Lenses

[Photo tool]

Im looking at either the Cannon 18-200mm or the Tamron 18-270mm. Does anyone have an opinion on which one is the better lense quality wise or the compatability with a Cannon 500D. I do understand that the Tamron has a greater zoom capability.

Also as I am a beginner could someone explain what the numbers mean in bold. AF18-270mm F/3.5-6.3
Sorry if this sounds studip but I dont know to much about these things.

[David]

moved this post to the lenses forum as it was in camera talk...

[EGD]

the number afther "f" is the maximum aperture that lens will open upto. and in your particular sample, the lens can have maximum aperture of F3.5 on 18mm zoom end, and maximum aperture of F6.3 on the 270 telephoto end.

so what is aperture?
Think of Aperture as the hole in your camera that lets in light. A bigger aperture means a bigger "hole" and thus, lets in more light. Conversely, a smaller aperture will let in less light. Aperture is probably the most confusing of the 3 settings because the number (f/stop) used to describe it may seem "backwards" to most people. The lower the number, the larger the aperture, and vise versa.

For example, an aperture of f/2.8 is twice as large as an aperture of f/4.0 and will let in twice as much light. I've illustrated this below to help you visualize what I've just described:

http://gallery.realitydesign.com/aperture.jpg

Aperture is usually controlled in 1/3 stops, so 3 clicks of the wheel is 1 full f/stop. For example, f/2.8 to f/4.0 is one full stop. f/3.3 and f/3.5 would be one third stops in between f/2.8 and f/4.0. The minimum and maximum aperture settings are dependent on the lens you're using. More expensive lenses will usually have bigger apertures. For example, a lens with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 will usually cost hundreds of dollars more than the same lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.0.

Aperture doesn't just control the light entering the camera, it also controls what is known as Depth of Field (DoF). This is the primary reason for adjusting the aperture value on the camera and is extremely important to understand. Depth of field is simply a way of describing how much of your picture is in focus. A narrow depth of field will have very little in focus (blurry background) while a wide depth of field will have almost the entire frame in focus (detailed background).

In the example below, the picture on the left has a wide depth of field where as the picture on the right has a narrow depth of field:

http://gallery.realitydesign.com/dof.jpg

Depth of field is controlled by the aperture setting. A larger aperture (smaller number) will have a very narrow depth of field. A smaller aperture (larger number) will have a wide depth of field. For example, in the images above, the left picture was taken at f/10 where as the picture on the right was taken at f/2. A good way to remember this relationship is to think of the aperture f/stops (numbers) as a measurement of depth of field. The smaller the number, the smaller the depth of field, and vise versa.

So then, why would we ever want to use a large aperture (small number)? Wouldn't we always want the most detail possible? The short answer is no, because your aperture setting will vary greatly depending on your situation. If you're looking to isolate your subject or remove a distracting background, a narrow depth of field is the best way to do so. Your subject will be in focus and the background will be blurry. Depending on how far away the background is and how large your aperture is, the background can become so blurry that it almost looks milky. This magnitude of background blur is usually referred to as "bokeh" and is a desired effect for some pictures, especially portraits.

http://gallery.realitydesign.com/bokeh.jpg

An example of the exact opposite situation where you'd want maximum detail and a wide depth of field would be shooting a landscape or something very large. In that case, the background actually is your subject, so a blurry background would not be desirable.

To recap:

A large aperture is a small f/stop number (f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8 ).
A small aperture is a large f/stop number (f/12, f/18, f/32).

A large aperture will let in more light, but will have a smaller (narrow) depth of field.
A small aperture will let in less light, but will have a larger (wide) depth of field.

[talan]

Hi I will chime in what I know but I may not be 100% correct (because im still a noob).

The lenses you have mentioned have a very large focal range (i.e. quite wide to quite zoomed) which make them a nice walkaround lens because you can just have one lens on you that covers wide angle and zoom. The thing you might sacrifice when purchasing a lens like this is you may find the images may not be as sharp as some of the other lenses. So yeah there's always give and take with lens purchases :). I'd suggest you read heaps of reviews before deciding between the Canon and Tamron.

