Photographers - need help buying Rebel XT stuff

[aceO07]

Originally posted by: thirdeye
Here is a nice back pack I have for mine.

Here is a link to the lens.

I have that backpack. It's nice and make it easy to store things.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Here is another lens to consider:

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Here is another lens to consider:

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

That's about $500 out of his price range.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Here is another lens to consider:

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

That lens, along with the Tokina 16-50 that's also coming out in the summer, will be very interesting. Right now the only lens in the same price range and performance is the Sigma 18-50. Time to see some competition. Oh, and I highly doubt the real price will be above $500.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mike
Oh my, coming from an HP P&S is like going from a Pinto to a MB S55 AMG. I am looking at the 60mm Canon Macro. Many "professionals" knock it b/c it is EF-S meaning it really can't be used with full frame cameras like the 5d without some shenangals. If I upgrade anytime soon, it certainly won't be to a 5d or anything on that level, so it isn't something I am remotely worried about.

Are you absolutely sure about the 60mm macro? I've used a 50mm macro, 90mm macro, and now use a 180mm macro. You're going to have very little working distance with 60mm out in the field, and believe me, I found it very hard to photograph bugs and such with even a 90mm. Especially ones that are fast moving and have stingers...

The upside to the 60mm though is that it can double as a portrait lens, although the maximum aperture of f/2.8 might produce too much depth of focus...

Tell this guy and this guy that 60mm isn't long enough. How close can you get??

I'm not sure how much you know about macro lenses, but the mm rating has nothing to do with how "close" you can get...

A true macro lens will be able to get to 1:1 magnification of the subject, and with the exception of the Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro and added extension tubes and additional close focus lenses, 1:1 magnification is the MOST that all macro lenses will attain. Meaning ALL these macro lenses, regardless of if they're 50mm, 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, will in the end get the same magnification, period. The ONLY thing differing between all these is working distance, weight, ease of mobility, non-macro use, and price.

Sure, you can get pictures of bugs and insects with a 60mm, its just harder and depending on how you feel about insects, scarier due to the working distance. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of disturbing the insect. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of getting stung FROM disturbing the insect. IMO there's no point to the "challenge" of getting as close as possible if you don't even get the picture at the end...

Not to mention with any serious macro work you will want to have an off-camera flash to help maximize shutter speed and depth of field. Greater working distance gives you a lot more options for flash positioning, and increases your chances of getting that shot.

The 60mm on the other hand is more manueverable, lighter, and a better focal length for portrait photography.

The 180mm would be heavier, probably more expensive, a bit less manueverable, but will afford you a lot more working distance and can also double as a very sharp and pretty fast (as in bright) telephoto.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: aceO07

Originally posted by: thirdeye
Here is a nice back pack I have for mine.

Here is a link to the lens.

I have that backpack. It's nice and make it easy to store things.

I have a smaller Tamrac backpack and they are the best IMO if you're carrying around even a modest amount of camera gear for a day. I used to shoot at the Long Beach Grand Prix-pit access and photo tower access and found the backpack to be the best way to carry gear by far.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: aceO07

Originally posted by: thirdeye
Here is a nice back pack I have for mine.

Here is a link to the lens.

I have that backpack. It's nice and make it easy to store things.

I have a smaller Tamrac backpack and they are the best IMO if you're carrying around even a modest amount of camera gear for a day. I used to shoot at the Long Beach Grand Prix-pit access and photo tower access and found the backpack to be the best way to carry gear by far.

:thumbsup: to the Tamrac backpacks. I just got the Tek 4372 waterproof backpack.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Another fantastic WA lens is the Sigma 18-50 F2.8.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mike
Oh my, coming from an HP P&S is like going from a Pinto to a MB S55 AMG. I am looking at the 60mm Canon Macro. Many "professionals" knock it b/c it is EF-S meaning it really can't be used with full frame cameras like the 5d without some shenangals. If I upgrade anytime soon, it certainly won't be to a 5d or anything on that level, so it isn't something I am remotely worried about.

Are you absolutely sure about the 60mm macro? I've used a 50mm macro, 90mm macro, and now use a 180mm macro. You're going to have very little working distance with 60mm out in the field, and believe me, I found it very hard to photograph bugs and such with even a 90mm. Especially ones that are fast moving and have stingers...

The upside to the 60mm though is that it can double as a portrait lens, although the maximum aperture of f/2.8 might produce too much depth of focus...

