You are not logged in
Login
Register
Home
Advertise here
Shop @ Photojojo!
Magnetic Photo Rope - $12
8 so-tiny-yet-so-mighty neodymium magnets hold your photos to a thin steel cable you can hang just about anywhere. Now in 5 colors! More →
|
Bubbly24
32 days ago
|
|
I don't understand lenses...
What is the fuss about lenses and lens sizes? Why do people buy additional lenses or collect them?
Is it really that important? Please school me because I really want to know.
|
scenes
32 days ago
|
|
I'm sure someone will elaborate far better than me, but...
Different lenses have different abilities.
An 18-55mm lenses is often used for portraits and basic landscape photos...
... while a 55-200mm lens would be used for zooming in more, such as nature photography.
Telephoto can be up to 300mm, as it's a super zoom. This would be for something like taking a photo of an eagle on a mountain far away.
If your lens is 300 mm or longer, you might want an Image Stabilistation/IS lens to help lessen camera shake (the longer the lens length, the more noticeable camera shake is on your images).
You might want a wide angle lens for landscape photos, such as a mountain shot.
You might want a fisheye lens for cityscapes, to help add dimension.
You might want a macro lens for close up photos, such as of flowers. You could do some macro with a standard dSLR kit lens (18-55 or so), but depending on what the item is, you might want a specialized macro lens. Maybe if you're shooting the details of small jewelry, such as earrings.
A "VR" lens (vibration reduction) helps with sports photos and night photos, to help there not be shutter shake/blur. These are typically more expensive than the standard kit lens (18-55mm, no VR).
Lens filters help for bright sunlight or portraits (such as to make a person look more tan), soft focus filter, color filters to highlight one color, and color correcting or helping there not be sun glare and that kind of stuff.
So, depending on what type of photos you want (portraits vs. landscape in bright sunlight vs. night photos of lights vs....), you get a certain type of lens and filter set. If you're a portrait or wedding photographer, you'd want lenses and filters that help make people look good-- you probably wouldn't really need a telephoto lens to zoom in hundreds of feet (such as a 300mm). You'd probably add a filter (or multiple filters?) to help make the person in the portrait have a better skin tone.
Someone else will have to explain f stops and which lenses can do what... or which lighting and remote lighting setups one would want in certain conditions... I certainly can't.
Hope that helps a little, and hope someone can elaborate.
|
scenes
32 days ago
|
|
Here's a really good article:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/accessories/ … lens-uses/
From the link:
-------
Lens focal lengths and subject matter
Some lenses are better suited for certain subject matter than others. Here is a general guide:
Walk around: 24-70 f-2.8; a good general purpose focal length.
Birds/Wildlife/Sports: 70-200mm f-2.8; 300mm f-2.8; 600mm f-4. A wide aperture allows for faster shutter speeds and can blur out a chain link fence.
Portraits: 135mm f2; little to no distortion; shrinks the nose and blurs the background.
Landscapes/Interiors/Cars: 10-20mm. Tilt the lens up a little to correct for curvilinear distortion or shoot verticals indoors; also good for intentional distortion.
Bugs/Macro: A true macro is always a non-zooming prime lens. Some zooms say macro but they won’t produce a one to one image.
Architecture: Ultra wide lens less than 21mm; a tilt shift lens allows you to correct distortion.
Poparattzi: 18-200mm or 28-300mm. Buy both for when an irate celebrity breaks one.
Weddings: Two of each of the above (except the 300mm, 600mm and the poparattzi ones). Also, at least two camera bodies. Any professional wedding photographer will tell you that something always goes wrong and you need to carry backups for a once in a lifetime event.
One all purpose lens?
Can you photograph all you want with one all purpose lens? The answer is sort of.
Even with just a 50mm 1.8, you would have a lens with a roughly normal field of view and a very wide aperture with little or no distortion. Get really close to the action and it is like a telephoto; step back and it is like a wide angle lens.
