Need help with buying a new lens

[Birdman]

I am a novice at taking pictures, as I have been a point and shoot type but have a Canon Rebel XT with the standard lens it comes with and have been disappointed in results. I am looking for one all around lens that will give me a better overall picture quality that can be used in most situations that doesn't require any real expertise. Does this exist in a mid price range? I assume I am asking alot here but any advice would be much appreciated.

[diver88]

Mr Birdman,

i am NOT the expert you need here, but i'll try.

remind me what kit lens your XT came with please..

also, what will you want to take pics of mainly? watches maybe?

when you say you are not getting the results you'd like, what generally is the problem?

i found going from a point and shoot to the DSLR was a big learning curve. i found that most of my problems stem from the settings just aren't correct for the situation, and the use of a good tripod.

actually i have heard very good things about the XT Rebel, some say actually close to the XTI results, some have said as good but with less goodies. you should be able to do really well with it.

i was told by a fellow at my local camera shop that one of Canon's sharpest lens is the standard 60mm which i guess is about a 90mm compared to film. its under $100 and supposed to be exceptionally clean.

i'm sure others that know much more than i do will add to this, but it would help if we had answers to some of those questions i asked earlier.

a good thing, if we can help you here... it helps us all. i always learn something while discussing these topics, i really like this sort of thing..

diver88 ;D

[talktime]

Um... I'd like to help, but my lens suggestions will cost more than the cost of two rebels new...

Determine what you want to shoot, or what you shoot most. I assume you have a reasonably vast range with your "kit" zoom, but what range are you in most of the time (old shooting data will tell you)

Make this average the center of the range of your new zoom. Get the best quality in the glass you can afford. Also, limit the range of the zoom; i.e. a 25-250 will never be as sharp as a 24-70. This is what we have so many lenses! Also, a prime (non-zoom) lens will always be sharper than a zoom of the same quality.

I use the 'L' series glass, because I have to. Here's my kit:
2 X EOS 1v (film) bodies with HS boosters
1 X EOS 1d (Digital) body

14mm/f2.8L superwide (rectiliniar)
15mm/f2.8 fish eye
24-70/f2.8L (with a so-so macro function)
135/f2.0L
70-200/f2.8L

So basically my digital body is 3-4 generations old, but still capable of doing full-page enlargements for magazine use. The glass is the key to sharpness, especially in the very corners, where the lesser lenses fail first. If you are stuck with a lens that is not sharp in the corners, stop down (higher f-stop number) to exclude the very corners of the glass. This is an old trick, but all lenses are sharpest in the very center, as the light is bent the least.

You can put your lens on my EOS 1D and I can put my lens on your rebel, and the Rebel photo will be better. Why? because the glass is what makes the shot. The camera just locates the film or CCD for the lens to work with. I have a lot more creative freedom and 'custom functions' with a "pro" grade camera body (and it takes my abuse and is water resistant), but the glass is key.

For new gear, you cannot beat B&H (www.bhphotovideo.com). Used lenses can be had on the bay of course (I have purchased several items this way), but be sure of your prices before you get sucked into a bidding war...

I don't know how helpful this was, but there you go...

[Birdman]

Sorry it took awhile to get back, been out of town. The camera came with a EFS 18-55mm. I have used it mostly in the automatic mode with the iso on auto as well. The pictures just don't seem to be very sharp or bright. pictures in low light conditions are really poor even with the built in flash.

[diver88]

Mr Birdman,

I would say the main issue here is learning the camera and it's
settings. I really don't think a new lens will really do much for you other than spend some money, then you'll have the same problem with less money.

I borrowed an XT and an XTI from a buddy and played with them before I bought a DSLR. I got the same results from both, the XT had the 18-55 kit lens, the XTI had a fancier expensive lens, don't remember what it was. I don't think I got one picture I would even show here. I was convinced both cameras were no good.

my buddy said it was just me because he'd gotten beautiful shots with both. He even offered to sell the XT to me for nearly nothing, but after the results I got I wanted no part of it.

upon the fantastic reviews Ken Rockwell gave the 6mp Nikon D-40 I bought it, same results... couldn't get anything worth using.

I bought a Magic Lantern Book on taking pics with my Nikon and have learned a lot, also through trial and error,

the moral of the story, unless your camera has a problem the issues you describe are very much like my experiences. I would say don't give up, practice and learn about what you have. in low light situations, you're going to NEED to use a tripod, that helps dramatically.
when you do get to the point of needing a new lens for a specific purpose, i bought an inexpensive fixed 50mm f1.8 lens. requires way less light to be effective for low light situations, I never use a flash...hardly..

hope this helps, lets get you on track... I'm still learning, I'm still using my point and shoot mainly. thats what I used and am going to use in the contest thats going on.

diver88 ;D

[talktime]

It sounds like a combination of camera shake to some degree, as well as low contrast.

The latter can be caused by poor light as well as from poor glass.

Now, you should understand that the worst glass of today is better than the best glass of 30 years ago. And some breathtaking photos were taken under those conditions.

So, as mentioned by Mr. 88, get the magic lantern book for your camera and study it well. Get outside and take a ton of photos, and bring a notebook with you. Your camera keeps tract of all your shooting data, but note the light quality and direction for future reference. If you combine the data, tyou quickly learn what will and will not look good based on light quality and angle.

