Help in choosing lenses

[valligirl20]

Hi,

I'm sure this has been asked many times before, but I need some help deciding what lenses to get with the canon t2i. I've done some reading around here, but it's all still sounding very foreign to me. The lady at the camera store was trying to sell me a bundle with the 18-135 lens, and an extra battery for $900. I told her that I really want to be able to take pics with the subject in focus and the backround blurry, so she suggested that I also buy the 50 1.8 for $125. Now, is this a good idea? Someone else told me to get a macro lens instead of the portrait lens to get the bokeh effect. Also, is it better to get a bundle that has 2 different lenses 18-55 and 55-250, or just the one 18-135?

I really apprecitate your help!

[RichardTaylor]

You may want to have a look at this DPS tutorial on lenses.

Lenses #1 - Introduction to DSLR lenses.


The 50mm F1.8 is a very economical way to have a taste of shallow DOF.

A ~ 100 macro will get you shallow DOF, as well as the ability to shoot very close to your subject approx 1' or 300mm).

Generally lenses with a shorter focal length range perform better than those with a longer focal length range, at the cost of convience

You may find an 18-55 or 18-135 meets, if you want a bit more reach, (+ a 50mm F1.8) meets all your shooting needs.
Or you may have a better idea of what you need (not want) after shooting with standard zoom for a while.

I have never owned an 18-135 but do own an 18-55 & 55-250 (amongst other lenses).

[Tzetsin]

as a photographer you will want to have a set of lenses that cover the entire focal rage.

Idealy you will want the entire focal range in as wide an aperture as you can possibly get.

Obviously its not very practical that you will actually "have" this set of lenses right away. An experienced photographer will build his/her selection of lenses over the long years of their career.

The problem you are facing right now is to decide on which lens do you want to "start" your collection with.

Getting that nice boka (blurry background) is done by shooting with a very large aperture. (small numbers mean large apertures, ie f/1.4 would be very very large, while f/32 would be very very small)

Zooms come in a wide variety of focal lengths, but more that, they also come in a wide variety of prices. "Typically" the large price tag goes with the largest apertures. ie, 24-70mm f/2.8 = 1500$, while something like canon's 55-200mm f/4.5 - f/5.6 might seem like the better deal, if you only looked at the focal length and only costs 400$ Thats a very mighty price difference and "most" of that extra cost is because of the constant 2.8 aperture. (theres a lil more too it, but the extra bits are only there because its a f/2.8 lens)

So which lens to start with as a beginner?

Well, It all depends on the beginner. When I started, I "knew" that I wasnt in it for the short term and only bought lenses that would last my career. Knowing that at the outset really limited my choices, and so it was easier for me to choose.

If your not sure of your dedication to the profession, then buying a lens that covers as wide a focal range as you can possibly get, while keeping the price as low as you can might be your best answer.

keep in mind that "shallow depth of field" is an "effect" of a lens. Its not something your going to use every single day. If you did, your images would quickly look monotonous. So buying a zoom lens "specifically" for depth of field will bring your costs up extremely quickly. Instead of that, perhaps buying a very affordable 50mm 1.8 for DOF work, and then something cheap in a superzoom for the rest of your work would make more sense.

Going that route ensures your greatest focal range and lens effect availability while keeping the cost to a "reasonable" number, until your ready to call yourself dedicated and go with the L series lenses.

Just a note on L lenses. They are not made out of diamonds, though they cost as much. They are not the most beautiful and wonderful and sharp holy grail lenses. They are just bigger, stronger, tougher, heavier and more expensive than their cheaper cousins. When you get your first L lens your going to be absolutely stoked, until you get around to shooting it a lot. Then you'll realise that the biggest difference between that lens and your cheap lens is the weight. and you just paid 4x more for it.

Now saying all that... which lens would I recommend for "you"?

Again, depends on you. If you dont mind spending 1500 bucks and are going to be dedicated to photography for the LONG LONG LONG HAUL then get the 24-70 f/2.8L, or the 24-105 f/4L. Then start saving up for a full frame sensor because the focal range on those lenses will be too long for some indoor work on a crop camera. (is your camera a crop sensor camera? If its not a 5D or a 1D then it IS a crop sensor camera)

If your cheap, or not in it for the long long long haul, or are not really sure yet, then I recommend the 35mm 1.8 (or the 50mm 1.8 if your REALLY cheap, but be warned that the 50mm lens will give you an effective 70mm image and will be far to zoomed in for indoor work the 35mm will give you the 50mm that is so nice for indoor portraits.) and the longest superzoom you can find. I would recommend the 18-200mm lens from canon, its got a very acceptable image quality and the focal range is an effective 24-320mm, but its excedingly cheaply made, as i'm sure all ef-s lenses are so its hard to recommend any of them when your used to the build quality of the L series.

I hope that helps a bit.

[valligirl20]

Thank you. I'm going to do some reading and then come back with more questions.

[valligirl20]

I know that I'm not going to take this hobby to a professional level, however I want to buy lenses that I will be happy with for a long time. I probably don't want to spend more than $500 on the extra lens that will give me shallow depth of field. It sounds like the 50mm 1.8 is limiting in what you can so with it. I don't need a state of the art macro lens, but I would like to be able to take up close pictures of a flower, and also take really good portrait shots with blurred backrounds. Is there a lens that does both of these under $500?

So, what I got from the first reply is that the quality of lense is better if it doesn't have a large focus range. Does that mean it's better to get 2 lenses like 18-55 and 55-250, instead of the one lens 18-135?

Also, can you guys tell me more about the lenses that you recommended? I guess in layman's terms Will they do macro and portrait? And what are the costs?

