instead of wondering which SLR to start with, perhaps what lens should I start with?

[98c43amg]

Hello all, Thanx all for the comments in my S3 thread. Special props to Kam for all the replies and info. Thank you.

I have since come to learn about lenses... oh, so many lenses...!!! I came to the realization that just as important in picking the camera, is picking the zoom lens I want to use with it 'out in the bush'. So, that leads me to a new dilema I'm having trouble finding insight into:

1) With say a 300mm lens (or higher; about 450 equiv or higher depending on sensor), at the far extent of the telephoto range...
- are the lenses with image stabalization built-in the lenses more effective?
- or when stabalization is in the cameras?

2) Not having a film SLR and any lenses, I can start from scratch. ...so which lenses should I start with? ...that is the question...

If I don't buy a compact megazoom camera discussed in the other thread, I want to start with 2 lenses: a zoom that'll go from a bit under 20mm to near 100mm (or so), largest Aperture I can get, to a point, for the money; and a 100mm - 300mm or more at again the largest Aperture I can get.

Simplifying, should I make my investment in lenses in
- Canon stabalized?
- Nikon stabalized?
(I think these are the only two lens stabalized?)
- Sony/Konica-Minolta (why does DPReview like them so much?)?
- Pentax?
- Leica?
- 4/3rds?
- Then there's lenses that cross cameras like Sigma and others. Some brands however also don't have a great wide selection of very high telephoto, like the 4/3rds I think (maybe only 1?).

Ah, and cost. I'm looking to spend in the $400 - $600 range for each len... maybe a bit more. It's all really got my head spinning. There's a lot of talk on cameras across many many sites on the 'net; not so for lenses. I know there's a wealth of knowledge in many of the readers here.

Thanx for reading. Would love to hear those informed opinions... Thanx all.

p.s. I do have another restriction. When talking the camera for the lens, since I can really only charge the camera in the Land Rover when it's running, I need to buy a camera that has a dual battery charger and car adapter for it, or a camera the uses AA that I could use rechargables in, or straight standard non-rechargable batteries if I get in a bind w/o a charge. That for example negates the new Sony D-SLR I like because there's no car adapter for the special battery it uses.

[98c43amg]

RE: It's all really got my head spinning. There's a lot of talk on cameras across many many sites on the 'net; not so for lenses.
BTW, I stand corrected. I don't know why I didn't think of a good google search before:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/
http://www.cameralensreview.net/
http://www.slr-lens.com/
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/content/articles/gear/lenses.shtml
and loads more with the right search...

Sorry if I wasted anyone's time!

[98c43amg]

I edited the 1st post hoping the thread title changes, but it didn't (thought that was changed with an update; I must be confusing that with another board). I wanted to change it to 'OK, still need some opinions on "perhaps what lens should I start with?" '.

Implying, I've read a whole L O T on lenses now. And I have to say I'm no closer to knowing what camera I should buy based on the Lenses I should start with, then before. :wacko: I -know- this is a highly subjective question; but subjective opinions from those who've been using SLRs for years is what I hope to hear.

- If my main purpose in getting a D-SLR is for telephoto photography on Safari in Tanzania (35mm equiv or 400mm and above), will a lens based image stabalization system far out-class a sensor based system, or is the different too small to fret over?

- For this newb, what major camera manufacturer's lens do you think I should start with?

I appreciate your informed opinions. Thanx very much for the read and your time.

[kameraguy]

This is such a great topic, sorry it hasn't been discussed yet.

To get the discussion going...

Lenses are, IMHO, the actual tools to your photographic creativity. They help you record or distort reality. This is a very hard choice indeed if you have not had a chance to shoot with a lot of different types. Actually, you may find that trying a whole bunch will get you no closer to your answer. Sometimes having too many choices is a problem as well.

Generally speaking...

A good way to start is with the trusty 50mm focal length. There is a good reason for this. A 50mm perspective closely resembles what you see with your own eyes. This is usually the easist lens to start with simply because WYSIWYG with respect to what you see with your own eyes. There are usually no suprises.