[weka2000]

Great site for camera reviews based on real users experence

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[tomberkley]

One other thing to think about is, with any 3rd party lens compatibility can be an issue in the future eg your 500d will be sweet as now but you never know if unreleased canon models may not support an current 3rd party lens. tamron are a well known lens so its a pretty safe bet, just something to keep in mind.

When i was looking at buying a lens around the $1000 $1500 mark i had the same issue to think about, because there are some very competitive 3rd party lenses out there and is it better to go for the same brand all the way or go 3rd party? i decided to go with the canon one, because it has good right ups and it was only a few hundred more. I rekn check your budget and if you can afford it then its worth the extra bux...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
Here are some good sites to look at the first one has some comprehensive reviews from what it seems like people who know what they are talking about. if your like me you may not understand what all the f/... and 3.5-4.5 fiald of view crop factor etc... mean but you will pick it up fast dude don't worry. There is abit to get your head around but youl be sweet.
http://www.photo.co.nz/
The second is a site that supply heeeeaps of cameras,lenses, and nearly anything you can get in the shops. its a worldwide site but all the prices are in nz dollars so i use it as a good reference on how much stuff costs. I have noticed that the prices are prity competitive but it is possible to get some gear cheaper if you look around.
(on the home page click on newproducts and it will take you to the pricing, go under lenses then tamaron/canon etc and it will list all the products they stock.)
Cheers dude hope some of this helps
Peace
Tom

[weka2000]

I can only speak for canon cameras but EF-S lens wont work on Full Frame. You will also find full frame models need very good glass and often people end up selling their "Sigma" lens due to edge softness.

Cropped cameras only use the middle 60% of a lens FF use all of it.

I learnt this one the hard way

[keriboi]

ive got a tamron 18-200 and I like it . $480 from pro gear in new market

[tainted creative]

ive got a tamron 18-200 and I like it . $480 from pro gear in new market
Hey Keriboi , what do you primarily shoot with that lense?

[keriboi]

everything lol :)
I just use that. I have a 50mm 1.8 but find the tamron can pull of some good shots and it stays on my camera 99% of the time

http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1035/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_790124.jpg
http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/1000-1999/1045/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_802503.jpg
and can still take decent low light photos

[tainted creative]

are those shots taken with that lens? I like them. I have the canon 450d which I got the twin lens kit, I find the 75-300 lens pretty useless and I do get annoyed at changing lenses often so was looking at getting one that would eliminate the need to change often.

I am doing some concert photography soon do you think the tamron lens would hold up to those conditions if flash is not allowed at some events?

[keriboi]

yeah photos with the tamron. I wouldnt rate it for concert stuff, you need f2.8 or better for non flash stuff, you could do it , but you faliure rate would be high

[thirdkid]

sorry for the hijack but what do you guys think of the Canon 24-105 f4 L lens?

[robo git]

Canon 24-105 F4 L IS: I use it as a general walk-around lens. Gets a little soft when focusing off-centre around 100-105mm

In retrospect I would have preferred the (faster) 24-70 F2.8 L IS, which is about the same price, but a lot of that is because I often find myself taking night shots. It also seems to be sharper right across it's 'zoom'-range than the 24-105

I would also prefer a smaller DoF (wider aperture) at the 24mm end - I prefer to be able to isolate the subject, and that's not always possible with F4.

But then I've got a few prime lenses and I'm getting quicker at lens-changes... ;)

[thirdkid]

hmmm..i think i might get the 24-70..everyone that ive talked to have reccomended the 24-70 as its faster and can do everything and more than what the 24-105 can do..

[Redal]

The Canon 24-70f2.8 doesn't have IS .
So if that is a deal breaker go for the 24-105.
Both are very good lens, and the IS on the 24-105f4 comes in really handy, but if you need a faster lens to stop movement in really low light, the extra stop really helps.

[robo git]

Redal: No IS - Quite correct, my bad.

Best advice: Go into a camera store (a proper one that has stock - Progear in Newmarket is good) and ask to try the lens.