Thank you both so much!

[inkista]

Originally Posted by valligirl20

I know that I'm not going to take this hobby to a professional level, however I want to buy lenses that I will be happy with for a long time. I probably don't want to spend more than $500 on the extra lens that will give me shallow depth of field. It sounds like the 50mm 1.8 is limiting in what you can so with it. I don't need a state of the art macro lens, but I would like to be able to take up close pictures of a flower, and also take really good portrait shots with blurred backrounds. Is there a lens that does both of these under $500?

Sure. A macro lens, like the 100/2.8 USM Macro (not the L. That one's in the $1000 range), or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro. But they might not blur the background quite as much as a 50/1.8 II (f/1.8 vs. f/2.8 max. aperture), and will cost considerably more. They'll be sharper, though. For my tastes, a little too sharp for portraits, but tastes differ.

So, what I got from the first reply is that the quality of lense is better if it doesn't have a large focus range. Does that mean it's better to get 2 lenses like 18-55 and 55-250, instead of the one lens 18-135?

This is a personal call in terms of what's important to you: going light and not having to change lenses, or overall range covered and specific image quality issues like distortion and chromatic aberration. Some folks prefer the convenience and flexibility of a single lens, others don't mind toting multiple lenses for some advances in image quality. The main difference in these specific lenses is that the 18-55/55-250 will give you a slight advantage in image quality, and a big one in focal distances covered, for slightly less money than the 18-135, and a lot less than an 18-200.

Which appeals to you, though, is up to you.

BTW, if you think a 50mm f/1.8 is limiting, you should check out the 50mm challenge thread on this board. A prime lens is more limited in framing versatility vs. a zoom, but it'll be smaller, cheaper, lighter, possibly sharper, and a lot more versatile in terms of lighting conditions. Everything is a tradeoff. No lens is perfect or the best at everything for everybody. These are special-purpose tools. Which one is best is going to depend on the job you have in hand, and your personal budget.

Also, can you guys tell me more about the lenses that you recommended? I guess in layman's terms Will they do macro and portrait? And what are the costs?

Only a macro lens will do macro. And not every lens that's called a macro is a macro lens. If the lens zooms, it's not a real macro. And you're looking in the specs for the capability to do "1:1 magnification". So, Canon's 50mm "compact macro" is not really a macro lens, since it only does half that (1:2 magnification).

The non-L macro lenses are generally in the $400-$500 price range.

The 50mm f/1.8 II is about $100 (which is why everybody loves it). But the price shows in the construction: it has a plastic mount, and the manual focus controls are not that good. But none of the price shows up in the image quality. It's likely to be sharper than an 18-whatever EF-S lens.

The 18-135 is about $300. The 55-250 IS is about $250. And the 18-55 IS is about $70 if you get it kitted with a body, $200 if you buy it by itself. The 18-200 IS is about $600.

Places to check for prices online would be Amazon, B&H, and Adorama. If you see a price a lot lower than theirs, it's probably a bait'n'switch scam site. resellerratings.com can tell you, too, if an online merchant is dodgy.

[valligirl20]

Wow, this is confusing...

[valligirl20]

I took a look at that 50 challenge thread and the photos are great! Thanks for the link.
I noticed some people talking about the f1.4. Is that better than the f1.8?

[dasmith232]

Did you get *anything* with the body? Or just the body?

Just like what everyone is saying, the bigger the aperture, the more blur you get. However, you can actually get too much blur. I was just shooting some still life images last night and the "perfect" blur for what I needed was still at f/4.0. I took a few shots with my 50mm f/1.8 (yes, I have one) and it was *too* shallow at 1.8, but 4.0 was just right.

The comments about weight with the "L" lenses is right on. The 18-135 is nice for its focal range, but is definitely heavier than the other two lenses. Also, it has a bigger front element, which means that filters are going to be bigger and more expensive.

Just for fun, and because a lot of people say that "kit" lenses are crap, I shot a gallery using the 18-55 f/3.5 exclusively. I get a lot of nice compliments and "wow" comments. You can get nice pictures with a lot of lenses. Don't get caught in the idea that your pictures won't be any good until you get an "L" lens. The lens needs to be of sufficient quality. Even the kit lenses can perform quite well, just not in as many situations.

Most people that have "L" lenses also have a collection of non-L lenses too (just like the rest of us), or they're professional and someone else is paying for the glass.

It sounds like you're not quite sure. If it were me and I didn't have any other lenses (yet), I'd go ahead and get the 18-135. Even as you expand your collection, there are times when you'll lend your camera to someone, or want to have it at a party or whatever, and you will NOT want to be hauling around your 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

I have managed to collect about 7 lenses for my Canon: 7mm, 10-22, 18-55, 28-105, 50, 70-300, 600. I use some more than others, but each has it's purpose. There are some overlapping situations, but I really don't have any issues with that.

You can put emphasis get *getting* stuff or *using* stuff. Don't get crap, but get something that will carry you for quite a while. (And I think that the 18-135 would do that.)

The other thing that I would recommend is a set of extension tubes. Combined with the 18-135 (set to 18), you can get some amazing closeups.

18-135 = $299 at B&H, but can be cheaper if purchased as part of a bundle.
Set of Kenko extension tubes = $179

Mostly, take a trip to the biggest camera store in your area (so that it will have a lot of inventory). Many will let you "try" out the lens and even take it outside (as long as you leave a credit card behind). Feel the choices and you'll know...

[valligirl20]

Dasmith- I haven't purchased the camera yet because I wasn't sure if I should get the bundle with the 18-135 or the bundle with 18-55 and 55-250. Are all 3 of these lenses considered "kit" lenses?