In school, the 50mm is usually the first lens on a camera to get you started. This is because it not only causes no suprises in image perspective...it is less of a distraction optically so you can focus on some important areas:

1) exposure
2) composition
3) personal vision

You may find that once you have an idea of the first two...and those are some of the technical things you should get decent at first imho, that skillset will free you to develop #3...which truly goes hand-in-hand with what lenses you will find you will buy.

Once you get familiar with how to correctly expose an image (not as easy as you may think at times...even full automatic isn't always perfect), and you get a good idea of what works and what doesn't in a composition (this is subjective...but there are some things that have to be be done to get a decent image), you will usually find you "know" what lenses you want in order to get an image you desire....this is the personal vision which is absolutely the hardest thing to achieve photographically.

A lot can be said to learn only "one" lens like what babycarlsson does here: http://www.bnzsport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12246

Sometimes you don't need a lot of lenses...but just one. The ability to work a single lense for many situations is truly going to work "you". You will need to be clever and resourceful to get certain shots that you "think" may not be possible with just one lens. If you can get good at just a single lens, this will expand your creative ability exponentially.

With the 50mm as an example, you may find a zoom unnecessary if you can get closer physically. The same holds true for a wider shot. Try and move further away...maybe get a lower angle for more dramatic effect. It sounds so simple...and it really is. But it's easy to forget what you would normally do by yourself is easily applied with a fixed focal length lens.

Now, this sounds great and all, but let's say the 50mm isn't doing anything for you. I understand that sometimes a certain perspective doesn't work for all people. Then that's where you can explore the differences a wider angle lens, or longer, can provide.

As you decrease the focal length...from say 50mm to 28mm, you naturally can get more area into the image from the same distance as the 50. But what happens is to make that possible optically, the image has to get distorted. Things just appear more vast and open with a wide angle. This is an "exciting" lens because it makes the normal look extrordinary at times simply because it distorts reality in a way our own eyes cannot. So even though you may be able to get the same amount of area from the 50mm by moving further back...you can't get the same effect optically in terms of perspective.

To illustrate, here is an image taken at approx 28mm:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/3453/g50008af4.jpg

If you notice, the G500 looks a bit long and slightly distorted. This is partly the effect of the wider perspective a 28mm provides, coupled to moving in closer to the car to emphasize this distortion. A low angle even exagerates the skewed perspective more. Look at how the electrical poles bow inwards. Also make note of how spread apart things look. A wide angle give a nice open perspective versus what we see normally.


The same holds true for a longer lense..say a 100mm. The effect of a lens longer than 50mm will compress an image space. So instead of distorting an image in favor making things look vastly distant in relation to objects in the photo, a longer lens will make distant objects appear closer to each other than they really are.

To compare to the wide-angle shot above, here is an example of what a longer lens can do to compress an image:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/115/291707667_de1caa313b_o.jpg


Notice all the elements of the picture appear "flattened"? Even the car looks stubby. This is the compressing effect of what is equivalent to about 100mm. In reality the scene didn't look like this at all...the trees were about three hundred feet away. Yet in the pic the trees look much closer.

Playing with perspective can be great, but sometimes you want a more natural look in the photo. Often times when photographing people, you may not necessarily want the distortion of a wide-angle. People usually like a slimmer and more trim look which a 50mm or longer can provide. This is because people can relate to a 50mm as they see the world the same way. And anything longer has the nice effect of "slimming" people further. So usually people dont mind it. They usually love it :)

This was shot with an 80mm focal length (EF 80-200 zoom):

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9783/img7893copyig9.jpg

Here the perspective is very similar to what we'd expect to see in real-life...no suprises in terms of perspective. She looks pretty much how she does in real life, wheras the car shots distort what the cars look like in real life.

A lens is what is key in allowing you to control reality to obtain what you migh envision in your mind. A lens is definitely the "key" when it comes to photography imho. Like a painter's set of brushes, you will find a lens more desireable when there is a need. Until that need comes, it's value probably won't be seen yet.