[tainted creative]

So you think something like maybe the canon ef 50mm f/1.8 II might be ok for starters for some concert photography? taking into account I should be fairly close to the action. I was thinking of ditching the two kit lenses I got with the 450d and investing in one good lens with a bit of range however.

[robo git]

So you think something like maybe the canon ef 50mm f/1.8 II might be ok for starters for some concert photography? Yes: In my opinion the Nifty 50 is great for concert photography on the cheap. The 24-70 f2.8L would also be good if you wanted a zoom instead.

My general "live band at night" shoot-gear is:
Canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye
Sigma 30mm f1.4
Canon 50mm f1.8 Mk II
Canon 100mm f2.0

NO FLASH = No disturbing of patrons or band

However: Personally I have used a 28-90 f4-5.6 with live bands and got shots I'm really happy with, so don't underestimate the kit lenses (Well, don't underestimate the 18-55 anyway), remembering you'll be shooting at around ISO 800 if it's darkish, and the multi-coloured lighting for the band will obliviate the need to observe niceties like chromatic aberrations.

Dark environment? Try shooting on Av @ -1.0 to -2.0 EV. I find this allows additional detail to be captured by shooting dark and then adding in exposure+fill-light afterward, as needed.

Generally anything that can go f2.8 or lower should be absolutely fine.

[thirdkid]

yeah i just thought of that..ill get the 50mm f1.8 and the 24-105 f4L lens..cos i dont do much indoor party type shots, and if i was to do some indoor shots i could always use the 50mm..

also if i was to do a rolling shot, say with a car in a parking lot, would the 24-105 be able to get a clear shot or would it be a little too slow?and is it not bad in say a hall taking pictures of people/guests??

also i just remembered we hired a 24-70mm lens before and shot an 18th birthday and i had to shoot at 800 iso so really i think the 24-105 might be a little more benefitial as IMO the 24-70 was fast but still had some downsides to it as it couldnt zoom..

[EGD]

also if i was to do a rolling shot, say with a car in a parking lot, would the 24-105 be able to get a clear shot or would it be a little too slow?and is it not bad in say a hall taking pictures of people/guests??



i think you are a little mixd up with the aperture and shutter speed here, by having a fast lens (large aperture) doesn't mean you will get a clear rolling shot, it depends on your panning skill and correct shutter speed you choose.

a fast lens means it has large aperture opening, which will benefit low light shooting condition, so unless you do a rolling shot in the dark, a fast lens has not much more benefit than a normal kit lens with same zoom range.

24-105L is a very good walk around lens, it was my first DSLR lens when i was shooting canon. althought its f4, the IS should give you a good 2-3 stops benefit on shutter speed compare with 24-70L.

[Haim]

i think that 24-70 on a crop sensor is not too bad. i think that you should get it then keep it for when you upgrade to full frame.

[thirdkid]

thanks for that EGD..dont know much about lenses and still learning about them..first time buying a lens also so will be needing some advice..i might get the 24-105mm lens as its got more zoom and the IS should also help me..

i might just skip on the 24-70 for now cos i dont think ill have enough funds to get a full frame anytime soon (even next year cos i want to fund my car hehe)..and i do quite alot of zooming so yeah..24-105 might benefit me more..

[Dick Dastardly]

Gday all, anyone had any experiences good or bad with the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC Marco? Just looking for something to upgrade to from the good ol' Canon 18-55.. Cheers.

[tainted creative]

I had a nose at that lens too but I don't know much about it. I too have the canon 18-55 and the sigma looks a decent investment but I would be reading a lot of reviews before I actually purchase my next lens, so who rates sigma lenses?

[talan]

I am kind of in the toss up between the 24-105mm IS f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8.

More zoom range and IS with the 24-105mm but wider apeture, lower zoom range and no IS. I guess the wider apeture compensates a little for the lack of IS for low light. Wish they had a 24-105mm IS f/2.8!

What about Tamron? There's a walkaround I hear of that's quite popular... Can't remember specs :(

[tainted creative]

is that the 18-200mm tamron lens your referring to?

[talan]

is that the 18-200mm tamron lens your referring to?
I was thinking of the 17-50mm f/2.8

Anyone got one?