Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been experimenting with what I have for a while now and slowly but surely have been correcting what I have found lacking but need advice as to best bang for the buck in my next acquisitions.
I am still a complete novice with a Canon Rebel XS. I have two lenses, the original 18-55mm IS kit lens and a zoom (70-200 f/4L USM, without the stabilization). I noticed a lot of my hand held shots in middling lighting were not nearly as crisp as they should be and got (as a Christmas present) a good tripod which seems to have remedied some of my issues with the bigger lens. So, now I seem to have decent close in shots and some pretty nice landscape level photos, and intend to get better at taking them. I just know one day soon I'll discover when I try to imitate a shot I've seen here I'll find a glaring hole in what I have for equipment.
Now I know I will start finding gaps sooner or later on my own, but figure those who have come before me might know the progression and save me from re-inventing the wheel. I suspect a non zoom lens will probably be the next. Does anyone have advice on what lenses I might want to start looking at? Of course that would be keeping in mind that I'm retired and don't have an unlimited budget. I do know I will be trying to take more "people" pictures (not necessarily formal portraits but not family "snap shots" either) and I also most likely taking a lot of plant and flower pictures - and those probably will require a different lens again. TIA
For an all purpose fixed lens, you can't go wrong with a simple 50mm. They are fairly sharp, fast, affordable and the focal length is usable in many situations. Many portrait photographers use them. For plant and flower photography, you should go with a macro lens... fortunately, macro lens are also useful for portraits because they tend to be sharp. I recommend this lens:
I agree that you should consider a 50mm -- but I'd go with the Canon ef 50mm f/1.8 II -- commonly called the nifty fifty. Very sharp, very fast -- and a great price. Right now it's listed at $128 on Amazon, but with a little work you could find it for less. I got mine used for $80. Great in low light, great for experimenting with different effects from shallow depths of field -- just a fun, fun lens to play with. Google "Canon nifty fifty" and you'll be able to find tons of info on it.
I agree that you should consider a 50mm -- but I'd go with the Canon ef 50mm f/1.8 II -- commonly called the nifty fifty. Very sharp, very fast -- and a great price. Right now it's listed at $128 on Amazon, but with a little work you could find it for less. I got mine used for $80. Great in low light, great for experimenting with different effects from shallow depths of field -- just a fun, fun lens to play with. Google "Canon nifty fifty" and you'll be able to find tons of info on it.
I have to agree here. Then save for the 100mm Macro. I also suggest getting a remote release for doing landscapes so the camera is absolutely still when the shutter fires. Gives you control over the timing of the photo that you don't always get trying to use the self timer feature.
I have to agree here. Then save for the 100mm Macro. I also suggest getting a remote release for doing landscapes so the camera is absolutely still when the shutter fires. Gives you control over the timing of the photo that you don't always get trying to use the self timer feature.
I asked this in another thread, but it hasn't been answered yet...
...and it relates to your comment.
Would you suggest "saving" for the 100mm Macro IS (the L-series)? I'm just wondering if users think the extra money for the IS (and maybe better glass) is worth it....
You mentioned taking pictures of flowers plus people, so I would recommend two lenses, the
-50mm f/1.4
-100mm /2.8 Macro USM (the one without IS unless you can afford the one with IS)
The problem I can see here is that depending on your budget you may have to settle for only one of the two lenses at the moment, and these are my reasons:
a. The 50mm f/1.4 is about perfect for portraits and such in relatively low-light conditions, but it's not a macro lens. However you can use it as a "macro wanabe" with a set of Kenko tubes (a 3-tube kit), but sooner or later you would want a true macro lens. So, you can use this lens for other than just portraits.
b. The f/2.8 Macro USM is not the best for the sort of low-light conditions I mentioned on "a" above, but it can be used as a portrait lens in places where there is enough room behind you to move away from the subject. So, you can use this lens for other than just macro photography.
You will have to decide what you want to do most often now, people or flowers
One thing to keep in mind for a 50mm prime is that it's too long on a crop-body camera (Rebel, 7D, etc) to take full body portraits in a home. For a portrait orientation you need a good 18 to 20' for an average size adult. For landscape orientation which you might use for example to shoot a family, you'd need closer to 30'. So unless you have a huge home, it's really too long for that purpose. For headshots though, it's great. Maybe 3/4 shots, but even then you need to stand pretty far back. Also, it's really too short for a macro. For these reasons, the 50mm is really kind of an awkward length for that camera. Fun lens to play with, but not all that practical in the real world.
One thing to keep in mind for a 50mm prime is that it's too long on a crop-body camera (Rebel, 7D, etc) to take full body portraits in a home.
That's true but the OP mentioned she's not taking formal portraits, it sounds like she's just going to be taking candid portraits, for which I think a 50mm would be suitable.
The 50mm f/1.8 and 100mm Macro is a good combo but it depends if you want 2 lenses and on how patient you are saving up for the macro.
Not sure where you got "candids" as they specifically said not-snapshots which implies posed shots to me. Regardless, I gave some objective criteria so that they can decide for themselves.
Thank you to every one of you who gave me so much help on this. It seems the macro is what I should be going with, but kdog's evaluation is making me wonder about that as well. The "nifty fifty" suggestion was one I had seen but had reservations on because of the complaints with the plastic body being "cheap" and breaking easily. I'm not a klutz and tend to be careful with the gear but it seems awfully fragile from some of the reviews. If several of you have used it a lot I may have to rethink that, especially for the price.
I didn't mean to make it confusing. The "people" shots are indeed candid photos, not staged, although some might be a bit staged along the lines of a race car driver with a helmet under his or her arm. I did a few race pits photos last year and found they were very popular among the people I took pictures of. Other teams asked me to take pictures after a while, for blog photos and personal use. This is not a money making thing but just sharing for now. I'd like to improve on what may be something I am good at. The bigger zoom lens was good for when I could stand further away and be out of the way and not make people self conscious, but often I had to get pretty close to be able to get an unobstructed shot. I found myself going back to the kit lens for when I had to be closer. I want very vivid, detailed photographs in pretty challenging conditions but I don't want to be in the face of people and I don't want them posing and self conscious.... and yes, I know that's a lot to ask for from one lens.
The other "need" for taking "flower pictures" also just moved up a notch since I may have just been volunteered to photograph samples of both healthy plants, leaves and flowers and diseased ones for a project that involves creating a reference data base. Even though I am not being paid I'd like it to look more like a pro's work and less like the amateur I am. I'd like some crisp shots like the ones I've seen here on the photo forum. So often, when I've looked at your photographs here I want to ask each of you to say what you used when you post a picture. I know there is lots of cropping and photo-shop in some but it still would be great to have a reference sometimes! I still have so much to learn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do know I will be trying to take more "people" pictures (not necessarily formal portraits but not family "snap shots" either) and I also most likely taking a lot of plant and flower pictures - and those probably will require a different lens again. TIA