Why not use a zoom such as the 18-200mm or the 28-300mm? You could, but to get such a great zoom range they sacrifice some quality and usually have a small widest aperture such as 5.6. Ok for vacation photos but frustrating if it is your only choice.
Zoom lenses
Sometimes you can’t move so you buy a zoom lens that goes from wide angle to telephoto. If I had to recommend just one it would be either a 17-55mm 2.8 for small sensor cameras, or the 24-70mm 2.8 for full size sensors. They offer a versatile zoom range from wide angle to short telephoto and are still fast.
As you get closer to and further away from your subject the relationship of the sizes of the stuff in the foreground and the background change. The change is controlled by how close you are to the subject and would be the same if using a zoom lens or a prime.
For example, if you are very close to a person with a wide-angle lens then the background is expansive; buildings at a moderate distance are small by comparison. But if you get far away using a prime lens, or zoom in with a telephoto lens, the subject and buildings (trees, fountain, etc.) are about the same size.
So even if you find one zoom you like for everything, you will still have to move yourself sometimes to get the perspectives and spacial relationships you want."
From: http://www.digicamhelp.com/accessories/ … lens-uses/
-----
|
superdewa
31 days ago
|
|
Lenses only matter if you own an SLR (the digital version of which is known as a DSLR). You can't change the lens on a point and shoot camera. If you own a SLR, you can buy (for a price) a lens that will zoom both wide and long, and if you are only going to use your camera for travel or generally walking about, you can keep that lens on your camera and use it like a big, clunky, heavy point and shoot. However, one of the many pluses of an SLR camera is that you CAN change the lenses, and since different lenses have different qualities (Scenes did a decent job of explaining the different qualities), most photographers with SLRs drool over the different lenses they'd like to own.
|
Bubbly24
31 days ago
|
|
Thanks Scenes that is a lot of info and really useful, I will basically study it 
|
Shaolin
19 days ago
|
|
OK, I'm bumping this one up, I am in a dilemma.
I have a couple of € from my tax return (YAY) that I want to spend on a lens. Now, I've been looking at a Sigma 18-200 mm 3,5-6,3 DC OS lens (or the Tamron AF 18-200mm 3,5-6,3 XR Di II LD ASL ) for some time, but I can't really seem to figure out why the Tamron is so much cheaper. Does that mean it's also a lower-quality lens? Maybe Willtastic or some of the other tech-savvy people here can point me in a direction.
Also, I already have an old lens that's 80-300 (off the top of my head, but I'm not absolutely positive 80mm is the lower end, 300 is definitely the upper end of its range) that was built for analog cameras and I got it cheap when I got my DSLR. (I switched from Nikon to Canon, because my old (ca. 1987) lenses wouldn't fit a new Nikon anyway, and Canon at least had been consistent in the bayonet for the EOS series so I figured I could get cheap used lenses easier ... that worked) I guess the new lens would probably replace that one?
Do you think it makes sense to do this? I'm also toying with the idea of a fixed width, for people and night shots, though I really like the "far away" bonus in portraits that the tele gives me... Argh. Any input would be appreciated!
|
Willtastic
19 days ago
|
|
I was looking at those same two lenses. IIRC Sigma is a liiiittle bit sharper but not enough to justify the price difference. Although those two you pointed out, is the Tamron also image stabilized? Because The "OS" in the Sigma means optical stabilization which is important. If the Tamron is image stabilized then the price difference isn't worth it
|
Shaolin
19 days ago
|
|
Ahhhh. ha! That makes sense and from the technical details on the Amazon site, you're probably right. bummer...
Now I see that there's another Sigma in the same price range as that Tamron, that is also not stabilized... hm... But I guess, it might still be worth the investment for a lense that would in essence replace both my existing lense (the telephoto lense and the kit lense)
|
Red
19 days ago
|
|
Shaolin, I'd suggest you go with a prime lens. You've got the range of either of these lenses covered and a prime would do something new. The 28 f2 is a nice lens and would be a fast normal to you. If you really want a zoom, think about the WA zoom, the 10-22mm.
|
superdewa
19 days ago
|
|
Is XR Tamron's image-stabilization abbreviation?
