Newbie question on lenses ...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I thought I fully understood lenses from when I used to use my Pentax SLR
years ago, but obviously not...

Some photography references mention aperture f-stops upto f/22, but most of
DSLR lenses I've been looking at seem to be in the ranges f/4 - f/6.5 ish.

About to buy a Canon 350D with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 LENS

One spec sheet also says Minimum aperture 22-38 - I dont understand how this
equates to the range (f/3.5-5.6).

Can someone enlighten me? Also, is this a good all round lens to start off
with?

Thanks in advance

Alex

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The aperture will have a range: max width to min width; the lower the
number, the wider the aperture.

The 3.5-5.6 numbers don't mean that the aperture range is 3.5-5.6;
rather, it means that this is the minimum (widest) aperture that you
can get for each end of the focal length spectrum (18mm -> f/3.5, 55mm
-> f/5.6).

As to whether it's a good lens, I think the general concensus you'll
find is that it's a decent 'starter' lens. You can get them second-hand
for about $100, which is pretty cheap. About as cheap as you're gonna
get, in fact.

I did some outdoor pix with that lens awhile ago, and noticed
significant 'fringing' when the aperture was set to the wider settings.
That may drive you nuts depending on how picky you are and what your
subject matter is.

Myself, I just bought a 17-85mm lens to be my new 'all-around' lens.
This one retails for about $700, and I got it for $600 from a buddy of
mine. Better range, image stabilization, bla bla bla. My 18-55 will be
shelved for now, and probably sold in pretty short order.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a Rebel 300D.

I thought about the 350D, but the 300 is a little larger and feels
better in my hands. I know the 350 is an 8MP as opposed to the 300D's
6MP, but for the price difference at the time (I got the 300D kit which
included the 18-55 lens for $900 CDN) it was kind of a no-brainer for
me.

Since then, I've sunk another $2000 into the whole mess; a 75-300 lens,
the 17-85 I mentioned, a 50mm 'prime' lens for portraits, a nice flash,
tripod... gads. Crazy how much I've sunk into it. I don't even want to
LOOK at an "L" lens, or I'll start wanting those too. Blaaaaa....

Interesting learning curve, coming from digi-cam land. It's only been
the past month that I've really understood the relation between
aperture and depth of field, and the tradeoffs you have to make between
depth of field and shutter speed. Once you get those concepts under
your belt, it all starts sounding less like a foreign language.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know what you mean I've bought some many thing in the last 5 days it's
unbelievable...

Yeah just learning that stuff again, re trade-off etc... but starting to see
the results now.

The local camera store is getting in a couple of Zoom lenses for me to try
out, a 70-300 and a 90-300, although I'll probably go the for 70-300.

Once you get to grips with normal light, then there's low light and then
there's this wizardry ... http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/cambridge/ ...
bulb shutter, small aperture but fantastic colour and depth.

Alex


"BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126820911.441155.106230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Rebel 300D.
>
> I thought about the 350D, but the 300 is a little larger and feels
> better in my hands. I know the 350 is an 8MP as opposed to the 300D's
> 6MP, but for the price difference at the time (I got the 300D kit which
> included the 18-55 lens for $900 CDN) it was kind of a no-brainer for
> me.
>
> Since then, I've sunk another $2000 into the whole mess; a 75-300 lens,
> the 17-85 I mentioned, a 50mm 'prime' lens for portraits, a nice flash,
> tripod... gads. Crazy how much I've sunk into it. I don't even want to
> LOOK at an "L" lens, or I'll start wanting those too. Blaaaaa....
>
> Interesting learning curve, coming from digi-cam land. It's only been
> the past month that I've really understood the relation between
> aperture and depth of field, and the tradeoffs you have to make between
> depth of field and shutter speed. Once you get those concepts under
> your belt, it all starts sounding less like a foreign language.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

alex wrote:

>The local camera store is getting in a couple of Zoom lenses for me to try
>out, a 70-300 and a 90-300, although I'll probably go the for 70-300.

If you mean the new Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, then please post your
impressions of it. Some samples would be nice too...I haven't found any
reviews yet.

Sadly it's not in my neighbourhood, but if it's as good as the Canon MTF
data suggests, it will likely become my next "day-tripper" long lense,
since the older 75-300 is far too soft for my taste. I don't care if it
lacks ring-type USM...sharpness is what matters to me.

>Once you get to grips with normal light, then there's low light and then
>there's this wizardry ... http://www.pbase.com/compuminus/cambridge/ ...
>bulb shutter, small aperture but fantastic colour and depth.

Bah...I did better stuff than that last weekend when I was hung over and
still half asleep...

Just kidding.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

BD wrote:

>>If you mean the new Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, then please post your
>>impressions of it. Some samples would be nice too...I haven't found any
>>reviews yet.
>
>Bill: Are you referring to the DO lens? That guy's like $1500 - hardly
>an easy step-up from the 75-300IS. Or is there some super-new non-DO
>70-300 with better optics than the soft one you refer to? I have that
>75-300, so I'm curious if there's an accessible upgrade to better
>optics. $1500 ain't what I'd call accessible.

No, not the DO lense. There is a new 70-300 lense that's replacing the
75-300 IS you currently have. It should be around $600 US.

And it may be the next price/performance gem from Canon if the MTF
charts on the US website are accurate:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/c [...] goryid=150

For the small sensor cameras, the 17-85 and 70-300 would be a compact
yet versatile combination. Just two little lenses to cover the whole
17-300mm range, and with IS as an added bonus. I'd get them just for
those trips you don't feel like carrying a big heavy bag of lenses.