Need a bit of help

[azilko]

G'day,
I need a bit of help with starting out in my photography (sooner or later) career.

I don't own any lenses myself, I just borrow my dads, he has a fair few.. But I am wanting to buy my own, and I need help off the professionals from all over the country to help me in my starting quest.
I mainly am wanting to do the following types of photography;
-Macro
-Land/Sea Scapes
-Portraits
& Birding.

To name a few to help me get some experience up in this new hobby of mine.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated Thanks.

P.S. I own a Canon 70D body.. Probably should've stated that earlier

[Jaded62]

Macro - Can't help you.
Landscape - 10-20mm. Sigma do a good lens and its far better (IMHO) and cheaper than the equivalent Canon.
Portraits - 50mm
Birding - No idea really but I assume you'll need something long and fast.

[Analog6]

Macro - Canon 60mm macro
Land/Sea Scapes - wide angle - the wider the better
Portraits - the classic length for portraits was always 130mm. So for a crop camera around the 85-90 length
Birding - long! I have a Sigma 150-500 and I see you have used the Canon 100-400. Either of htose are good or if the budget is big something like a 600mm

A Canon 24-105 would cover both landscapes and portraits for you. You might have to do stitch ups for very wide scenes, but that is easy with modern software. It's a seriously good lens and ideal as a 'walk around'.

[Mary Anne]

Macro.. Canon 100mm L lens
Sea/landscapes. Sigma 10-20mm
Portraits: The above Macro lens is a great Portrait Lens or the 85 mm.
Birding: As on the post above though also look at the Canon EF 400 (non-IS) f/5.6.
Walk around lens.. Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 a great lens for the cropped sensor.. I prefer it to my 24-105 on the 40D.

[azilko]

Thanks everyone, i will take all those into consideration (and budget)

[unistudent1962]

What's your budget?
Which of your dad's lenses have you been using?
Have you got any examples of what you like to photograph?

[Tannin]

Hi Azilko,

Everyone is different and you won't know what lenses best suit you and your work until you have found out for yourself which lenses you like. Ask an open-ended question in a place like this and you will get all sorts of different answers, most of them not terribly helpful even though well-meaning. I could tell you what suits me, but how do we know those lenses will suit you? Ans: we don't. Mary Anne will give you different answers. Whited3 will give you different answers again. Who is right? None of us and all of us!

But we can tell you that there are particular types of lens - and sometimes even particular individual lenses - which are generally regarded as the most useful type for a particular task. Generally, not always, so take these with a grain of salt and regard the consensus recommendations as working hypotheses to be confirmed or rejected as appropriate for your own needs as you gain experience. So, with all that said:

Macro: any real macro lens is good. Most people with experience of both regard the 90/100/105mm class macro lenses as a better choice than the 60mm ones for real macro work. Most - not all! My own view is that yes, a 100mm macro (especially the superb image-stabilised L Series one) is the best, easiest to use lens for actual macro work, and it can double as a fairly decent portrait lens, but is really a bit too long for that a lot of the time. the 60mm lens is more versatile: it's good for portraits and an excellent general-purpose longish prime. So which should you get? Neither! Wait a while and see if you get your own sense or what you like.

Landscapes. You do not, repeat NOT have to have a wide-angle lens to do landscapes! Why people insist on saying "wide-angle" the moment anyone says "landscape" is beyond me. Most landscapes are shot at normal angles (neither wide nor long - it's called "normal" for a reason!) and many more experienced landscape 'togs have learned that a moderate telephoto lens can be a fantastic landscape tool for use when you want to reach out into the scene and pick out exactly the part of it you want. Hell, you want to know what my favourite landscape lens is? A 100-400. True! OK, I use it on an APS-H body so it acts more the way a 70-300 on a 70D would, but that's still pretty long.

Try doing this with a 10-20!



Or this:



All of that notwithstanding, every photographer should have an ultra-wide. The Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-17 are generally regarded as the best two (White's view on this is not the normal one) but don't worry about that for an instant: most of them are pretty good and the Sigma 10-20 is just fine. Or whichever other one you fancy; you won't go too far wrong there.

Portrait? There are so many different answers! Best to figure out how you like doing your portrait shots first and then you will have a much better idea of what you want.

