Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GoBengals

PORTRAIT LENS & ZOOM LENS

Recommended Posts

I've got a Canon Rebel XTI camera, just with the kit lens as I've been poor for so long.

In eed a good portait & everyday lens for the wife and I need a good zoom lens for myself for sports and things.

I have decided on the [b]EF 70-300mm IS USM Canon[/b] lens for myself. it runs about $650, I have $375 in gift cards for circuit city from work so im halfway there.

I think a relative is looking to spend about $400 on a lens for the portrait/everyday variety lens for the wife and I.

I was looking at the [b]EF S60mm Macro USM[/b] lens its around $450, but i really know notihng about a portrait lens, and some reviews say its great foreveryday pics and some says its not, etc..


so im looking for some feedback and input. as for everyday some IS would be nice for the wife, as wel go to the park and playground with our kids and a tripod isnt always possible. and macro + IS seems to not exist.

i know little to notihng about this stuff, we are just getting started in the real photography world.

Thanks for the help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For your telephoto lens that 70-300 is a bad ass mofo when you're just starting out. You'll really enjoy it. For everyday photos I think you'd probably be fine with the standard 35-70 zoom lens that comes with the camera. Is there some specific reason you want something to do macro shots with? Is your wife wanting to take photos of butterflies sitting on rose petals or something? Seriously, what's the need for a macro lens? I would think for shooting the kids at the park birthdays etc... the 35-70 that came with it, I'm assuming it's 35-70 because that's pretty standard fare for Canon, would be fine. If you wanted something to get a little closer you may want to get another zoom lens say a 28-85mm. Canon makes some really good lenses. I used to shoot with an EOS3 and had a bunch of lenses. I found out that the ones I used to most were the 28-85, 35-70 and the 70-300. I had a fisheye lens that I used a few times but to be honest, the novelty wore off real quick and I realized that I had spent all that money on a lens that I hardly ever used. If you pick up the 28-85 and the 70-300 you'll be fully covered for everything you'll ever need to do.....unless you're going to get into photography big time. Until that time I'd say stick with the basics. I would also recommend shooting with 400speed film but alas, you're in the digital world, baby. hehe!!
MULLY
I should scan some of my old photos. Got some killer shots of Mt. Fuji at sunrise etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fulcher_33' post='579191' date='Oct 27 2007, 08:45 PM']For your telephoto lens that 70-300 is a bad ass mofo when you're just starting out. You'll really enjoy it. For everyday photos I think you'd probably be fine with the standard 35-70 zoom lens that comes with the camera. Is there some specific reason you want something to do macro shots with? Is your wife wanting to take photos of butterflies sitting on rose petals or something? Seriously, what's the need for a macro lens? I would think for shooting the kids at the park birthdays etc... the 35-70 that came with it, I'm assuming it's 35-70 because that's pretty standard fare for Canon, would be fine. If you wanted something to get a little closer you may want to get another zoom lens say a 28-85mm. Canon makes some really good lenses. I used to shoot with an EOS3 and had a bunch of lenses. I found out that the ones I used to most were the 28-85, 35-70 and the 70-300. I had a fisheye lens that I used a few times but to be honest, the novelty wore off real quick and I realized that I had spent all that money on a lens that I hardly ever used. If you pick up the 28-85 and the 70-300 you'll be fully covered for everything you'll ever need to do.....unless you're going to get into photography big time. Until that time I'd say stick with the basics. I would also recommend shooting with 400speed film but alas, you're in the digital world, baby. hehe!!
MULLY
I should scan some of my old photos. Got some killer shots of Mt. Fuji at sunrise etc...[/quote]


i think sharing some photos would be interesting, i know a few have shared some, but we have 15-20 folks here who dabble in photography, so it wouldnt be a bad idea...

thanks for the comments, the reason for the marco lens is for something "special", the kit lens is ok, some IS woulda been nice, so a mid range lens will be next on the list, the macro i wanted because of the possabilities. with so many projects sitting on standby, i like designing things with my own work, so taking photos of the kids at the park with a leafe or some due on a bench or whatever the wife drums up, is something that interests us, not only that but "learning" is easier the more tools you have, so , in the end, along with the graphics design and web work i do on the side (i own a design and hosting /printing company) i would like to tie in childrens/family photography studio, but first we are going to dabble with our own family and friends and see how we like it and how it goes. so i plan on investing about $5,000 in photography lenses and equipment over the next 18 months, so macro lens is just something i want to understand and have in the arsenal.

so the macro is on the way, and im $200 away from the 70-300 lens, probably xmas time, so i should be well versed in it by training camp!


i pondered the IS in body vs in lens and read a few reviews stating its slightly more effective in the lens(though hella more expensive obviously) as it tailors the IS to the lens size, etc, which makes sense. but 75% of my lenses for everyday use will need IS, but not on potrait shots,etc, i think the kit lens was a 18-55mm by the way, it does well, but its "eh"... tho part of thats the person taking photos as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='GoBengals' post='579202' date='Oct 28 2007, 11:40 AM']i think sharing some photos would be interesting, i know a few have shared some, but we have 15-20 folks here who dabble in photography, so it wouldnt be a bad idea...

thanks for the comments, the reason for the marco lens is for something "special", the kit lens is ok, some IS woulda been nice, so a mid range lens will be next on the list, the macro i wanted because of the possabilities. with so many projects sitting on standby, i like designing things with my own work, so taking photos of the kids at the park with a leafe or some due on a bench or whatever the wife drums up, is something that interests us, not only that but "learning" is easier the more tools you have, so , in the end, along with the graphics design and web work i do on the side (i own a design and hosting /printing company) i would like to tie in childrens/family photography studio, but first we are going to dabble with our own family and friends and see how we like it and how it goes. so i plan on investing about $5,000 in photography lenses and equipment over the next 18 months, so macro lens is just something i want to understand and have in the arsenal.

so the macro is on the way, and im $200 away from the 70-300 lens, probably xmas time, so i should be well versed in it by training camp!


i pondered the IS in body vs in lens and read a few reviews stating its slightly more effective in the lens(though hella more expensive obviously) as it tailors the IS to the lens size, etc, which makes sense. but 75% of my lenses for everyday use will need IS, but not on potrait shots,etc, i think the kit lens was a 18-55mm by the way, it does well, but its "eh"... tho part of thats the person taking photos as well.[/quote]


Well, having IS is a good thing but if you're shooting a bird in flight it's still going to be blurry. Not much is going to change that. I wouldn't expect you to get super crystal clear shots of the Bengals players in action.
MULLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Fulcher_33' post='580627' date='Oct 28 2007, 09:03 PM']Well, having IS is a good thing but if you're shooting a bird in flight it's still going to be blurry. Not much is going to change that. I wouldn't expect you to get super crystal clear shots of the Bengals players in action.
MULLY[/quote]


yea, i just want to get equal zoom range with a better camera, i have 12x optical on my 7mp kodak, and it gets me some cool bengals pics, but generic IS, and a few less MP's i think hurt a few shots, especially in mediocre lighting. hopefully i can get some nice shots with the rebel xti and that zoom lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...