new to photography - need advise!

[scottbirdsong]

I just purchased a Rebel t2. Not ready to spend money on digital since I am a

newbie. I think I got a good price for the rebel t2 kit ($200).

 

My question: What is your opinion of this camera and what are some

recommendations for inexpensive compatible lenses.

 

Thanks for your time..

 

Scott

[phule]

If you're new to photography, get the kit lens (Canon 28-80 or 28-90) and the 50mm f/1.8 and start practicing. The most important part of the equation is you. The next most important part is quality lenses. But there's time for buying better lenses later.

 

If you are able to spend more money now, get the Canon 28-135mm IS.

[rainer_t]

Scott,

 

Another vote for the EF 50/1.8. A 'must have' lens (for the price it costs anyway).

 

You write you bought the 'rebel t2 kit'. I assume that includes the

kitlens (a cheap 28-80(or 90) 3.5-5.6). Should you have bought just the body, a used EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM (for about 180$) is a nice and still not overly expensive alternative to the kitlens.

 

If you already have the kitlens, start to collect first experiences

before collecting more lenses. (Except of the mentioned 50/1.8)

 

Rainer

[alexandru_petrescu]

This camera is the only one in the EOS lineup, digital and film combined, that beeps warning of shake risk (when the shutter speed is shorter than the focal), reason to be proud :-)

 

The cheap lens should be 50/1.8 and the film the new provia 400, or velvia 100, or kodachrome (never tried this myself). I wish I did that again.

[mars c]

If you ask me, you'll gonna save more money if you go digital and learn faster too.

 

With film, you gonna have to develop in orther to see the result, you'll not gonna see your mistake until your film gets developed, and its time consuming too.

 

With digital, you could see the result right away, and in your computer, Plus you'll gonna learn faster that way, especially for a beginner.

 

In the first two months of owning my digital, I already shot 1,000+ exposure wIth it, and learned 1,000+ times on those two months alone, had it been a film, that 1,000+ exposure would cost me alot, and still, the results of those exposures sucks.

 

Surely, you can find a used or old model Canon dslr, at good price, if you wanna stick to that brand.

 

YOu may disagree with what I said , but thats just my opinion.

[awindsor]

You just learn different things. My Scottish ancestry and the cost of slide film means that I learned to be a very careful shooter ;) I also got used to carrying a tripod since ISO 50 is pretty slow.

 

Skip a 50/1.8 for now. While I recommend that lens for anyone with a crop factor digital since it is an ideal portrait length I simply didn't use that focal length much in 35mm.

 

Shoot the lenses that you have and take note of where you are using them most.

 

If you have money that you want to spend I would say get a cheap tripod and maybe a cheap remote release.

 

The advantage of slide film is that you remove the minilab operator from the equation and immediately see where you are screwing up. And if you have Scottish ancestry then the pain of the wasted exposures encourages you to get better faster ;)

[awindsor]

One of my favourite lenses when I shot 35mm film was the 28-135/3.5 - 5.6 though it is not really inexpensive.

 

The standard cheaper Canon zoom was the Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5. Careful, there is a slightly cheaper but considerably inferior Canon 28-105/4-5.6 that is not well regarded. You are still looking at $200+.

 

For some reason the 24-85 was not very popular on full frame cameras (apparently very weak borders - it scores rather poorly at Photodo but I never shot this lens).

 

Unless you don't have a lens I would not rush to buy another. I would shoot what you had until you get a feel for what you shoot and a what focal lengths. You will then know whether you need a faster (wider maximum aperture), longer, or wider lens.

[awindsor]

No one has asked you what you want to photograph ! What do you want to photograph ?

[phule]

<<Skip a 50/1.8 for now. While I recommend that lens for anyone with a crop factor digital since it is an ideal portrait length I simply didn't use that focal length much in 35mm.>>

 

Scott, you will find that opinion contrary to almost every recommendation for new film shooters on photo.net.

[lovcom_photo]

Like someone else already mentioned, save your money and get a used Rebel XT DSLR....you'll learn A LOT faster, and in the long run it will prove cheaper too.

 

If anyone tells you that starting out with film is the best way to go, DO NOT believe it....much better to start fresh with digital. When Ansel Adams taught photography in college, in Los Angeles, many years ago, he often had his students use Polaroid cameras so that they could see IMMEDIATELY the effects of their camera settings.

 

So what's good enough for old Ansel should be good enough for you and any of us.

 

For now and in the foreseeable future, get the yuk yuk lenses. Don't worry about quality for now. Practice, and often. Read lots of books. Come here and consider the many many different opinions.

 

If you get the Rebel XT, DON'T get the cheapo Canon 50mm F1.8 lens...better to get the Canon 28mm or Canon 35mm....the folks that recommend the 50mm for an XT forget that on that body, it really is a whopping 80mm....far from being near human field-of-view.