Birds? Here the answer is very clear: you absolutely must have plenty of length (400mm is the benchmark) and you absolutely must have high quality - long lenses, more than any other type, simply must be well-executed. You push them more and you crop them harder, do not skimp. Yes, it's expensive, and no, there are no short cuts. You can buy something cheaper and spend a lot of time discovering that yes, grumpy old Tannin and all the other bird photographers were right, it really doesn't do the job and you need to throw it away and buy a proper birding-quality lens after all, or you can save a lot of money and time by just getting a good one in the first place. By far the most popular birding lens in Australia is the Canon 100-400; that's no accident. All things considered, it's probably the best one too (outside of mega-expensive exotica). Some people prefer the 400/5.6 or the 300/4 IS, and they are decent choices, but the 100-400 you already have on loan is, all things considered, the best birding lens you are likely to see for much under $10,000.

[CAP]

With no stated budget this is a pretty open ended question don't you think.
They sky is the limit when it comes to what is available, but I'm going to have a crack with some price indications anyway.
Will stick with Canon offers, there are of course third party options covering most of these lenses.

Budget kit
24-105mm f4 - around $1000 for lanscape/portrait/still life and general walk around lens.
100-400mm f4.0-5.6 - around $1800 for sport/birds/portraits/general etc.
100mm f2.8 macro - around $1000 for macro/close focus work

Gunn kit (this is where it gets silly).
Macro as above or a few other options like the 180mm or MPE lenses
Wide angle - 14mm f2.8 - around $2400 for sweeping lanscapes and interior etc.
50mm f1.2 - around $600ish for landscapes/general use
85mm f1.2 - around $2250 for portraits/lanscapes/still life or general use
"black hole"
400mm f2.8 - around $12000 for sport/birds etc
EF 2x extender - around $500 for the 400mm to give 800mm f5.6
Left a bit of a hole between 85mm and 400mm but could be filled with the 200mm f2.8 and/or 300mm f2.8

Zooms
24-70mm f2.8 - around $2200
70-200mm f2.8 - around $2500

I'm sure there are a lot more options and configurations, but based on above your minimum budget will be around $4,000 and then $20,000-$30,000 plus depending on your needs/wants.
I only have the 24-105mm and 100-400mm lenses so don't even make the grade for a budget kit.

[wmvaux]

I think maybe you could do like I have done and buy cheaper brand lenses like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina. You can get quality lenses that are roughly half the price of canon. It all depends on if you have the money or not. If you have the money buy the canon lenses, but for the price of one, you can get roughly 2 of the others.

[vk2gwk]

Hi Azilko,

<snip> ....every photographer should have an ultra-wide.... <snip>.

I am sorry but I do not agree with this statement. May be every Landscape m or real estate photographer... But I have no need for an ultra wide. Apart from the distortion most of these wide angle lenses have you can achieve the same "wide" landscape effect with pano-shots and good software (and then without the distortion). Stitching software is so good these days that you really cannot see the seams and achieve a very high IQ.

Apart from this remark: Azilko, start with a good quality "walk around" like a 24-105L or other brand equivalent. As I presume you are young (using your dad's gear) wait till you discover what you really need more, by getting to the limits of the lens you have on your camera. Also - before investing in a lot of glass - ask yourself how often are you going to use this or that lens. OK, if you do a lot of birding a fast, long lens is a must. But a macro lens as well or just get some cheap extension tubes instead and save a lot of money for the once in a while you want to go macro.
Or the other way round: if you are really into macro get a good 100mm macro lens. And for the occasional birding extend your standard zoom lens with fairly cheap 2x extender.

[I @ M]

I am sorry but I do not agree with this statement. May be every Landscape m or real estate photographer... But I have no need for an ultra wide. Apart from the distortion most of these wide angle lenses have you can achieve the same "wide" landscape effect with pano-shots and good software (and then without the distortion). Stitching software is so good these days that you really cannot see the seams and achieve a very high IQ.

I am sorry but I do not agree with this statement.

Maybe you don't have a need for for a wide angle Henk but then the need for one was never mentioned by Tanin anyway. A wide angle lens is the type of lens that many photographers want. Certainly if you feel the need to compile images by computer rather than from the camera, go right ahead, but please don't exhibit such negativity to what is a very useful tool to have in ones camera bag for many types of photography.

