• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Some DSLR camera questions....

A

AUMM

Diamond Member
I'm looking at getting the Rebel XT as well, but I can't decide whether I should get the kit lens or not....I'm interested in doing mostly landscape and macro shots, but i dont want to spend more than 300-400 on a lens for now... any suggestions? is there a lens that would alow me to do both? I've been reading as much as I can about DSLR's but it is some confusing stuff!

Also, has anyone done underwater photography with this camera? I dive and would love to be able to take it down there.
 
The kit lens for the Rebel XT is supposed to be horrible.. for landscaping, look into the Canon 17-40 f/4L or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or hold out for the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 which is supposed to be coming out this fall (I'm waiting on this one for my D50 to pair it with a 70-200 f/2.8 VR that I should be getting soon). Macro photography I'm not too sure.. but I hear the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens is really good.
 
OoOOOooOOOOooO

I wouldn't get the kit lens personally.

Get a wide angle lens like a 10-20mm or a 12-24mm, or even a 30mm lens that can be your normal lens (50mm equivalent) and landscape lens, depending on how wide you want to go. The Tamron 17-50mm is also very popular, and by a lot of accounts is just as sharp as the Canon 17-40 f/4L.

The great thing about wide lenses is that if you reverse mount them they become very powerful macro lenses. You can buy reverse mount adapters on ebay for $15, but aperture control is no longer automatic.

http://www.fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1702772
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OoOOOooOOOOooO

I wouldn't get the kit lens personally.

Get a wide angle lens like a 10-20mm or a 12-24mm, or even a 30mm lens that can be your normal lens (50mm equivalent) and landscape lens, depending on how wide you want to go. The Tamron 17-50mm is also very popular, and by a lot of accounts is just as sharp as the Canon 17-40 f/4L.

The great thing about wide lenses is that if you reverse mount them they become very powerful macro lenses. You can buy reverse mount adapters on ebay for $15, but aperture control is no longer automatic.

http://www.fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1702772
Click to expand...

huh? how do you reverse mount a lens? can that onyl be done with Canon?
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OoOOOooOOOOooO

I wouldn't get the kit lens personally.

Get a wide angle lens like a 10-20mm or a 12-24mm, or even a 30mm lens that can be your normal lens (50mm equivalent) and landscape lens, depending on how wide you want to go. The Tamron 17-50mm is also very popular, and by a lot of accounts is just as sharp as the Canon 17-40 f/4L.

The great thing about wide lenses is that if you reverse mount them they become very powerful macro lenses. You can buy reverse mount adapters on ebay for $15, but aperture control is no longer automatic.

http://www.fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1702772
Click to expand...

you have amazing pictures... so would the Tamron 17-50mm be reverse mountable?
 
You reverse mount a lens by doing just that; reversing it and mounting it to the camera body. You can do it right now; just take off your lens and hold the front end to the body, and you'll see that you'll be able to focus really close on things. To get a more secure mount, you can reverse mount it by simply getting something like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/58mm-Reverse-Mount-...5QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

What it is is basically one side has threads that screw right into your filter threads at the front of the lens, and the other side mounts right into your camera body. When buying this make sure that its screw thread diameter matches the filter size of your lens. For the Tamron 17-50mm, it's 67mm so you'd need to get this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/67mm-Reverse-Mount-...5QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

ANY lens is reverse mountable. Since the Tamron 17-50mm is already sharp as hell the macro pictures should be the same.

I would recommend getting an external flash for macro though; it helps a lot in getting a fast enough shutter speed to catch these guys. Also note that reverse mounting for macro means you'll have very little working distance between you and the subject, I would say around 6 inches and closer depending on magnification, which goes up as you zoom to wider focal lengths.
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
You reverse mount a lens by doing just that; reversing it and mounting it to the camera body. You can do it right now; just take off your lens and hold the front end to the body, and you'll see that you'll be able to focus really close on things. To get a more secure mount, you can reverse mount it by simply getting something like this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/58mm-Reverse-Mount-...5QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

What it is is basically one side has threads that screw right into your filter threads at the front of the lens, and the other side mounts right into your camera body. When buying this make sure that its screw thread diameter matches the filter size of your lens. For the Tamron 17-50mm, it's 67mm so you'd need to get this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/67mm-Reverse-Mount-...5QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

ANY lens is reverse mountable. Since the Tamron 17-50mm is already sharp as hell the macro pictures should be the same.

I would recommend getting an external flash for macro though; it helps a lot in getting a fast enough shutter speed to catch these guys. Also note that reverse mounting for macro means you'll have very little working distance between you and the subject, I would say around 6 inches and closer depending on magnification, which goes up as you zoom to wider focal lengths.
Click to expand...



thanks for the info... would the Tamron lens be considered a general "walking" lens? I was reading on dpreview.com that a lot of people say that the kit lens is worth it....
 
Oh yeah, the Tamron is a great walkaround lens because of the focal range. The 17mm end is pretty wide for scenics. The 30mm (50mm equivalent) is your standard "normal" focal length, and the 50mm (80mm equivalent) is good for portraiture, but the maximum aperture of f/2.8 will give too much depth of field for true portraiture use.

As for the people on dpreview, keep in mind that a huge portion of them are snapshooters. The lens is supposed to be sharpish at f/8, but then again any lens is sharpest at around f/8, and who wants to walk around at f/8 all the time? The Tamron's brighter and is probably sharper at f/2.8 than the kit lens at f/8. But in the end you have to make the decision for yourself. Are you concerned about image quality and having a bright lens, enough to pay the premium for one, or do you really not care all that much about photography (which is fine) and would be happy just getting a $60 kit lens for general snapshooting?

