??? I am a bit worried about playing around to get the high shutter speed, but once I figure it out a bit I'm sure it will become easier. I have tried out the manual functions on my current camera and I understand what the different things do better now, but my camera just can't handle the settings and get a decent photo without flash, I realize this may be an issue with an slr too, but I think the T2i and kit lens will be a step up from what I am currently using, and thus may do a better job.

As for losing the higher resolution, I realize that I will lose a bit, however mostly I will be doing photo books for the memories for our family (most pictures are smaller than 4x6 in these) and adding to our "kid wall" of pics that are 8x12 in size. I figure the jump in sensor and mp count will actually make the photos clearer, however I may be off base. that said blowing up something that is out of focus only makes it more obvious. Thank you for the advice on the deeper DoF. How is it easier to get things out of focus? Is it because focus is done by the user and slr users tend to use a shallower DoF?

As for my comment on the wide angle lens, I would assume that they would be "built" more for landscapes, so the focal length these lenses offer may lean more towards requiring more light? I have no idea on this though, it was just a thought...

Thank you for explaining the nifty fifty, that makes more sense now. Thank you also for your view on the kit lenses, what you said makes lots of sense. We still aren't sure how we are getting the camera (we have almost enough airmiles, but we may chose to purchase since we are flying in the summer). If we get it through airmiles we would get the one lens - I think it is 18mm-55. I noticed if we bought the camera from some stores they offer 2 lenses - the 18-55 and 75-300 for $220 more than just the 18-55, or 55-250 for $320 more than just the 18-55. I have no idea what mm I normally use for taking pics, only that it seems I tend to use the extremes for my camera, I'm not sure that I use the middle range very often. Would you start with just the one lens, or spring for two and if you would get two, which combo would you get? Would I really miss the 55-75 range?

Sadly, I would agree that I fall in to what you consider the most common photographer - snap shots of people and people in front of things. I really want to get better so that my photos get an artistic flare to them. Since I have the three kids I keep trying to get cute portraits of them. As much as my photos typically capture a moment in time to remind me of a certain phase or occasion, I just wish I could get those more portrait looking photos that photographers get. I know, practice, practice, practice. I take close to 1000 shots a month of my kids, you would think i would be better at it by now!!! lol I also realize that an slr won't automatically get me better shots, however I'm hoping with being able to play around with setting a bit easier that it will help me. I think mostly it is camera angle that I still haven't figured out...

Thank you inkista for your insight. For the most part many of the posts on here are way over my head, but I'm slowly figuring it out.