Hopefully these examples will help you as well as anyone select the right lenses for your photography. It's such a personal decision, it's pretty much impossible to say what anyone needs. And that's the beauty of it...everyone sees the world differently :)

I don't mean to wax philisophical, but it's hard not to when it comes to any art. If you treat photography like art (which I hope everyone does), you can really find yourself immersed in it VERY quickly :)

Now this is just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more to discuss such as why some lenses are sharper than others, why the aperture range of a lens can be important, why the "type" of aperture blades can make a difference, why an exact focal length lens comes in different versions, why certain lenses are made a certain way...and ultimately, why is it MOST of the time a great lens will drain your wallet almost as fast as divorce! :p

[sorbo]

um, default to kam...

all i can say is, play around with the gear. And don't let all the reviews get you crazy.

I am looking at two lenses right now and know how you feel. You will often times see people (at least in the canon set) hate on anything that is not a "premium" lens, "L series" in canons case. So take them with a grain of salt at times. Because kam said it best; "a great lens will drain your wallet almost as fast as divorce!" he speeks the truth.

[98c43amg]

Kam, to echo what I said in the club202 post, thanx so much for the considerable time and effort put into composing such an insightful response. Great link too!

That pic of your (I think it's your) C is spectacular. Is the soft effect of the trees and lighting through the trees from post-processing or the natural Bokeh (surprised I know that ;) ) of the lens you used; or both? Very interesting about the flattening effect. I imagine if I'll looking to use a 400mm lens (600mm 35mm equiv ) on my trip it'll really be flat/compressed!!!

Thank you so very much again. I'm wondering, when you cite the 50mm focal length, in the digital domain are you meaning 50mm @ 35mm equiv; so if I have a camera with a 1.5x crop that acutally means using about a 33mm lens?

edit... oh no, I haven't been concerned with the configuration of apeture blades yet. Yikes!

[kameraguy]

No worries man. I hope this info is helpful. But of course this is all my take on how things work. So take what I say with a grain of salt as maybe not everything will be agreeable ;)

Those are great questions. The soft focus effect is partly due to the large aperture (it was shot at F/1.2) and it was a super-foggy morning to begin with which motivated me to take advantage of the backlit haze. I was also as close as possible to maximize the shallow DoF. And you are spot on with the Bokeh! The lens I used is a Canon EF 85mm 1.2L which has super-creamy smooth Bokeh due to the aperture blade shape...they are slightly curved so the blades form a more pleasing circle instead of a multi-faceted opening. I know the picture looks artificial and photoshopped, but aside from the color enhancement, the perspective and DoF is straight as shot. It's a killer portrait lens for that reason, which translates well for everything too. So you already started the topic of aperture blades which is cool :) Unfortunately it's also a great example of how a lens designed for super-low light conditions can be very expensive. It really was bank when I bought it (used as I definitely couldn't swing it brand new) :(

And yes, with DSLRs and their crop factors, we now have to take that into account to get the similar magnification facto of the 35mm equivalent. I forgot to mention that so i'm glad you brought it up.

AFAIK, with the DSLR crop, your effective focal length after the crop factor let's you gain the same magnification of the 35mm counterpart. So in your example, the theorhetical 33mm lens on a DSLR with a 1.5x crop will have the equivalent area of coverage. But what still is a factor is the distortion a wider angle lens will create. It's my understanding because the wide-angle lens still retains the optical characteristics to gain the wider perspective, we're just using the central portion of that optical assembly. So think of the same 33mm image, distortion and all, but cropped in the center to provide a similar area of view as the 50mm. I really hate the crop 90% of the time, BUT it is certainly cool to make that 400mm give you a 600mm view! It's the new school of photography...using the crop of digital cameras as a new form of teleconverter/extender. For long-reach shots, it is the best thing ever as there's no extra glass needed that compromises optics and light gathering.


And I agree with sorbo on reviews. It's easy to see reviewers dismiss non-premium glass as junk since they get to have access to the exotic stuff. Now i'm not saying non-premium glass is fantastic...but there are certainly exceptions to any rule. The hardest thing to do is find the diamond in the rough so-to speak in the sea of reasonably priced glass. There are a lot of them actually...the hard part is getting to try them first.

I like to read reviews online versus mags as most regular people have less of a reason to be biased. No advertisers to agree with. Usually it's their hard cash that put that lens in their lap.

When you find a lens that gets decent reviews, you still gotta try it yourself of course. Some people are picker than others so it may not be as great as they say. Or you may find it way better. It sucks sometimes, but the hard work is worth it if you want a long-term lens investment.

As an example, one of my favorite macro lenses is this Sigma 28-80mm F3,5-5,6 I bought on employee discount for $70 when I was working at Ritz Camera part-time during college...yikes...around 1995? It's cheap-ola built lens. Super plasticky. And even though it uses an aspherical element for improved image quality, all the lenses were acrylic instead of glass. Shoot, even the lens mount is plastic. But damn, the thing works very well and is more than acceptibly sharp for me at least. I still use it now, even though it's so old it won't autofocus on my DSLR bodies, lol.

I also enjoy using the Canon EF 28-135mm F3,5-5,6 IS USM. It's not an L, but it's not a bad performer. Actually it's great buy for the money as an "everyday" lens without breaking the bank IMHO.

[redline]

Really great info here, even for those of us who have some experience behind the camera, thanks!

To echo Kam's statement regarding premium glass, the only way you are truely going to appreciate top notch glass is if you are going to be making large reporductions where you are going to have a hard copy of the detail to examine. These days, most people just resize and sharpen in the computer anyways for the web, so whats the point? That being said, expensive glass is much much nicer to feel, handle, and shoot with, but to appreciate that, you have to first shoot with crap :)

I'd also recommend buying used. Its not hard to find really well cared for used equipment. In fact, the only things I've bought new for my kit is memory and filters. Everything else (glass, bodies, tripods, cases, etc) has been used. So far, I haven't recieved a used item that has compromised image quality or ability because of the fact that its a used piece of equipment. You just have to be careful with what you are buying. And if you don't always have to have the latest and greatest, then you cand end up saving thousands of dollars.

Some good sites for used equipment are:

http://www.fredmiranda.com
http://www.keh.com

[rammbs]

here's another link to add. (purely canon products tho)

you can compare the products side by side

http://photonotes.org/lookup/

[98c43amg]

Kam, you mentioned the intrigue with 4/3 on club202, but as they're still down for the count (edit: oh, no it's not ... just "Search" is), I figured I'd post this reply here.

I finally found the link to where I saw these advanced E-510 images last week ... so, is it just me or are these pics pure sex?

http://www.four-thirds.cn/forum/thread-47259-1-1.html
(give it a lllllll o n g time to load)
I've seen a lot of pics from new E-510 owners and none are like that. :cool: Do I "blame" the lens or the eye?! Gotta figure "both".
(either Sigma 150mm F2.8 or 30mm F1.4 was used in these shots)

And here, after your encouragement on the Pentax, I was back to thinking I'd pull the trigger on the K10D. Now that I learn many are receiving E-510s already, I'm wondering if I shouldn't start with the 4/3 system. That also is the point then isn't it? If I start with 4/3, or Pentax, or Nikon, or Canon, I'm tied to it unless I decide to sell everything.

[kameraguy]

The 4/3 system is great for the 2x sensor crop. That page you mentioned showed some great potential with "only" a 150mm F2,8 Sigma...which is equivalent to a whopping 300mm F2,8 lens in terms of magnification. You will suffer in the wide-angle range because of this, but if you are going ona trip where long distance shooting is more important, A 300mm F2,8 lens for less than $600 is damn nice. The only reason I like the 4/3 system though is because you can get the seriously sharp Leica 14-50mm lens with the ergonimically-sound Panasonic L1 for less than $1300. Say if you get an L1 kit + that Sigma 150mm F2,8 Macro with a Sigma 1.4x teleconverter, you are looking at about $2100 or so....but not a bad way to go consodering it's good glass and a small kit that's easy to carry. I'd personally take the Leica 14-50mm over the Zuiko 14-42mm.

The 4/3 system is (slowly) growing in lens selection... so far it seems there is hop ethis system will be here for the long-run.

But it's hard to deny the vast selection of accesories of the well-established systems from Canon/Nikon.

The Pentax system is kind of in the middle. It's not as developed as the Canon/Nikon system, but it's more-so than the 4/3rds system.

You are right...unless you are ok with having multiple camera systems for specific needs, your money is better spent on a system that offers you the most fuctionality. Usually it's going to be the lenses. But if you aren't looking for exotic glass, then quite honestly most camera systems have comparable lenses to choose from, so it may come down to something like ergonomics. The 4/3 system implemented by Panasonic/Leica is a direct evolution from the Panasonic LC1/Digilux 2 which are terrific cameras simply due to how easy they are to operate. I much rather use the digilux over the Canon due to the control layout. A couple of years ago the only thing missing was the interchangeable lens and a real viewfinder. But now they have it with the L1/Digilux 3. I think it's better to have a traditional aperture and shutter dial instead of relying on a menu. But some people don't like the shape of the L1/Digilux, prefering the more DSLR-like style of the E510...so it's a subjective call.

The E510 looks like the most robust 4/3 body so far though, so for durability it looks like a serious consideration. It's not cheap at the projected $800 price for the body. But it arguably offers a lot.

A tough call...but at least you are narrowing down your interests and choices. It would be best to try and spend some time with each camera in the store to see which one works better for you. You can tell almost right away what you like and don't like with hands-on time, and that could help you make your decision.

[kameraguy]

With all I have said so far...

After researching the K10D, it really is hard to beat as an overall purchase. Provided you can find the right lenses for you (http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses), I don't think you can do wrong with it.

The 4/3 system is a nice alternative, but IMHO the Pentax is a better way to go for the long-run. I hope the lense selection will grow...they really need more longer glass options. Maybe you can consider Sigma in that regard.

[98c43amg]

Yes, the E-510 ergonomics and feature are an unknown to me (the latter is well documented; I just have to acquaint myself with it). I 'think' the Pentax is still more 'bang-for-the-buck' with features. (I don't think I car about live-view in the E-510; just the stabalization) The early reports from E-510 owners on the dpreview forum, some who are long-time Canon enthusiests (sp?) (better, spelled b i g o t ;) ) is it has lower noise (native from the sensor, with noise control off I think they were saying) then the Canon EOS 400 at ISO 1600 ... hard to believe actually.

Thanx much for the thoughts; recommendations duely notted. For the 4/3, I previously had my eye on the Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro Autofocus Lens and the Sigma Zoom Telephoto 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO DG Aspherical Autofocus Lens ... both together for about $1000. That's quite a bargin @ 2x crop factor!

It turns out Sigma USA is just "down the street" from where I work. I called and spoke to a person there who agreed the Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Autofocus ($999) was nowhere to be found, regardless of mount (f/6.3 @ 1000mm [35mm equiv] and easily hand holdable ain't so bad me thinks?). But, said a new shipment was about to enter the supply chain ...and that the 4/3 mount was in-line to be the next released. (where's the 'ponder' smiley :p ) So, on a utilitarian kick, the 4/3 is most attractive. I think I'm over my worry about the Hoya take-over and thinking Pentax again, but I won't get over 600mm or 750mm [35mm equiv] depending on which Sigma lens is available before leaving for Africa, still great tho. With Nikon, requiring Nikon VR or Sigma OS lenses, and no option over 600mm equiv, being a 'luxury item' to me. ;) ...again, strictly from a utilitarian viewpoint. (why not Canon? just to be different I guess!?? :) well, something else factors into it; though it may be a dumb reason so I won't vocalize it. )

[98c43amg]

My saga ends... ;)
http://www.bnzsport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12319