Lenses

[J-PaP]

Hey all I'm looking at picking up a Cannon 60d. Now what I am unsure about is whether to go for:

Just a 18-55mm lens or

a 18-55mm lens and a 55-250mm lens.

I don't quite understand the differences in lenses and which one is most useful or whether a 55-250mm lens is needed.

Most of my photos would be of landscapes but also family events/weddings/etc.

 

[Mr. S]

An 18-55mm will be sufficient for most situations. However, I'd advise you to get either an 35mm 1/1.8 or 50mm 1/1.8. Those create a nice blur in the background and are pretty fast, so capturing "the moment" will be easier as well. Generally speaking: the lower the number of the F stop (ranging from 1.4 to 46 for example), the faster the shutter speed.

Everything has it's good and bad sides, so here are a few photos of mine to show what I'm talking about.

18mm - f32 - 0.5 seconds


Château de Versailles - Garden at sundown on Flickr

50mm - f1.8 - 0.0005 seconds


Flowers - Gardens of Versailles on Flickr

150mm - f5.3 - 0.25 seconds


Kitty, yet again on Flickr

On a side-note: Nikon has a lens simulator right here - might be worth looking at it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The 60D is pretty good for Landscapes, they're the only thing that move slow enough for the Live View to focus on!

On a slightly more constructive note, if I get the chance this weekend I'll post some pics taken with my 60D and the bog-standard EF-S 18-55mm.

 

[TB]

My T1i has the same size sensor (APS-C) and I have both the 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 if you'd like some comparison shots. 👍

 

[Owen.C93]

Generally the 18-55mm would be better for landscapes and everyday photography, but the longer lens is a bit more fun and there's nothing wrong with using it for landscapes.

 

[Grand Prix]

I highly recommend the 50mm f/1.8. Doesn't cost a fortune and would be a great low-light option to complement the 18-55 and 55-250. It's a very good lens in image quality for its price (because it is a prime ). F/1.8 will create lots of bokeh/blur when you need it, and you can stop down the aperture to f/2.8 and the sharpness gets better still. Still a great aperture opening for indoors.

 

[J-PaP]

interesting. Yeah any photos comparing 18-55's and 55-250's would be great. I'm sort of leaning towards not bothering with the 55-250. It's not quite seeming like a lens I can use. However something like the 50mm f1.8 mentioned earlier does sound more interesting for a 2nd lens.

I assume it is also worth investing in a decent flash while i'm at it?

 

[Owen.C93]

Not unless you're getting a deal, I would just go one step at a time.

 

[TB]

I've been trying to do everything somewhat inexpensively while still having decent quality. My gear can be found here (needs to be updated) and here.

Clearly I think the 18-200 range is essential for me (kids at the playground vs. kids on the soccer field required the full range) but if you're going to be doing any portraits or indoor shots, the 50 f/1.8 is outstanding (see below).

On to the test shots. All are from 45-50 feet away, shot at f/8.0, 100ISO, shutter speed adjusted as needed to maintain exposure. You'll have to excuse the subject as it is currently raining and I don't feel like soaking my gear so my backyard through my patio door will have to do.


EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (kit lens) at 18mm, exposure - 1/13


EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (kit lens) at 55mm, exposure - 1/15


EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM at 55mm, exposure - 1/10


EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM at 200mm, exposure - 1/8

I think it's interesting to not just how muted the colors are on the second 55mm shot. I knew the lens fired soft but I've never compared the two lenses as far as saturation, etc.

And for an example of just how quickly the 50mm f/1.8 can isolate the background, my son holding one of his enzyme capsules:


Low light capability of the 50mm f/1.8:

 

[J-PaP]

Thanks for those shots! Definitely convinced me on sticking with a 18-55 to start with. Don't need that level of zoom the 55-200 gives. I definitely will be using the camera in low light and quite do like the whole blurred background effect. I'll definitely enquire about a 50mm f1.8

 

[RouWa]

The 50mm f1.8 is much faster than the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. The 18-55 lens has f3.5 at 18mm and f5.6 at 55mm focal length.

f1.8 is two full stops (one full f-stop = 100%!) better than f3.5 and 3 1/3 stops better than f5.6. That's a lot.

Typical one-third-stop f-number scale:

f1.0 (full stop)
f1.1
f1.2
f1.4 (full stop)
f1.6
f1.8
f2.0 (full stop)
f2.2
f2.5
f2.8 (full stop)
f3.2
f3.5
f4.0 (full stop)
f4.5
f5.0
f5.6 (full stop)
f6.3
f7.1
f8.0 (full stop)
f9.0
f10
f11 (full stop)
f13
f14
f16 (full stop)
f18
f20
f22 (full stop)
f25
f29
f32 (full stop)

If you want to isolate a subject, the most important thing is the distance between your camera and the subject. The closer the distance, the more the background gets blurred.

Other than that, longer focal lengths and wider apertures will also create a smaller depth of field. The following photos have been shot with an f2.0 lens between f2.0 and f16.0 (full stops only), so no photos with f1.0 and 1.4.

f2.0:

f2.8:

f4.0:

f5.6:

f8.0:

f11.0:

f16.0:

I have no photos with f22.0 and f32.0.

f2.0 (or better) lenses are perfect if you want isolate a subject without beeing close:
http://www8.pic-upload.de/12.08.11/vxyyjwrka7dv.jpg
http://www8.pic-upload.de/12.08.11/wx6va4ndhr31.jpg