Help! DSLR Lens Queries

[ebpinpin]

I'm a noob in the DSLR world and I had a question about lenses since I noticed a lot of our members here are shutter bugs.  Forgive me for my lack of technical know but I'm trying to find a particular lens that will help me achieve pictures that will really blur the background for portrait type shots as well as close up food shots (which I've achieved only somewhat satisfactory with the kit lens of my Canon Rebel XT EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6). 

From what I've researched (and please correct me if I'm wrong on this), I need a lens that will allow for a larger aperture to decrease the depth of field (hence a smaller f-stop number).  I also realized that I take a lot of blurry photos and probably could benefit from an IS lens since I won't always have a tripod. 

With this understanding, and if its right so far, would a lens like Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM do well or is the aperture too big?  If so, what would you guys who have the know-how recommend?  Where do you guys buy your lens from?  I take it a big box store like FutureShop won't have the selection a camera shop will have unlike, say, Lens & Shutter - who may also have the staff to help me out? 

Thanks for the help guys!

[rob]

oh hi.
i'll try to help out as i'm fairly noob myself.

there's basically 3 things to a good picture
iso: the "speed" of the film, basically talking about grain size/noise. Higher ISO, more noise.
aperature: how wide your lens opens, lower F stop, the smaller opening, small depth of field. higher F stop, larger opening, larger depth of field.
focus: self explainatory

a lot of times people will think of aperature as a tool to control light, which is rather incorrect. it should be thought of something to control your depth of field. while it's true higher F stop allows for more light, your depth of field will greatly differ from F2 to F22, as well as light.

The 17-85 lens you spoke of will do well in low light situations because of IS, but will not achieve that "blurred background" that you desire. There's a fairly cheap portrait lens (50mm F1.8 ) that will run you about $120 and create some very sharp pictures.

lastly, because im tired, you can find some amazing deals on amazon for lenses. if you're willing to travel a bit to Point Roberts, this option may be worth your while.

just get out there and practice! i really need to shoot more and intend to do so this summer.

[IMASA]

I'm a noob in the DSLR world and I had a question about lenses since I noticed a lot of our members here are shutter bugs.  Forgive me for my lack of technical know but I'm trying to find a particular lens that will help me achieve pictures that will really blur the background for portrait type shots as well as close up food shots (which I've achieved only somewhat satisfactory with the kit lens of my Canon Rebel XT EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6). 

For portraits shots, where the background is blurred, ie bokeh, you will want something with a large apperature, like the 50mm 1.8 as mentioned above.  Checked out the 50mm 1.4 as well, about twice the price but better build quality than the 1.8.  I'm not familar with Canon gear, but I believe they have some nice 85mm as well. 

For up close macro shots, they work best with a dedicated macro lens.  I have a Tamron 90mm macro which is known to be a good sharp lens for its price, almost as good as the Nikon 105mm macro.  There are some zoom lens that advertise themselves as macro, but they're not a true 1:1 macro, more like a 1:4. 

I buy my lenses from Broadway camera or check their B&S forums or even Craig's list.  I'm not that keen on buying grey market, however, Canon honours the warranty when purchased from the US, while Nikon does not.  And Sigma offers a 10yr CDN warranty, so I tend to buy locally. 

[Ice-520]

oh hi.
i'll try to help out as i'm fairly noob myself.

there's basically 3 things to a good picture
iso: the "speed" of the film, basically talking about grain size/noise. Higher ISO, more noise.
aperature: how wide your lens opens, lower F stop, the smaller opening, small depth of field. higher F stop, larger opening, larger depth of field.
focus: self explainatory

a lot of times people will think of aperature as a tool to control light, which is rather incorrect. it should be thought of something to control your depth of field. while it's true higher F stop allows for more light, your depth of field will greatly differ from F2 to F22, as well as light.

The 17-85 lens you spoke of will do well in low light situations because of IS, but will not achieve that "blurred background" that you desire. There's a fairly cheap portrait lens (50mm F1.8 ) that will run you about $120 and create some very sharp pictures.

lastly, because im tired, you can find some amazing deals on amazon for lenses. if you're willing to travel a bit to Point Roberts, this option may be worth your while.

just get out there and practice! i really need to shoot more and intend to do so this summer.

you got it the other way around
higher F value means smaller aperture and larger DOF
lower F value means larger aperture and shallower DOF

[levitron]

The way I look at the relationship between f-stop (aperture), shutter speed, and ISO is a sort of "trinity".  You can't adjust one without affecting the other two.  Since other people have explained the terms already, I won't go into that here.  But it's important to know that if you adjust one, you will affect the other two.  It all goes hand in hand.

The "blurred background" is commonly known as "bokeh".  Usually the rule of thumb is "the longer the focal range (mm), the more bokeh you get".  Of course, aperture adjustments will affect the bokeh, but not as much as focal range will.

It also comes down to how much you want to spend.  Usually to get the best quality, you'll have to spend money on multiple lenses to get that range you were mentioning (17-85). 

HTH.

[w00tgasm]

I wouldn't bother with the 17-85 if you can't unload the 18-55.
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 would be a nice replacement.
Either the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 would be great for portraits and get you nice bokeh.
Or if you want, I'd say try to get your hands on the Sigma 24-60 f2.8 which goes for $300 or the 24-70 f2.8 which goes for $450ish.

[w00tgasm]

On the note of lenses and bokeh.
You don't need a really wide aperture to get bokeh.

I ended up buying a 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 lens which happens to be older than me.
I paid $25 for the lens and an EOS 650 film body with film and batteries.