Tell this guy and this guy that 60mm isn't long enough. How close can you get??

I'm not sure how much you know about macro lenses, but the mm rating has nothing to do with how "close" you can get...

A true macro lens will be able to get to 1:1 magnification of the subject, and with the exception of the Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro and added extension tubes and additional close focus lenses, 1:1 magnification is the MOST that all macro lenses will attain. Meaning ALL these macro lenses, regardless of if they're 50mm, 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, will in the end get the same magnification, period. The ONLY thing differing between all these is working distance, weight, ease of mobility, non-macro use, and price.

Sure, you can get pictures of bugs and insects with a 60mm, its just harder and depending on how you feel about insects, scarier due to the working distance. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of disturbing the insect. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of getting stung FROM disturbing the insect.

Not to mention with any serious macro work you will want to have an off-camera flash to help maximize shutter speed and depth of field. Greater working distance gives you a lot more options for flash positioning, and increases your chances of getting that shot.

The 60mm on the other hand is more manueverable, lighter, and a better focal length for portrait photography.

The 180mm would be heavier, probably more expensive, a bit less manueverable, but will afford you a lot more working distance and can also double as a very sharp and pretty fast (as in bright) telephoto.

I guess you interpreted my response incorrectly.

When I said "close" I meant how close to your subject you were willing to get before you got scared or scared the subject away. I wasn't talking about magnification at all. The working distance of a 180 is around 25-30cm, while the working distance of the 60 is only a few cm.

I was talking about min focus distance, not magnification.

Oh, and with a true macro lens, it isn't that difficult to get around 2:1 with some tubes and a TC or a 500D.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mike
Oh my, coming from an HP P&S is like going from a Pinto to a MB S55 AMG. I am looking at the 60mm Canon Macro. Many "professionals" knock it b/c it is EF-S meaning it really can't be used with full frame cameras like the 5d without some shenangals. If I upgrade anytime soon, it certainly won't be to a 5d or anything on that level, so it isn't something I am remotely worried about.

Are you absolutely sure about the 60mm macro? I've used a 50mm macro, 90mm macro, and now use a 180mm macro. You're going to have very little working distance with 60mm out in the field, and believe me, I found it very hard to photograph bugs and such with even a 90mm. Especially ones that are fast moving and have stingers...

The upside to the 60mm though is that it can double as a portrait lens, although the maximum aperture of f/2.8 might produce too much depth of focus...

Tell this guy and this guy that 60mm isn't long enough. How close can you get??

I'm not sure how much you know about macro lenses, but the mm rating has nothing to do with how "close" you can get...

A true macro lens will be able to get to 1:1 magnification of the subject, and with the exception of the Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro and added extension tubes and additional close focus lenses, 1:1 magnification is the MOST that all macro lenses will attain. Meaning ALL these macro lenses, regardless of if they're 50mm, 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, will in the end get the same magnification, period. The ONLY thing differing between all these is working distance, weight, ease of mobility, non-macro use, and price.

Sure, you can get pictures of bugs and insects with a 60mm, its just harder and depending on how you feel about insects, scarier due to the working distance. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of disturbing the insect. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of getting stung FROM disturbing the insect.

Not to mention with any serious macro work you will want to have an off-camera flash to help maximize shutter speed and depth of field. Greater working distance gives you a lot more options for flash positioning, and increases your chances of getting that shot.

The 60mm on the other hand is more manueverable, lighter, and a better focal length for portrait photography.

The 180mm would be heavier, probably more expensive, a bit less manueverable, but will afford you a lot more working distance and can also double as a very sharp and pretty fast (as in bright) telephoto.

Personally, I find most insects disgusting and not really worthy of photographing. There are some exceptions but spiders and stinging insects rank highly on my list of "get the bug spray not the camera."

I'm not saying I disagree with your statements at all. Just commenting on the subject.

I have shot some photographs of grasshoppers but I wouldn't say they are as interesting as some pics I've seen. I don't actually own a macro lens but macro photography does interest me.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Here is another lens to consider:

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

That's about $500 out of his price range.

Try pricegrabber! Especially on the Sigma 18-50 as well.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Here is another lens to consider:

Tamron 17-50 F2.8

That's about $500 out of his price range.

Try pricegrabber! Especially on the Sigma 18-50 as well.

I would be wary of anyplace selling an almost $800 lens for $300.