I just looked at the price of these. I was about to buy Nikon's 35mm 1.8 lens, but the Tamron 18-200 doesn't much more and is looking very tempting. It would be nice to have one lens to cover the range of two lenses I already have, for walks. Oh, decisions, decisions. I'll probably still go with the 35mm as it will add new possibilities to my photography, but I think I'll add the Tamron to my wishlist.
|
Willtastic
19 days ago
|
|
Shaolin wrote:
a lense that would in essence replace both my existing lense (the telephoto lense and the kit lense) Nooo!
I see the appeal because I'm going to get an 18-200 too, but for serious work it is NOT a replacement. A Tamron or Sigma (Sigron? Tama?) goes to a minimum aperture of of 3.5 at widest to -6.3- zoomed in. Besides that you're going to have less sharpness, more vignetting, and more chromatic aberrations compared to other lenses.
I do still want one because it'll take GOOD photos and do so without me having to switch, but if I know I'm about to do some shots of a model I'll be slapping on my 50mm f/1.8 or something else that has high sharpness, autofocus speed, etc.
|
Shaolin
18 days ago
|
|
Sorry, I think I was misunderstood, if anything, I'd get the more expensive, not the cheaper lense, considering my shaky hands in Austrian winters. It's snowing here. Have I mentioned I don't like snow...
However, you're probably right - this lens might not be a replacement for what I have. Not for 'serious' work. And I wouldn't dream of throwing my other lenses out. These lenses appeal to me because they would make carrying my camera around on an everyday basis more manageable than with the two lenses I now carry, always. I am a lazy person, I guess.
A good 50 mm lens is the other thing I am considering, my tax return, sadly, will only cover one _or_ the other... Maybe I should consider that route, rather than just being a lazy bum ;-)
And Usseryrl, thanks for these links! I think I do understand the basic concept. I am still not very keen on carrying around thousands of €, and especially, lots of kilograms in gear. I might be Shaolin, but I'm stíll a rather small lady ;-) and being able to move reasonably, for me, is a pretty important factor, also because most of my photography is travel-related and I really don't like carrying two backpacks at a time. :-) On the other hand, when I have someone to help me carry my stuff, I do like the possibility of having all my filters, macro screw-ons, spy lense and stuff with me. So I'm looking around. Ahhh... decisions...
|
Red
18 days ago
|
|
Shaolin, the Canon 50mm f1.8 shouldn't be too expensive. Look for a used one, there haven't been any changes in years.
|
superdewa
18 days ago
|
|
Shaolin, I think the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is under $100 US. That plus the less expensive 18-200 would cost less than the more expensive 18-200. And it would be the best lens of the bunch. The nice thing about the 50mm is you might decide that THAT's the lens you want to carry around most of the time. You just have to use your body to "zoom" with it rather than your hand. It's lightweight, and takes gorgeous photos. You get beautiful bokeh and more flexibility indoors or at night.
|
usseryrl
18 days ago
|
|
I am about to get a 50mm 1.4 and from reviews I think it's worth the difference. Its 394.95 at BH Photo. I only say this because you said you wanted a good lens.
But like superdewa said you can get a 50mm 1.8 for abour 100.00. It's build and quality just isn't as good. Just depends on how much you want to spend.
And Shaolin, I'm sorry,I wasn't talking toward you. I meant bubbly24. I should have been specific on that.
Have a nice week.
|
744
Home
Page generated in 1258807338.9940 seconds
|
Re-stickable Decal Photo Frames - $20
8 retro wall decal frames that leave no mark on your walls and are a cinch to remove and reapply. More →
Keyboard Shortcut Skins - $30
Become a whiz at Photoshop, Aperture, FCP, Pro Tools, and Logic with these pre-printed keyboard skins. More →
Photo Time Capsule
Flickr
Twitter
Facebook