I bought my XT with the kit lens, and after using it for a week I bought a 50mm f/1.8 and stopped touching the kit lens altogether after I saw what the prime could do. The kit lens wasn't doing the 8MP sensor justice IMO.

EDIT: The reason I got my camera with the kit is because I wanted to see what the fuss was about with the kit lens being a good value. I did some testing, and even without another lens to compare it to I wasn't impressed. Then I got a lens to compare it to and I was even less impressed.
 
Look for these two lenses used for bargains:

Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (plastic fantastic) - can be had for less than $100
Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 (sharp, fast, with good build quality, but heavy) - can be had for less than $200

Two excellent lenses that cover a nice range for less than $300 FTW.
 
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Look for these two lenses used for bargains:

Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (plastic fantastic) - can be had for less than $100
Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 (sharp, fast, with good build quality, but heavy) - can be had for less than $200

Two excellent lenses that cover a nice range for less than $300 FTW.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: AMDUALY
fuzzybabybunny is such a camera whore 🙂
Click to expand...

Yay!
 
Originally posted by: AMDUALY
fuzzybabybunny is such a camera whore 🙂
Click to expand...

I for one, am very grateful for the camera whores here...they have provided invaluable information for me and others in the dSLR realm. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Look for these two lenses used for bargains:

Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (plastic fantastic) - can be had for less than $100
Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 (sharp, fast, with good build quality, but heavy) - can be had for less than $200

Two excellent lenses that cover a nice range for less than $300 FTW.
Click to expand...

how would these compare to the Tamron 17-50mm suggested by fuzzybabybunny?
 
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: AMDUALY
fuzzybabybunny is such a camera whore 🙂
Click to expand...

I for one, am very grateful for the camera whores here...they have provided invaluable information for me and others in the dSLR realm. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

same here, but my wallet isnt ...
 
Originally posted by: AUMM
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Look for these two lenses used for bargains:

Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (plastic fantastic) - can be had for less than $100
Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 (sharp, fast, with good build quality, but heavy) - can be had for less than $200

Two excellent lenses that cover a nice range for less than $300 FTW.
Click to expand...

how would these compare to the Tamron 17-50mm suggested by fuzzybabybunny?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I've never used either of these lenses. I would personally still prefer the Tamron because then I wouldn't have to switch lenses (or carry two lenses around). The Tamron does lack the 70mm end of the Tokina though.
 
If you're shooting landscapes, you'll be stopping down. Stick with the kit lens until you can afford the 17-40.

As far as macro, pick up a 250D closeup lens and use it with your kit lens.

Save your money until you figure out what you really need. Though if you're really serious about landscapes and macro, consider investing in a good tripod and ballhead.
 
Stick with the kit lens for a while. After all, it's almost free. Then keep track of your exif data and see where you are shooting most of your shots. Then you can intelligently purchase a lens that works best for you.

People love bashing the kit lens(es). I own Nikon, YMMV. But they are good learning tools.

Added bonus to kit lens: you won't know what good is if you don't try entry level. If you got a new corvette/mercedes/ferrari/lexus for your 16th birthday, you would be spoiled for the rest of your life, with nothing to grow into. If you start with a 1987 Pontiac, you will realize the excellence of better autos/lenses.
 
Originally posted by: laurenlex
Stick with the kit lens for a while. After all, it's almost free. Then keep track of your exif data and see where you are shooting most of your shots. Then you can intelligently purchase a lens that works best for you.

People love bashing the kit lens(es). I own Nikon, YMMV. But they are good learning tools.

Added bonus to kit lens: you won't know what good is if you don't try entry level. If you got a new corvette/mercedes/ferrari/lexus for your 16th birthday, you would be spoiled for the rest of your life, with nothing to grow into. If you start with a 1987 Pontiac, you will realize the excellence of better autos/lenses.
Click to expand...

well it's an extra $100 for the kit lens, i'm debating if I shud just put that money towards a better lens...
 
Yes, get the kit lens. It is a very good lens even though people talk bad about it. It is one of the most versatile lenses they have (that's why they combo it with the camera).
 
Ehhh... I wouldn't call the kit lens that great. If it was that great I'd still have it, but I don't. It's pretty dark, not all that sharp, even at f/8 compared to other lenses, and it lacks a lot of the spit and polish of more expensive lenses (distance scale, a REAL manual focusing ring, USM/HSM, and special glass elements for optimizing image quality). It was the first thing that I got rid of, and it was even after I used it too. The fact that it's combo-ed with the XT can just mean that it's a cheap starter lens for a cheap starter DSLR, something that soccer moms will appreciate. Move up to more professional DSLRs like the 1D or 1Ds series and there isn't even going to be an option for a kit lens, and for good reason.

I'd use that $100 saved to get a Canon 50mm f/1.8, an extremely sharp and bright lens on the cheap, or put it towards a better lens in the 18-55mm neighborhood. A 50mm will discipline you to carefully think about framing and such, instead of just zooming in and out.
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
I'd use that $100 saved to get a Canon 50mm f/1.8, an extremely sharp and bright lens on the cheap, or put it towards a better lens in the 18-55mm neighborhood. A 50mm will discipline you to carefully think about framing and such, instead of just zooming in and out.
Click to expand...
That's a must have lens! It's my favorite. What is it now... $80?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top