Hgh Hfghdh
I own a Canon 550D with the kit lens. I am looking into buying some more lenses to optimise the 550D film quality.
I've been told that the Canon 50mm f1.8 II is a great lens for only $100. Would that be a good option for one of the lenses I buy? I mainly shoot action so I need a lenses that is durable.
I am also looking for a good quality, zoom lens (i think).
I want to have the ability to zoom and fair distance, have an adjustable focal length and produce a good quality image.
If I get something like this, would it be worth buying the 50mm on top of it?
I'm looking to spend $800 or less.
I was also planning to use a mattebox with the camera. What do I need to know about matteboxes and zoom lenses? are they al compatible.
I don't have much knowledge of lenses and camera, my strength is in video editing,visual effects and compositing.
Thanks for your help.
Answer
"I've been told that the Canon 50mm f1.8 II is a great lens for only $100. Would that be a good option for one of the lenses I buy? I mainly shoot action so I need a lenses that is durable."
No ... no ... don't get me wrong it's a fun little lens but it's also completely plastic and not a good plastic either ... it is the mose flmisily made lens I have ever seen. I own one and loved it (beforeI got a proper lens: 24-70 f2.8) but I wouldn't call it a durable lens.
"I want to have the ability to zoom and fair distance, have an adjustable focal length and produce a good quality image."
3 lenses spring to mind:
24-70 f2.8 (either from Canon or Sigma)
24-105 f4 (Canon)
70-200 f2.8 (either from Canon or Sigma)
I already own the 24-70 f2.8, I regularly rent the 70-200 f2.8 (picking it up tonight againfor a wedding Saturday) and plan on purchasing it as my next major purchase. The 24-105, I'd like to have that as a backup lens only ... i don't htink I'd use it very often because I havea 24-70 f2.8 but I owuld like othave it as a emergency backup for when I am doing weddings ... it could fill in for either the 24-70 or the 70-200 if something horrible hapened to one of those lenses during a shoot. Right now my backup lenses are pretty horrible consumer lenses.
"I'm looking to spend $800 or less."
Not gonna happen. good glass costs money and a good lens is more important than an expensive body.
I'd rather shoot with a 70-200 f2.8 L (2600$) on a Rebel T3 (the T3, not T3i, is 500$) than shoot with a new Canon 1D-X (5000$ camera) and a crappy sigma 70-300 (400$ lens).
Yes, I'd rather shoot with 500$ camera instead of 5000$ camera if it meant that I had a better lens.
EDIT:
WelltraveleProg has a good suggestion withthe 70-200 f4 ... that's also a nice solid lens and you can get it for about 700$ +tax brand spanking new.
http://www.henrys.com/Categories/73-Camera-Lenses-CANON.aspx/4/80000010%5eCANON
You lose a few stops of light from f2.8 to f4 and there's no iamge stabalization but for the price, it;s a great lens.
"I've been told that the Canon 50mm f1.8 II is a great lens for only $100. Would that be a good option for one of the lenses I buy? I mainly shoot action so I need a lenses that is durable."
No ... no ... don't get me wrong it's a fun little lens but it's also completely plastic and not a good plastic either ... it is the mose flmisily made lens I have ever seen. I own one and loved it (beforeI got a proper lens: 24-70 f2.8) but I wouldn't call it a durable lens.
"I want to have the ability to zoom and fair distance, have an adjustable focal length and produce a good quality image."
3 lenses spring to mind:
24-70 f2.8 (either from Canon or Sigma)
24-105 f4 (Canon)
70-200 f2.8 (either from Canon or Sigma)
I already own the 24-70 f2.8, I regularly rent the 70-200 f2.8 (picking it up tonight againfor a wedding Saturday) and plan on purchasing it as my next major purchase. The 24-105, I'd like to have that as a backup lens only ... i don't htink I'd use it very often because I havea 24-70 f2.8 but I owuld like othave it as a emergency backup for when I am doing weddings ... it could fill in for either the 24-70 or the 70-200 if something horrible hapened to one of those lenses during a shoot. Right now my backup lenses are pretty horrible consumer lenses.
"I'm looking to spend $800 or less."
Not gonna happen. good glass costs money and a good lens is more important than an expensive body.