My .02

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mike
Oh my, coming from an HP P&S is like going from a Pinto to a MB S55 AMG. I am looking at the 60mm Canon Macro. Many "professionals" knock it b/c it is EF-S meaning it really can't be used with full frame cameras like the 5d without some shenangals. If I upgrade anytime soon, it certainly won't be to a 5d or anything on that level, so it isn't something I am remotely worried about.

Are you absolutely sure about the 60mm macro? I've used a 50mm macro, 90mm macro, and now use a 180mm macro. You're going to have very little working distance with 60mm out in the field, and believe me, I found it very hard to photograph bugs and such with even a 90mm. Especially ones that are fast moving and have stingers...

The upside to the 60mm though is that it can double as a portrait lens, although the maximum aperture of f/2.8 might produce too much depth of focus...

Tell this guy and this guy that 60mm isn't long enough. How close can you get??

I'm not sure how much you know about macro lenses, but the mm rating has nothing to do with how "close" you can get...

A true macro lens will be able to get to 1:1 magnification of the subject, and with the exception of the Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro and added extension tubes and additional close focus lenses, 1:1 magnification is the MOST that all macro lenses will attain. Meaning ALL these macro lenses, regardless of if they're 50mm, 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, will in the end get the same magnification, period. The ONLY thing differing between all these is working distance, weight, ease of mobility, non-macro use, and price.

Sure, you can get pictures of bugs and insects with a 60mm, its just harder and depending on how you feel about insects, scarier due to the working distance. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of disturbing the insect. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of getting stung FROM disturbing the insect.

Not to mention with any serious macro work you will want to have an off-camera flash to help maximize shutter speed and depth of field. Greater working distance gives you a lot more options for flash positioning, and increases your chances of getting that shot.

The 60mm on the other hand is more manueverable, lighter, and a better focal length for portrait photography.

The 180mm would be heavier, probably more expensive, a bit less manueverable, but will afford you a lot more working distance and can also double as a very sharp and pretty fast (as in bright) telephoto.

I guess you interpreted my response incorrectly.

When I said "close" I meant how close to your subject you were willing to get before you got scared or scared the subject away. I wasn't talking about magnification at all. The working distance of a 180 is around 25-30cm, while the working distance of the 60 is only a few cm.

I was talking about min focus distance, not magnification.

Oh, and with a true macro lens, it isn't that difficult to get around 2:1 with some tubes and a TC or a 500D.

Yes, you are correct...

It comes down to personal preference. If the OP wants to get up close and personal and likes the "challenge" of doing so, and wants a cheaper, lighter lens that can double as a portraiture lens, while accepting the fact that he runs a greater risk of not getting the shot, then by all means he should get the 60mm...

EDIT: With the exception of my misinterpretation of your "how close" comment, all my other statements are quite valid.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: Mike
Oh my, coming from an HP P&S is like going from a Pinto to a MB S55 AMG. I am looking at the 60mm Canon Macro. Many "professionals" knock it b/c it is EF-S meaning it really can't be used with full frame cameras like the 5d without some shenangals. If I upgrade anytime soon, it certainly won't be to a 5d or anything on that level, so it isn't something I am remotely worried about.

Are you absolutely sure about the 60mm macro? I've used a 50mm macro, 90mm macro, and now use a 180mm macro. You're going to have very little working distance with 60mm out in the field, and believe me, I found it very hard to photograph bugs and such with even a 90mm. Especially ones that are fast moving and have stingers...

The upside to the 60mm though is that it can double as a portrait lens, although the maximum aperture of f/2.8 might produce too much depth of focus...

Tell this guy and this guy that 60mm isn't long enough. How close can you get??

I'm not sure how much you know about macro lenses, but the mm rating has nothing to do with how "close" you can get...

A true macro lens will be able to get to 1:1 magnification of the subject, and with the exception of the Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5X Macro and added extension tubes and additional close focus lenses, 1:1 magnification is the MOST that all macro lenses will attain. Meaning ALL these macro lenses, regardless of if they're 50mm, 60mm, 90mm, 100mm, 180mm, will in the end get the same magnification, period. The ONLY thing differing between all these is working distance, weight, ease of mobility, non-macro use, and price.

Sure, you can get pictures of bugs and insects with a 60mm, its just harder and depending on how you feel about insects, scarier due to the working distance. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of disturbing the insect. With a 180mm you run less of a risk of getting stung FROM disturbing the insect.

Not to mention with any serious macro work you will want to have an off-camera flash to help maximize shutter speed and depth of field. Greater working distance gives you a lot more options for flash positioning, and increases your chances of getting that shot.