 

If you practice enough, perhaps in 6-18 months you can take it to the next level with more capable lenses. No need to replace the XT for a great while, as you'll not outgrow it for years perhaps. Still, I don't suggest to limit you...perhaps you'll master it much sooner.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i> I just purchased a Rebel t2........What is your opinion of this camera </i> </p>

<p> Please do not be offended but I think you need to look <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/cameras.html#dumbquestion">here</a>. </p>

<p> <i> what are some recommendations for inexpensive compatible lenses. </i> </p>

<p> 50/1.8.</p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

[jeff2909]

Use the lens that came with the camera see how it works and find out what you want and like to shoot. When I bought my camera a year ago I ran out and bought three lens and I dont use any of them now and no one wants to take them off my hands, I would have done better to by a good tripod or more memory cards. I say save your money learn to use what you got first and then you will know what lens to buy. Jeff

[kerry_grim]

I do not necessarily agree that going digital is a faster way of learning. Using a film camera is more expensive but in theory this should slow a person down and compose and expose more cautiously. Using transparency film is essential since what you take is what you get. Using print film you are at the mercy of the developer.

 

Using digital, yes you do see the results immediately. But how well is your monitor calibrated to see them at the correct exposure on the

computer? I do wonder when blasting away at a subject with digital, do photographers really study and learn from their results? Or, are they more active editing out the bad photos?

 

So while I do think using a film camera with slide film is a slight advantage, it is ultimately up to the photographer as to how well he studies his results and leans from his mistakes.

 

I agree fully with the person who said "The most important part of the equation is you".

 

I would also recommend reading and thoroughly studying books on photography. They are many, but some of my favorites are by John Shaw. His books, while all somewhat similar are excellent.

 

As for lenses without spending a ton of money investing, perhaps a 24mm or 28mm wide angle prime would compliment the 50mm lens. Both are excellent. The 24 is my favorite, but more costly than the 28. I have no objections to zooms, but why buy one until you have experience with photography and which case you can make a better purchase decision. Then, you will still have a sharp prime lens (still useful for low light, and compact) as opposed to a so-so quality zooms lens should you purchase an expensive zoom lens.

[mars c]

In addition to my previous answer, with digital , you can change the Iso settings just by pushing buttons. while on film , you have to change films.

 

With digital, you can have a thousand shots in just 1 MEMORY card if you like. but Impossible with film.

 

I don't think there is advantage of using film over digital, for a beginner.

 

So ok, my answer is kind of outside your question. but I'm just trying to be helpful here, For you to see the whole picture. I don't want to misled anyone , and I think my answers are not misleading in anyway .

 

We live in digital age now, there are plenty of digital cameras to choose from, and maybe next month, something cheaper might come out in the market.

 

I wont make the mistake by saying your rebel t2 is useless, you still can learn from it, albeit slower than digital.

 

There are many ways to learn about photography. for me , one of the most important way is to take plenty of composed shots, then learn from them by looking at the computer, to analize why it looks good or bad, to see what you should have done to make it look better. and also to see whether your lens is sharp or not, accurate or distorted. There is no easier way to do that, than going digital.

 

There is nothing wrong with choosing an easier and simpler path, as some had opposed, regarding your post.

 

Be practical my friend.

[scottbirdsong]

Thanks guys for the help! This has helped a bunch! I will move to digital soon. I have a canon a60 (ithink). It is a nice fixed lens cheap digital. I have sort of used it as a practice tool to find out what my 'style' of shooting is. But, I am kind of interested in learning the science of film along with the art of photography. I work on computers every day. I think there is a real talent and artistic ability in traditional film work over 'fixing' every shot with a click of a button. I know it is more involved than a click of a button, but, i have a couple of $10 photoshop type prgrams that 'autocorrect' shots. .... takes the talent out of it. No offense, i want to learn from the 'old school' then i can appreciate it alittle more.

 

Thanks again!

[awindsor]

Rob,

 

Thanks. I hate to be just one of the crowd. When you shot with your Rebel 2000 did you use a 50/1.8 a lot ?

 

Dan,

 

The idea that 50mm corresponds to some human field of view is basically a myth. I would say that the 50mm normal is essentially an historical accident. In cinematography a normal lens is apparently one that has a focal length of twice the frame diagonal.

 

Scott,

 

I would bet that many of those that suggest a prime as the ideal vehicle for learning photography learned using a zoom. I have never recommended a prime as a first lens.

 

The 50/1.8 is fast, cheap, and optically quite good but even a cheap prime is an expensive paperweight if you don't use it. Work out what YOU want to photograph, how YOU see the world, and THEN buy lenses that support that vision. For me on 35mm that have been an 85/1.8 but you might not find that. If you find that you need a lens for low light then the 50/1.8 is the cheapest there is. The point is to let your purchases be guided by your need.

 

I would add to Dan's advice. Photography combines a bit of art and science. The science you can learn by reading and it is important to grasp because it determines which photographs are possible. The fundamentals are easy to grasp.

 

I would add that you should look at photographs (and paintings) and find the photographs and photographers that you like. Work out what you like about them. Do the same with photographs that you take.

 

Get out and shoot some pictures. Have fun.

[robert lee]

"No offense, i want to learn from the 'old school'..."