Here are the results straight out of my XTi.
No post processing and EXIF data is untouched.


f5.6 at 105mm


f/4.5 @ 35mm


f/4.5 @ 35mm


f/4.5 @ 64mm


f/4.5 @ 84mm


f/4.5 @ 50mm


f/4.5 @ 105mm

I'm fairly satisfied with how the lens shoots in daylight.  Only downside to the older AF Canon lenses is they're slow to focus and loud.
But it did yield amazing results.

But as for your need for a macro lens, most of them will be indicated on the lens.  The 35-105 can only focus if you're just under a meter away.

[ebpinpin]

Thanks for the help so far, guys.  Some of you have mentioned getting a macro lens.  I take it that you cannot zoom with a macro lens but have to move in and out of the subject.  I was looking at the pamphlet that comes in the camera box and thought that the EF-S 60 mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens they advertise take the kind of shots I want (at least for food and such).  I guess it wouldn't be so great for portrait snaps?

And what about IS lenses?  Does Sigma make those as well or is it specific to Canons?

[w00tgasm]

Most lenses will have macro capabilities.  You just have to switch it to macro mode or manual focusing and get in the macro focus range.

IS is good for low light or if you're going to be shooting hand held shots a lot.  Sigma, Tamron and Tonkina all make lenses that feature their own form of image stability.  It has to be indicated though

[ebpinpin]

I wouldn't bother with the 17-85 if you can't unload the 18-55.
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 would be a nice replacement.
Either the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 would be great for portraits and get you nice bokeh.
Or if you want, I'd say try to get your hands on the Sigma 24-60 f2.8 which goes for $300 or the 24-70 f2.8 which goes for $450ish.

Is this the lens you're talking about? http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3260&navigator=2

I'm doubtful since it lists quite a higher price than you've quoted...

[ebpinpin]

Most lenses will have macro capabilities.  You just have to switch it to macro mode or manual focusing and get in the macro focus range.

IS is good for low light or if you're going to be shooting hand held shots a lot.  Sigma, Tamron and Tonkina all make lenses that feature their own form of image stability.  It has to be indicated though

I will be taking a lot of hand held shots indeed.  I'd say 95% of the time.  With that in mind should I not even consider lenses that do not have this feature?

[w00tgasm]

Depends on the lighting right.
If all else fails, crank the ISO and flash =)

[w00tgasm]

I wouldn't bother with the 17-85 if you can't unload the 18-55.
Sigma 18-50 F2.8 would be a nice replacement.
Either the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 would be great for portraits and get you nice bokeh.
Or if you want, I'd say try to get your hands on the Sigma 24-60 f2.8 which goes for $300 or the 24-70 f2.8 which goes for $450ish.

Is this the lens you're talking about? http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3260&navigator=2

I'm doubtful since it lists quite a higher price than you've quoted...

That's because MSRP is a bitch.
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00330

I'm probably going to spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 by Sigma just because it has a 82mm filter size and looks cooler.

[dmogx]

hmmmm macro lense.. must stop getting ideas..
although my 30mm f/1.4 sigma lense isn't classified as a macro lense, but it's pretty decent still for some up close shooting with good bokeh.

[IMASA]

Give the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 some considerationa s well, it's known to be a good performer for the price.  If you are happy with your kit lens' focal range but want something with better build quality and have some macro ability, consider then the suggested Sigma18-50 f2.8 HSM Macro would fit the bill.  Again, not a true 1:1 macro, but may suit your needs.

I have the Sigma 30mm as well and yes it's good close up, but can not compare to a dedicated macro lens. 

If you are looking for the Sigma 24-60 f2.8, check Amazon, I believe it is selling for around $200 thru Cameta Camera.  My friend bought one for Nikon mount, it was $179. 

VR/IS is useful up to a point, in really low light, you're going to need a faster lens, such as a 1.4.  I would suggest you try a 50mm 1.8.  Yes, you usually have to pay ALOT for a good quality sharp lens.  The only exception to the rule is the nifty fifty. 

[levitron]

Here's what a lot of people have for their lens coverage in terms of range:

17-40
24-70
70-200

I can say for certain that that range mentioned above is a very common combination for a lot of Canon shooters.  You can probably determine what you need by looking at what most people have/use.

[w00tgasm]

I'm looking for:
10-20 or 10-22
24-60 or 24-70
70-200

=)

[fulminatus]

Hey, I'm a noob too! =)

I have the 17-55 IS as my walkaround.  Sometimes I miss the extra bit at 85 from when I borrowed my friends 17-85, but the 17-85 as you know isn't a very fast lens.  The speed also decreases as you zoom in.  But that might be OK, as a flash can sometimes make up for it.
Btw, if you do end up getting the 17-85 IS or the 17-55 IS, you will most likely need something other than the popup flash.  The popup flash isn't mounted high enough, and your lens will cast a shadow.  Whether or not a shadow appears in your picture depends on how wide your shot is, and how close your foreground is to the lens.

[ebpinpin]

Things are becoming a little clearer now as to what lens I should buy.  Thanks also for letting me know of the Sigma and Tamron lenses.  Looks like they have some good lenses as well.  I think for my needs I understand that a larger aperture will be best so I will be focusing on getting a f/2.8.  I'm also going to try and get one that has a longer focal range (up to 75 mm?)

As for the stabilization technologies, it seems it will cost an arm and a leg to get a decent one so I will try a lens without one.  Hopefully the larger aperture (and me using a faster ISO when necessary) will reduce my "blurry" photos.  Or I can just learn to be realllly still.