The 60mm on the other hand is more manueverable, lighter, and a better focal length for portrait photography.

The 180mm would be heavier, probably more expensive, a bit less manueverable, but will afford you a lot more working distance and can also double as a very sharp and pretty fast (as in bright) telephoto.

I guess you interpreted my response incorrectly.

When I said "close" I meant how close to your subject you were willing to get before you got scared or scared the subject away. I wasn't talking about magnification at all. The working distance of a 180 is around 25-30cm, while the working distance of the 60 is only a few cm.

I was talking about min focus distance, not magnification.

Oh, and with a true macro lens, it isn't that difficult to get around 2:1 with some tubes and a TC or a 500D.

Yes, you are correct...

It comes down to personal preference. If the OP wants to get up close and personal and likes the "challenge" of doing so, and wants a cheaper, lighter lens that can double as a portraiture lens, while accepting the fact that he runs a greater risk of not getting the shot, then by all means he should get the 60mm...

Greater risk of not getting the shot? I find it a totally headache to set up the tripod, position the head, frame the shot, reposition the tripod and head, frame the shot again, focus, and then the bug flies away or scurries underneath something. Tripod is for still life only for me.

 

[GTaudiophile]

If anyone is curious...

My travel bag, which I insist be small and light-weight, consists of the following:

Tamrac 5371
Canon EOS-20D
Canon EFS 10-22
Canon EF 24-105 F4L
Cleaning kit (air bulb/blower, lens-safe cloths, Zeiss cleaning spray, lens-safe brush)
Appropriate lens caps
1x 72mm Hoys Circular Polarizer (fits both lenses)
2x Canon BP-511A batteries
1x Canon Travel Charger w/ European plug adapter
2x SanDisk Ultra II 1.0GB CF cards
Instruction manuals for EOS-20D


In addition to the above two lenses, I also have the Tamron 28-75. I plan to add a prime to my collection soon, probably the EF 50 F1.4. Dunno. There is always the rumor that Canon is going to build a new/better version of their 50mm prime. Another lens I have highly considered is the EF 70-200 F4L.

If you go the Canon Lens Forum at DPreview.com, the big debate these days is between the EF 24-105 F4L IS vs. EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS. The "L" costs only $100 more but it's an "L". It also has better reach. The EFS is an EFS but it's wider and faster at F2.8.

I have the 24-105, and it's a fantastic lens. Brilliant colors, fast AF, well built, sharp! The samples I've seen of the 17-55 have been dull IMO. And I think it's nuts to spend $1150 on a non-L EFS lens.

 

[Eos]

I love opinions.

Momsie's first DSLR experience will not be hampered too much by using the kit lens. It's not optimal, she a 28mm-x will not be wide enough for big family shots when adding in the 1.6x factor. Stupid x factor.

Now, having a prime (non zoom) in the 24mm - 50mm range will likely make her happy. The quality she gets when using a lens like that will be fairly obvious.

The remote shutter is overkill. The camera has a built in timer.

I highly recommend an external flash like the 430EX. You can bounce it off a low ceiling for less harsh shots. It will recharge faster and the batteries are cheaper than the camera's batteries.

body with lens kit
flash
bag
card

To start with. Add a short prime lens if there is a few duckets left over. 24mm, 35mm, or 50mm. Small, light and sharp.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Greater risk of not getting the shot? I find it a totally headache to set up the tripod, position the head, frame the shot, reposition the tripod and head, frame the shot again, focus, and then the bug flies away or scurries underneath something. Tripod is for still life only for me.

Who uses a tripod???

Camera + lens + off-camera flash + you moving slowly back and forth to attain focus while handholding the camera is how most photographers do it... the flash and the high shutter speed as a result take care of any shake that's associated with handholding...

EDIT: Heck, there's no need to even TOUCH the focusing ring...

EDIT 2: And then there's the higher order subjects such as frogs and lizards and other small animals that have greater awareness of their surroundings. It's tough enough getting up close to these guys in the wild with a 180mm... a 60mm would be useless unless they were not wild, caged/relaxed, or you're Sam Fisher

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: eos
I love opinions.

Momsie's first DSLR experience will not be hampered too much by using the kit lens. It's not optimal, she a 28mm-x will not be wide enough for big family shots when adding in the 1.6x factor. Stupid x factor.