After a while, this becomes intuitive, and you can ditch the notebook...

Also, rember the old film rule of thumb: for every roll of film (36 frames) expect 1 or 2 'keepers'. Don't expect more than this from yourself, or you will be dissapointed...

I have been shooting for close to 25 years now, and I'm still learning...

[Scott D]

talktime said:

Also, remember the old film rule of thumb: for every roll of film (36 frames) expect 1 or 2 'keepers'. Don't expect more than this from yourself, or you will be dissapointed...

Lot's of excellent points!


But you know TT, while I remember this rule, I'd venture to say the ratio's grown with the digital era. It's just so easy to shoot, shoot & shoot with digitals, and cost nothing to delete vs. wasting a frame in the 35mm days that you had to develop & print.. I'm lucky if I get 1 really good keeper for every 70-80 digital shots I take. On a "photo day" where I spend the day (or at least several hours) playing & shooting, I'll take 5-600 shots. Usually only a few don't meet Mr. Recycling Bin... ;D

Practice & Patience.. 2 words every photographer, whether the newest shutter bug or best pro, must know & accept....

[talktime]

That's it in a nut shell...

I spent several years developing, printing, and trashing photos from every roll I shot...

Now it is easier, but more importantly faster (deadlines being a day or two after I return from an event in many cases) to get the RAW images to the magazines on time.

I used to shoot film, develop, scan negatives, photoshop as needed, file, and send. That takes quite a bit of time, even with one-hour developement (which I despise by the way).

Now I can shoot RAW and low-rez jpg's at the same time, review the jpg's on the lap-top, and only send the good RAW images to the magazine. I save a ton of time and effort this way.

I'm currently saving for the Canon EOS-1D mark III, as it is fast enough for me, but has an adequate pixel count for full 2-page photos. The old EOS-1D I have now is good up to one full page only... So, I'll be saving for a while!

[Birdman]

Thanks for all the advice as I am learning tons of information here. I feel like a sponge as I know just enough to start to understand what you are talking about. I am now re-energized with my little camera and plan to by a book on this subject if anyone has any good recommendations for a beginner. I have started to read information on my particular camera and am already far ahead of where I was when I posted this thread. I might even get lucky enough to get a watch picture or 2 worth posting!

[talktime]

The magic Lantern books are well regarded.

best thing is the manual for your camera, and a LOT of time experimenting on your own...

[Birdman]

Thanks talktime will do! I did order the 50mm 1.8 cheapy. I thought it might help indoors. I was wondering about the 430ex external flash. I appreciate your help and will look up the magic lantern books. I have tried taking several photos using the manual modes but the flash doesn't go off and the pictures are really out of focus, plan to go to the farm this weekend with the tripod and practice. I really appreciate your advice! I do have a 75-300mm that I bought when I got the camera just as an impulse buy. The outdoor shots I take with this seem better than the 18-55 that came with the camera, any thoughts?

[talktime]

Indoor shots with no flash that are blurry are likely due to camera shake.

Always use one over the focal length (or higher) for hand-held shots.

Example: 200mm lens, use 1/250 shutter speed. 100mm lens, use 1/125 shutter speed.

If you have a tripod, you now have the flexibility to set the aperature where you want it (for depth of field control) but eliminate camera shake, with the steady mount.

Indoors, with no flash, the lens will want to open fully (low f-stop numer) which may not be enough light for a proper exposure. If your camera is so equipped, it may "shift" the exposure to a slower shutter speed to get the right ammount of light. The problem is, you can't hand-hold steady enough to keep the image sharp. Even manually, if you select an aperature that is closed down too far, a proper exposure will dictate a slow shutter speed. Opening the aperature will reduce your depth of field, but allow a faster shutter speed.

That guide for shutter speed above is a "rule of thumb" and if you are a particularly 'shaky' person, you may have to go another stop faster with the shutter speed to keep things sharp (one stop is the next shutter speed on most cameras- from 125 to 250, and from 250 to 500. To add to the confusion, many new cameras have less than one stop increments, so check these carefully).

Also, if you subject is moving, the shutter speed may have to be MUCH faster to 'stop the action'. In this case, the moving subject will be blurred, but the background will be sharp. Analysis of your 'bad' photos can help with improving your skills to make more photos you like... You can also apply the techniques of the 'bad' photos to add these 'special effects' to photos on purpose, further enhancing your art!

[Birdman]

Thanks,
I did use the tripod with last set of pictures, not quite so blurry but still terrible photos. I seem to only be able to get decent pictures with the auto mode but still are not as crisp and bright as the little Kodak of my wifes. I guess I'll just keep on trying.

[steveparr]

Just about the sharpest lens I own is the Sigma 17-70mm. I love this thing. It's also not bank-breaking by any stretch of the imagination.

I shoot with the Canon 40D, and that focal length range, coupled with its' macro capability, is pretty sweet.



www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/419582-REG/Sigma_669101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_Macro.html

[tbarry]

I have the same lens and am totally satisfied with it on my EOS 30D. The Sigma lens has good close-up ability and many of the photos I post on the forum have been taken with it. The really tight close-ups are usually taken with a Canon EF 50mm macro lens. The wrist shots are usually taken with my little Canon S3 IS in Super-Macro mode, because the camera is so light and is always in image-stabilization mode.