 

Okay, start with shooting slides. Negative film is ultimately the superior media, but it's difficult to learn with. The problem is at the print stage. In all likelihood, initially you'll let someone else do the printing. This intermediary means that getting your exposure intent across to paper will be almost impossible. You'll pull your hair out in frustration; you'll expose a scene multiple different ways, and get pretty much the same blasted, blocked up, super high contrast "bolder and brighter" 4x6 out of the minilab.

 

If you really want to learn photographic techniques (that's applicable to whatever imaging media you ultimately prefer) the film camera is a mistake. Return the T2 if you can, and pick up a used Olympus E-10 or E-20 from KEH.com. You'll learn much faster.

[byronlawrence]

opinion of the camera.. well first that doesn't matter, it is a camera and it will take pictures, it has functionality for manual control so you can learn "old school".

 

recommendations, same as everyone else, a 50mm f1.8 lens. it is cheap so you can't go wrong, but if you have a kit lens .. there is no need to spend money on something when you can be buying film .. so buy film and use it up.

[phule]

<<When you shot with your Rebel 2000 did you use a 50/1.8 a lot ?>>

 

After purchasing the 50mm f/1.8, it was as if the lens and camera were grafted together. For the first year, I rarely shot with anything else.

[lovcom_photo]

Alistair, it is true that human vision is wider then a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, however the field of view that we ascertain naturally is about the same as the FOV of a 50mm lens.

 

This is no myth.

 

And for this reason, a 50mm lens is also known as a normal lens, and a standard lens. It better approximates the same FOV as a human with normal eyes.

 

This designation was first made during the 1920's by Leica, the inventor of the 35mm camera.

 

For more information, see http://shutterbug.com/columns/passport/0800sb_passport/

 

Moreover, traditionally, and over the last 9 decades, photography professors have suggested students to practice and learn with a normal lens, a standard lens, a 50mm lens.

 

And in keeping with that tradition, many people, and you'll find them on this site, keep making the ERROR of pushing a 50mm lens on newbies that shoot with a 1.6 crop camera....affectively a whooping 80mm!

 

Why these people do it is beyond logic, and understanding...they only justification they give is "hey da canon 50mm costs cheapo $70..". What a lame excuse, and a waste of $70. For 1.6 croppers, better to get a 35mm which affectively is 56mm, and for all intents and purposes is a 50mm lens.

 

So you see sir, this 50mm = human FOV is no myth, to be sure.

[csafdari]

I think you did the right thing to start with film. That's how you learn photography! Now, just make sure that you set it on MANUAL mode, and learn to set aperture and shutterspeed yourself. Fool around with DOF, learn the effect of zoom on perspective and relative size, etc.

[mars c]

I'd say that an inexpensive normal zoom combined with the cheap 50mm 1.8, would be good for a beginner.

[awindsor]

Dan,

 

I agree that tradition makes the 50mm a "standard" lens but maintain that it has nothing to do with human vision though that is often written. The 50mm for 35mm goes back to the founder of Leica but the "normal" diagonal of the film (for still photography) goes back further. The few references I can find that discuss the history suggest that such lenses are amongst the easiest to manufacture.

 

There is nothing mystically good about a 50mm lens. It is obviously fairly flexible or it would not have been used for as the "standard" for years but that is about all that can be said for it and the same might be said about a 35mm lens. A zoom clearly trumps either for flexibility (though quite possibly in no other way).

 

All I originally advised was to hold off purchasing any more lenses until he discovers which focal length lenses work for him. A 50mm on full frame didn't work for me but obviously works for others. The question is what works for Scott.

 

I don't see why a 50/1.8 is better advice for a full frame camera than a 1.6x crop factor camera; I certainly wouldn't term it an error. For me the opposite was true; the 50/1.8 is my standard portrait lens on my 20D and the 35/2 sees only occasional use. I wouldn't advise a prime as a first lens for anyone, instead I say again get a zoom, work out what you like and need, and ignore any historical imposition.

[lovcom_photo]

Alistair, I think there may well be something to 50mm's....for decades many manufactureres of 35mm format SLR's have made the 50mm the most popular kit lens. I was playing around with my 50mm on a full-format, and moving it to my eye, then away, by gosh it does closely resemble human FOV....my peripheral vision is wider of course, but the FOV that I am most aware of is a similar FOV as a 50mm.

 

On a 1.6 crop body, a 50mm can be a great headshot lens, no doubt. But a good torso/body lens is a 35mm on a 1.6'er.

 

I can appreciate that the 50mm was not your huckleberry, but I suspect that is the exception with most photogs and not the rule...and not to say that what works for you is wrong, by the way.

 

The 50mm standard cannot pre-date 35mm format SLR's because 50mm on any other formatted camera will more then likely not provide the same FOV as a 50mm on a 35mm format SLR.

 

We agree to disagree ;-)

[Spearhead]

Photography isn't about what lens looks closest to what the eye sees, it's about what the photographer can make out of what gets projected through the lens (or pinhole.) Great photographs have nothing to do with the angle of view of the lens, and whether it is close to human vision, because the result isn't something that is seen across the entire field of vision. People should photograph on what comes out of the camera, not on what they see, and they will make better photographs. The FOV of humans has nothing to do with photography, but it does seem to interest the technoid types.