I'd rather shoot with a 70-200 f2.8 L (2600$) on a Rebel T3 (the T3, not T3i, is 500$) than shoot with a new Canon 1D-X (5000$ camera) and a crappy sigma 70-300 (400$ lens).
Yes, I'd rather shoot with 500$ camera instead of 5000$ camera if it meant that I had a better lens.
EDIT:
WelltraveleProg has a good suggestion withthe 70-200 f4 ... that's also a nice solid lens and you can get it for about 700$ +tax brand spanking new.
http://www.henrys.com/Categories/73-Camera-Lenses-CANON.aspx/4/80000010%5eCANON
You lose a few stops of light from f2.8 to f4 and there's no iamge stabalization but for the price, it;s a great lens.
question about canon lens (for film) on canon DLSRs?
coconatz
can one mount a canon EF lens originally designed for film cameras on canon DSLR? would certain functions not work (like autofocus) if one were to use them on a DSLR? or would they work normally when mounted on a DSLR? thank you!
Answer
Virtually all of the EF line will work on any of the new digital bodies. In almost all cases, metering and autofocus will work.<1>
Having said that, if you purchase one of the high end models (EOS-1Ds, 5D), the sensor size is the same size as a traditional 35mm frame, and so everything will work just as it ought.
If you purchase a lower cost model, e.g. 30D, Digital Rebel, etc, you'll find that they use a smaller APS-C sized (25.1 x 16.7 mm) sensor which effectively crops the photo by a factor of 1.6. <1> There is some benefit to this: as you're taking the prime, center part of the lens' image, chromatic and geometric abberations, as well as vignetting of your traditional lenses will be mitigated. On the other hand, if you have zoom lenses, this will tend to reduce their usefulness, say, a 24-80mm becomes, effectively, a 39-128mm lens -- negating the wide end. Canon does make a line of lenses designed for their APS-C based cameras, the EF-S line, and when reading those lens specs, the numbers hold true: 50mm means 50mm.<2>
As an aside: the smaller, APS-C sensors also tend to have a greater pixel density, which like smaller grains on film, require more light to activate: the native light sensitivity will be lower and thus noise will be higher when they are pushed to higher sensitivities (ISO 1600+).<3>
A very active point of contention is whether or not Canon will, as it achieves economies of scale, bring the larger, 35mm sensor to its entire product line: This would probably lead to the discontinuation of the EF-S line. The working consensus at this time is that due to the inherently costly nature of producing these chips, it will not be possible, in the foreseeable future to sell "full frame" digital cameras, competitively, at prices cheaper than the 5D.
A fantastic site for lens reviews, exhaustive: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
An authoritative digital camera body review site:
http://dpreview.com/
Virtually all of the EF line will work on any of the new digital bodies. In almost all cases, metering and autofocus will work.<1>
Having said that, if you purchase one of the high end models (EOS-1Ds, 5D), the sensor size is the same size as a traditional 35mm frame, and so everything will work just as it ought.
If you purchase a lower cost model, e.g. 30D, Digital Rebel, etc, you'll find that they use a smaller APS-C sized (25.1 x 16.7 mm) sensor which effectively crops the photo by a factor of 1.6. <1> There is some benefit to this: as you're taking the prime, center part of the lens' image, chromatic and geometric abberations, as well as vignetting of your traditional lenses will be mitigated. On the other hand, if you have zoom lenses, this will tend to reduce their usefulness, say, a 24-80mm becomes, effectively, a 39-128mm lens -- negating the wide end. Canon does make a line of lenses designed for their APS-C based cameras, the EF-S line, and when reading those lens specs, the numbers hold true: 50mm means 50mm.<2>
As an aside: the smaller, APS-C sensors also tend to have a greater pixel density, which like smaller grains on film, require more light to activate: the native light sensitivity will be lower and thus noise will be higher when they are pushed to higher sensitivities (ISO 1600+).<3>
A very active point of contention is whether or not Canon will, as it achieves economies of scale, bring the larger, 35mm sensor to its entire product line: This would probably lead to the discontinuation of the EF-S line. The working consensus at this time is that due to the inherently costly nature of producing these chips, it will not be possible, in the foreseeable future to sell "full frame" digital cameras, competitively, at prices cheaper than the 5D.
A fantastic site for lens reviews, exhaustive: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
An authoritative digital camera body review site:
http://dpreview.com/
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment