As Chris would say: "Lenses ~ Learn me."

[USMC 0369]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Okay, so what works? Tamron? Sigma? I have a Canon Rebel XT, Canon lenses are big $$. Looking for options.

Kurt, I like your macros and looking at the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses. Okay, I copied and pasted that. Have no idea what the numbers mean. Want a zoom lens, and also to take some macro's with it as well.

Also want a fish-eye lens. That's more of a fun factor for Barb.

So, what brands to stay away from? What brands are good and save $$?[/COLOR]

[ocTJ]

Tramron ehh

Sigma Good :thumbs_up:

Canon EFS and EF I believe you can use both with that camera

If it has a red ring around the lens immediately remove it from whoever owns it and ship it to me!

Find canon photography on the net it's a website, forum more like that will saturate you with knowledge on all of that.. Just reading the stickies at the top will make your photographs look better

[USMC 0369]

If it has a red ring around the lens immediately remove it from whoever owns it and ship it to me!

[COLOR="Sienna"]Esplain please?[/COLOR]

Find canon photography on the net it's a website, forum more like that will saturate you with knowledge on all of that.. [COLOR="Red"]Just reading the stickies at the top will make your photographs look better[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Is that anything like how the MJR stickers gave me 5hp each?[/COLOR]

[NAILER341]

Research research research.

I started off with the Sigma lens, and it is a great one, but I made the mistake of shooting with the Canon lens under the same conditions and realized there is a thousand dollar difference in the quality of the photos.

Take a look at this website for canon info.

There is a wealth of knowledge on there.

For 90% of people the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 lenses will take care of most needs.

They are both fantastic lenses, and can produce stunning images IF you get good copies of the lens.

There are some that just don't work well on various canon bodies. That is where the research comes in, and buying from someone reputable.

Be sure that which ever lens you choose, you go for the 2.8 or lower. You wont always use that capability, but it is sure nice to know it is there when you need to get a shot in low light conditions, or create some fun depth of field shots.

It is really all about the budget. If you are going to buy used, be sure to test the hell out of it, and look at the photos in full size on your laptop before paying.

Some samples may soft focus more than you would like. You have to verify-

I may have a sigma 70-200 2.8 in perfect condition up for sale son.. I have to think it through before Putting it up for sale as I really like that lens.

I hope this helps and doesn't confuse you even more

[NAILER341]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Esplain please?[/COLOR]


[COLOR="Sienna"]Is that anything like how the MJR stickers gave me 5hp each?[/COLOR]

The red ring is an indicator of "L" glass. $$$$-
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...categoryid=148

All of the red ring L glass Canon lenses are well into the $1k+ mark.

I think it is safe to say that anyone that has one for sale knows what it is.

[dirtman13]

Nick,

If you’re looking at saving a few dollars check out an extension tube for macro versus buying a lens that can only shot macro. I have had good success with mine.

[nwoods]

The new Tamaron 18-270mm is pretty cool. Not as sharp as Canon glass, but Canon doesn't have anything quite as wide spectrum. It will NOT come close to a nice 70-200mm F2.8 L, but for $500, it makes a great walk about lens.

HOWEVER, do you intend to use your camera off road? The non "L" lenses are not sealed, and you WILL get dust in the lens, and it can't be cleaned short of factory refurbish. The entry fee for a good "L" lens is worth it, on every level.

Short of that, the Canon 70-300mm is okay, and fairly well built:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

[USMC 0369]

[COLOR="Sienna"]Okay, I'm reading.

Things I'm being told I need (not necessarily by you guys) by peeps:

Image stabilization? Some lenses apparently come with this feature?

Filters: Kurt and I talked about this; and a lot of friends here tell me to get a good all-around lens, and a good zoom (because I plan to use it mostly outdoors, wildlife, etc.) and experiment around with different filters.

I've heard of/seen the lens extenders for macro shots. Are they quite simple? I assume I have to use manual focus if I have one of these? Interested, just ignorant about it.[/COLOR]

[USMC 0369]

Nick,

If you’re looking at saving a few dollars check out an extension tube for macro versus buying a lens that can only shot macro. I have had good success with mine.

[COLOR="Sienna"]Which of your pics is shot doing this?[/COLOR]

[nwoods]

Image stablization is helpful, but generally only included in lenses that have medium grade optics, because the technology is cheaper than high grade optics. What it does is help stablize the lens to get a sharper image. This differs from having a fast aperature (f2.8 or lower) lens, which lets in more light in a shorter amount of time than a slower aperature (F3.5 or higher) lens. The differece in time and light equate to sharpness. There are a lot of other factors also, but this is a simple way of thinking of it.

So a cheaper F4.6 lens with IS will shoot in conditions that an F3.5 lens would normally be used. You can count on IS to "give" you about one additional F-stop in range.

Does this make sense?

Now, my sharpest lens, by far, is my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L. They make an IS version of this lens, and it's great, but for the outdoor daylight stuff I do, the non-IS is perfect. If I was shooting indoors (like gynmasiums) the IS would be essential. Nailer is doing a lot of low light indoor stuff, and needs both fast aperature (F2.8 or lower) and IS equipt lenses for best results. I once shot an indoor sporting event, and learned alot about the limitations of my gear doing so. Here is an article about it: http://blog.nextstepdesigns.com/?p=54

[NAILER341]

The first thing to answer is: What is your budget?

[dirtman13]

[COLOR=sienna]Which of your pics is shot doing this?[/COLOR]

This is the only one I have uploaded to Phototoilet. I'll try to find some others.

Image stabilization is built in to my camera so I don’t need to worry about the lens having it (Olympus). With my camera the auto focus does work with the extension tube but can be a bit temperamental especially in low light condition so I usually just manually focus.

[USMC 0369]

The first thing to answer is: What is your budget?

[COLOR="Sienna"]Erik, that is usually what it all boils down to isn't it? If I can, I'd like to get a good lens, I'm hoping to spend around $800-$900.[/COLOR]

[USMC 0369]

Image stablization is helpful, but generally only included in lenses that have medium grade optics, because the technology is cheaper than high grade optics. What it does is help stablize the lens to get a sharper image. This differs from having a fast aperature (f2.8 or lower) lens, which lets in more light in a shorter amount of time than a slower aperature (F3.5 or higher) lens. The differece in time and light equate to sharpness. There are a lot of other factors also, but this is a simple way of thinking of it.

So a cheaper F4.6 lens with IS will shoot in conditions that an F3.5 lens would normally be used. You can count on IS to "give" you about one additional F-stop in range.

Does this make sense?

Now, my sharpest lens, by far, is my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 L. They make an IS version of this lens, and it's great, but for the outdoor daylight stuff I do, the non-IS is perfect. If I was shooting indoors (like gynmasiums) the IS would be essential. Nailer is doing a lot of low light indoor stuff, and needs both fast aperature (F2.8 or lower) and IS equipt lenses for best results. I once shot an indoor sporting event, and learned alot about the limitations of my gear doing so. Here is an article about it: http://blog.nextstepdesigns.com/?p=54

[COLOR="Sienna"]This is what I need. Simple, Barney explainations. This did make sense to me. Thanks for the link too![/COLOR]