LENSES TO BUY ON AN EOS 3 CAMERA.

[fusion s]

I am a begineer and i interested in buying the EOS 3 camera with a

few lenses. I have made research, but in the time being i am confused

on what lens to get. I was think of buying the 50mm/1.4 lens and 70-

200mm/f4 USM, since the 2.8 is rather expensive as a begineer.

KIndly,what do you suggest? Are there any other lenses i must own?

I mostly like Close ups (nature), Landscape and Portraits.

Thx

[basscheffers]

Those are excelent choices. The good thing about the 2.8 version is that it also makes for a great portrait lens, albeit a bit big. I would probably prefer what I have now: the f/4 and an 85/1.8. You might want to also get a wide angle; the 28/2.8 is very good value and quality. You could save some money on the camera by buying an EOS 33 and spending the change on the extra lenses.

[david_lee2]

For an overall travel / carry lens you should consider the 28-135mm IS. I have the 70-200/2.8; it's a great lens. I hear the f4 version is similar in quality.

[christopher_bibbs]

I would recommend that you not buy any more lenses than the two to start. You may want a wide angle, but you won't know for sure until you start taking pictures with the 50. Personally, I spend a lot more time at 50mm and 35mm than I thought I would. As a result, I've got a long zoom that I hardly ever need.

[michael_zhang]

Those two lenses are good choices. 17-40mm f/4L is another good one for wide-angle, and 100mm f/2.8 USM for macro.

 

But another thought, even money is not a problem to you, it is not good to buy too many lenses at the begining, maybe better to buy a walk around lens, such as 28-135IS with EOS 3, or just 50mm (either f1.4 or f1.8) and 70-200mm f/4L. Also I suggest you to buy a good tripod (I assume you don't have) if you are really interested in landscape, using tripod makes bigger difference than using better lenses for landscape. Enjoy!

[carl_weller]

Unless you NEED the eos 3 for its speed, rugedness etc I can't recommend it to you for the following reason:

 

Digital is here, baby! The 3 is an amazing camera (had one for 2 years now) and I love it dearly, but digital is finally at the point where it rivals film for everyday photography. And, as a beginer, you'll get instant feedback on your shots which will speed up your learning curve. I'm keeping my 3 and getting a film scanner only because I invested so much in the 3 that I can't justify not using it for a few more years. If I could start again like you are, I'd definately go digital.

 

If you're not ready to go digital, why spend so much money on the 3 when you can get an elan7(e)/eos 30 and get a good set of glass to go with it? I'd say the 50mm and the 70-200 f4.0 are great choices, as is either the 24mm f2.8 or the 17-40mm f4.0. Then you'll have all you'd really need to get some great shots.

 

Seriously, take a good look at the rebel D/eos 300D or the 10D.

 

cheers,

 

carl

[gabrielma]

I'll also pitch in to say that you're on the right track. The EOS 3 is a very nice camera, noisy, but all else is very nice, and very very excellent for a beginner; with the lenses you've mentioned you can seamlessly treat the camera as a manual focus camera if you set Custom Function 4 to "1" rather than "0", so that the camera doesn't autofocus automatically when pressing the shutter button; you use the * button to autofocus.<BR>

So, this way, you can manually focus your lens (both have full-time autofocus, which means you don't have to switch the lens to MF) and when you press the shutter button it won't autofocus.<BR>

<BR>

OK, done with the redundant redundancies. ;)<BR>

<BR>

Also, don't be tempted to do "only digital". Learn your craft with film. Learn how to expose, how to compose, how to focus, how to compensate metered light, etc. If you start with digital you will learn little if you know little about the art and science of photography, unless you're an exceptional case.<BR>

For landscape, these lenses are also pretty nice and sharp for those applications; the 50mm can serve as a group portrait lens. For portraits the 70-200 is EXCELLENT. Just beware: it is so sharp, you will see the hairs on the pimples on a properly focused subject.<BR>

<BR>

For landscape, I suggest either the 20-35 or the 17-40 L. Personally, the 17-40 L does not make me wish I had the 20-35.

[carl_weller]

Gabriel, how is it that you think a beginner can't learn about photography with a digital? The damn thing works pretty much the same as a film camera! The critical difference is that the 'film' is a sensor. You still need to know about exposure, light, focus etc, but you have the added benefit that you don't have to wait for your prints to see the results of your shots, and the shots are basically FREE if you don't print them out. A much faster learning curve for beginners. Plus, a 3 is definite overkill for a beginner anyway, especially when the same sort of money will now get you a good DSLR. The bottom line is an image. Lets not get too 'purist' about film cameras now.

 

carl

[andrew robertson]

The EOS 3 is a LOT of camera for a beginner. If this is your first SLR, why not try a

Rebel or even the 300D (digital being FAR superior for a beginner) and then move up

to a bigger body when you feel limited by the more entry-level products?

[whayne_padden]

The EOS 3 is a lot of camera for a beginner but really it is no harder to use than any other EOS. You can always set it to P mode and start clicking. It has a lot of features but you don't need to master them in a day.

 

For my EOS 3 I have the following kit:

 

17-40 f/4L Wow a great little WA zoom, beautiful colour and sharp.

50 f/1.8 Super little lens you take everywhere and is not bad even at f/1.8.

70-200 f/4L Nothing to be said, a bargain

300 f/4L IS Light affordable excellent and IS.

1.4x TC II A must have if you want to do wildlife and great for macro too.

 

Some other lenses to consider for EOS 3 are 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, 100 Macro f/2.8. The first two are excellent and 135 f/2 is about as good as it gets (probably only 300/400 f/2.8 can better it).

 

Have fun; I'll be keeping my EOS 3 for a while even when my new 1D arrives (roll on PMA 2004).

[yakim_peled1]

<P> For a body I'd recommend the 30/33 in favor of the 3. Reasons already stated above. For a beginner it is just as good and will leave more cash in your pocket for better lenses, film and developing etc.</P>

<P> For lenses I'd recommend the following : </P>

<P>For macro and <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#portrait">portraits</a> : <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#macroportrait">100/2.8 macro USM</a>. </P>

<P>For landscapes: 24/2.8. </P>

<P> For something in between: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/samirkharusi/mighty_50.html">50/1.8</a>. It is <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/">almost as good as the 50/1.4</a> but at a <b>much</b> lower cost, it is a <b>much</b> better value IMHO.</P>

<P> All these lenses are lightweight and relatively cheap. Most importantly, all deliver exceptional optical quality. More importantly, <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-03-07-13.shtml">none of them is a zoom</a>. As a novice, fix-focals have an edge for you. They will force you to think about composition and will force you to think more in general. Thus, you will learn more and become a better photographer. </P>

 

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[r._d.]

I've used my 100mm f2.8 macro for all of the reasons you want to use a lens. It is my most used, and versatile lens for all of these situations. I would highly recommend it.

[andrew robertson]

My point was that for somebody who is just starting with SLR photography, and who

might discover it's not for them, the EOS 3 is a very expensive investment. I don't

disagree that it's a great camera, or that it can function on P mode. I just think that

getting something cheaper before one goes all out might be wise.