Now, having a prime (non zoom) in the 24mm - 50mm range will likely make her happy. The quality she gets when using a lens like that will be fairly obvious.

The remote shutter is overkill. The camera has a built in timer.

I highly recommend an external flash like the 430EX. You can bounce it off a low ceiling for less harsh shots. It will recharge faster and the batteries are cheaper than the camera's batteries.

body with lens kit
flash
bag
card

To start with. Add a short prime lens if there is a few duckets left over. 24mm, 35mm, or 50mm. Small, light and sharp.

Agreed x100. Flash was my first suggestion and I believe a 50mm prime was my second.

 

[Eos]

I never even though about light weight. I'm a glutton. I would gladly carry a rented 400 f/2.8 with my EOS3 and grip on a monopod all day at a zoo. With the backpack on my back. Yes, I had a bruise.

Lowepro AW Trekker
Canon Elan IIe with battery grip
Canon EOS 3 with PB-E2 grip
20mm f/2.8
24mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.8
28-105mm f/3.5~f/4.5
70mm-200mm f/2.8L
380EX flash
550EX flash

Plus, for big transperancies:

Bronica ETRSi
speedgrip
prism finder
3 120 backs
40mm f/4
75mm f/2.8

 

[aceO07]

I'm surprised that there has been so few suggestions for wide angle lenses. I didn't real the entire thread, but I would assume that coming from a point and shot background that the person would miss having that range and also the ability to zoom in and out. Primes are nice but it might seem limiting for a beginner.

I've used the Canon 70-200F4L and 28-135IS and they both make me miss having wide angle lenses. They're both nice but I like to capture more of the scene.

The kit lens isn't horrible for a beginner and only $100 or so. It's not bad if you put it to f8 or so.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Greater risk of not getting the shot? I find it a totally headache to set up the tripod, position the head, frame the shot, reposition the tripod and head, frame the shot again, focus, and then the bug flies away or scurries underneath something. Tripod is for still life only for me.

Who uses a tripod???

Camera + lens + off-camera flash + you moving slowly back and forth to attain focus while handholding the camera is how most photographers do it... the flash and the high shutter speed as a result take care of any shake that's associated with handholding...

EDIT: Heck, there's no need to even TOUCH the focusing ring...

EDIT 2: And then there's the higher order subjects such as frogs and lizards and other small animals that have greater awareness of their surroundings. It's tough enough getting up close to these guys in the wild with a 180mm... a 60mm would be useless unless they were not wild, caged/relaxed, or you're Sam Fisher

O RLY?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: eos
I never even though about light weight. I'm a glutton. I would gladly carry a rented 400 f/2.8 with my EOS3 and grip on a monopod all day at a zoo. With the backpack on my back. Yes, I had a bruise.

Yup, there comes a time for the truly hardcore when utter zeal is actually capable of making one's load seem lighter

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Greater risk of not getting the shot? I find it a totally headache to set up the tripod, position the head, frame the shot, reposition the tripod and head, frame the shot again, focus, and then the bug flies away or scurries underneath something. Tripod is for still life only for me.

Who uses a tripod???

Camera + lens + off-camera flash + you moving slowly back and forth to attain focus while handholding the camera is how most photographers do it... the flash and the high shutter speed as a result take care of any shake that's associated with handholding...

EDIT: Heck, there's no need to even TOUCH the focusing ring...

EDIT 2: And then there's the higher order subjects such as frogs and lizards and other small animals that have greater awareness of their surroundings. It's tough enough getting up close to these guys in the wild with a 180mm... a 60mm would be useless unless they were not wild, caged/RELAXED, or you're Sam Fisher

O RLY?

YA RLY!

It's not often that you stumble upon something like this in the wild...

And for the record "relaxed" includes states of unconsciousness, including sleep or death

 

[PHiuR]

stay away from DSLRs. they suck.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: aceO07
I'm surprised that there has been so few suggestions for wide angle lenses. I didn't real the entire thread, but I would assume that coming from a point and shot background that the person would miss having that range and also the ability to zoom in and out. Primes are nice but it might seem limiting for a beginner.

I've used the Canon 70-200F4L and 28-135IS and they both make me miss having wide angle lenses. They're both nice but I like to capture more of the scene.

The kit lens isn't horrible for a beginner and only $100 or so. It's not bad if you put it to f8 or so.

I have mentioned four so far that are 17+

EFS 17-85
EFS 17-55
Tamron 17-50
Sigma 18-50