As for the distortion factor, I would wager that my 16 - 28 shows a far lower level of it at 16mm than your 24 - 105 does at 24mm. Of course there is also the factor that any uncomplicated distortion induced by a wide angle lens can be corrected with software as well. Sometimes attempting to correct complicated distortion in blended images is definitely counter productive.
Maybe your own sense of creativity is stifled by stymied views but please don't try to spread such inadequacies.

[arthurking83]

I am sorry but I do not agree with this statement. May be every Landscape m or real estate photographer... But I have no need for an ultra wide. Apart from the distortion most of these wide angle lenses have you can achieve the same "wide" landscape effect with pano-shots and good software (and then without the distortion). Stitching software is so good these days that you really cannot see the seams and achieve a very high IQ..... .

To add to Andrew's reply:

Sometimes stitching a pano from multiple shots CAN be one solution to effect a capture of this type, but then again trying to use this method for every wide angle exposure attempted will be an impossible task.
Some scenes captured with a wideangle lens simply can not be captured using the pano-stitching method.

There's not one specific answer to the question, and having a choice of tools at your disposal becomes the only real option.

I'm with Tannin and I@M here.

A wide angle lens can be one of the most fun lenses to have, and trying to do it only with multiple captures and software begs two questions.

What do you subsequently do WHEN will you find the limitations of this workflow? .... and ....
If your reliance on software becomes so entrenched, why even bother to use the camera at all and why not just generate the entire image with software?

On a crop camera and a limited budget:

Sigma 10-20 for wideangle lens(possibly even the Sigma 8-16mm!)
Tamron 24-70 for general use(portraits and other stuff)
Canon 100-400 for long telephoto use.

For macro, two options that come to mind for cost effectiveness: Tamron 90mm or a high quality closeup dioptre.

[Abeniston]

Macro - I don't macro but the guys that I know do use either the Canon 100mm L prime or the Tamron 90MM prime.
Landscape - My daughter uses the 10-20mm Sigma on a 7D body and the results are as good, if not better to the Canon which is a grand more expensive.
Portraits - Sigma f1.4 50mm. This has to be the best lens I have brought. On a croped frame it will go to 75mm, but been a full frame lens, you don't have top upgrade when you upgrade bodies in the future.
Birding - No idea really. I have a 100-400 f4-5.5L telephoto lens and I would use that. They are quiet expensive around the $2k to $2.5k mark. Many review on this lens talk about capturing birds really well.

[vk2gwk]

Maybe your own sense of creativity is stifled by stymied views but please don't try to spread such inadequacies.

Andrew, is this really contributing to a positive discussion with and advice to an aspiring photographer? I reacted to the remark "every photographer should have an ultra wide".
It has nothing to do with my creativity or lack of creativity when I think this is too absolute a statement.
There is absolutely no need to get insulting.

This sort of personal attacks and insults seems to be more common on this forum than on some other photography forums I frequent. So I'll say goodbye to AusPhotography and wish you all the very best....

[Fruengalli]

Well that escalated quickly!

Ive got a 15-85 EFS on a crop & you REALLY have to look to pick any difference to the big bucks lenses.

[Tannin]

^ Well yes you do struggle to pick a difference - but then, the 15-85 is getting up there a bit price-wise, it's not "big bucks" but at only $150 less than a 17-40 L it's more than small change, that's for sure. Mind you, when you look at the nose-bleed pricing of a 24-70/2.8L II .... maybe the 15-85 is small change.

But (I hasten to add), it's worth every penny. I don't own a 15-85 but I bought one for a family member a while back and am more than happy to borrow it from time to time. To anyone looking for a general-purpose zoom covering all the way from wide through to moderate telephoto on crop, it's as good as it gets. It's pretty much a direct crop body equivalent to the 24-105/4L on full frame, and just as all-round useful. (It looks nearly the same too - my friend and I tend to pick up the wrong cameras by mistake sometimes. The only obvious difference between my 5D II/24-105 and her 40D/15-85 is the red ring!)

[Drubbing]

As a beginner myself, I'd suggest getting plenty of experience with the camera you have, and the lenses you have available to borrow, before you even think about asking a question about what lenses you 'might' need.

Give it 6-12 months, lots of pictures, and I'll bet your question becomes a lot more specific, and the answers better informed about what you need.

[Arg]

One option is to look for good used Canon brand lenses for a similar price to new 3rd party lenses. Also, if not for you, they could be sold for minimal to no loss. A quick glance at ebay and I see several potential candidates on auction, in Australia.