Starter lens for FF format?

[jami_lee_tatro]

Hello all,

 

I was looking between two lenses for starting and I realized maybe I'm limiting

myself. What do you think is a great lens for a new guy starting out? Just to

learn fundamentals of photography. I would like to go with a high quality lens.

 

I'm going to make a prediction now that I hear from Colin and WW... ;)

[PuppyDigs]

Old skool for natural perspective, ready for any light and zoom with feet: EF 50 1.2L USM.

 

Yuppie puppy doctor lawyer professor new age optic: EF 24-105 4L IS USM.

[colinsouthern]

"I'm going to make a prediction now that I hear from Colin and WW... ;)"

 

Colin and myself tonight, and Dan Mitchell in the morning :)

[jami_lee_tatro]

"Colin and myself tonight"

 

Interesting, Colin

[radu_vadan]

Any light, fast focus, great bokeh, ideal focal length, no need for zoom: 50 f/1.4.

[colinsouthern]

""Colin and myself tonight"

 

Interesting, Colin"

 

Damn, my cover is blown!

 

OK, I'll try again ...

 

Bill & myself tonight, and Dan in the morning!

[chrisjb]

You know colin will say 24 70 f2.8L...

[colinsouthern]

"You know colin will say 24 70 f2.8L..." - said it a couple of days ago. Possibly because it's a high-quality lens - and the lens that's undisputably the hardest-working quality lens available. Too short unless paired with a 70-200 on a FF camera though.

[yakim_peled1]

Your quest for a lens "Just to learn fundamentals of photography" is a meaningless one as many lenses can accomplish that. Worse. It means different things to different photographers. Therefore, the answers you will get may have little or no relation to YOUR photographic needs.

 

What is your budget?

 

What are your photographic interests?

 

Prime or zoom?

 

Does max aperture matter?

 

Does weight matter?

 

Does "high quality" only relates to IQ or also to BQ, to AF speed etc.?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[chrisjb]

Usually the 24 105 f4 IS is kitted with the 5D at a good price, maybe bird to bird a better option as well as general purpose. can always get 50 f1.4 for low light.

[marcomariano]

haha! hi Jami, so your another 5D user with lens pbroblem huh?! same here, just posted several questions the same as yours. currently, i'm only using 50/1.8 coz its the only EF mount left with me since i sold my 400D.

 

if budget is not a concern, 24-70/2.8 would be your best bet! i'm enjoying the combo of 5D & 50/1.8 at the moment. down side is, i have to use my limbs for zooming. LOL...

 

you can check some of my shots here.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OJeC

 

happy lens hunting,

-marco

[myworkshop]

I agree on the 50mm 1.4 . The thing, most often, about beginners is they waste too much effort zooming in and out and not enough on their camera settings and lighting and so on. Getting a prime takes away that tempting zoom dial and makes the user focus on more important things. Actually a lot of extremely successful photographers use just primes for this very reason and it is why a beginner should too. You will learn the truly important stuff faster without a zoom and you can pick some great primes for cheap.

[m_barbu1]

I agree with Yakim. And, my personal favorite "first" lens for the 5D would be the 24-70. However, and this has got to be the first time I've actually recommended this lens, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II is very inexpensive, and is fast enough (aperture) that it can be suited to many purposes. If you're looking for a good value that you can use to get a feel for photography, that 50mm is it. If you don't want to sell a lens down the road, don't mind the cost/weight, want a zoom lens, and value quality over everything else, it's the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, IMO.

[tommyinca]

As other said, depends on your budget. If you are looking for a moderate budget to start with, I would consider an older version (used) 50mm/1.8 MK-I (~$150) and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. These should work well (and has simular quality) as the 70-200/2.8 IS that you talk about on your other tread.

[anders_carlsson]

Tamron 28-75/2.8, Canon EF 50/1.4/1.8, Canon EF 70-300 IS or 70-200/4L, etc. to get started. If you have or get a lot more to spend you may upgrade any of those accordingly at any time without loosing a fortune.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>I don't think I have much to add to what I wrote in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00OJ8T">the other thread</a>, Jami.

 

<p>Just one thing. If you can't decide and are really up in the air, there are good arguments for starting out with

simpler, less expensive equipment. Shoot, shoot, shoot. You'll figure out for yourself what specific features you need

for <i>your photography</i>, at which point you'll be better prepared to decide among the many excellent options

available.

 

<p>Few of us started with the "best" gear as beginners. And if we had, it probably wouldn't have improved our early

photography much at all.

 

<p>Dan

[gdanmitchell]

<p>OK, can't help myself... :-)

 

<p>I <i>strongly disagree</i> with the old-school advice to start out with a single 'normal' prime. That made sense a few decades ago when the only affordable and decent lenses were

primes. I started out that way and gradually added a few more primes as I went along.

 

<p>But that was then and this is now. Today quite decent primes are available at relatively low prices. The notion that "too much zooming is bad for you" seems ludicrous to me. In fact,

without either a zoom or multiple lenses there are significant aspects of composition and so forth that you cannot learn as effectively. For example, with a zoom a beginner can learn how

to control the size relationships between foreground and background subjects by changing focal length. You cannot do that with a single prime.

 

<p>But let's say I'm wrong. Just get an inexpensive zoom and lock it at 50mm or 30mm or whatever you like and shoot it that way and you'll get the same effect.

 

<p>My strongest advice to an actual beginner is to not worry yet so much about getting the 'best' equipment since you don't really know what that might be for you and your

photography yet. Just get <i>some</i> decent camera and a functional and appropriate lens and start taking pictures. An XTi and the IS kit lens would be a great place to begin. Take a

lot of photographs. Work them over in PS. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Learn, learn, learn. This is far, far, far more important for your development as a photographer than making the "right"

choice between a 24-70 f/2.8 L and a 24-105 f/4 IS L at this point.

 

<p>Retiring from my soapbox... :-)

 

<p>... for the moment,

 

<p>Dan

[gdanmitchell]

Ack! I wrote: "Today quite decent primes are available at relatively low prices"

 

I meant to write "Today quite decent ZOOMS are available at relatively low prices"

 

(Just trying to keep up with 'Colin and himself'... :-)

[tdigi]

My first decent lens was the Tamron 28 - 75 2.8. Its a really good lens for not a lot of money.

If your starting out this is a good lens to start with. IMHO I think to learn shooting its best not

to have IS since this will teach you to focus on being still and holding the camera without

shake?

[colinsouthern]

"I strongly disagree with the old-school advice to start out with a single 'normal' prime."

 

And I strongly agree with Dan's disagreement (for once!).

 

From my perspective, if you only have a XXmm prime lens then the only shots that are going to look good are the ones that suit that particular lens. If your goal is to take good looking photos with an extremely limited perspective then by all means go ahead and get one - but in my opinion, that's putting the cart before the horse.

 

Surely the objective is to have the right equipment to correctly capture the scene in front of you that you want to capture? Not to have to limit your photography to only scenes that happen to suit the 1 lens you have?

[JDMvW]

Regardless of the various identity crises, generally a moderate wide angle to short telephoto is the preferred range--hence all the film lenses that were 24 to 28mm at the short end and 80 to 135mm at the top.

 

Because this is the traditional range there are probably a hundred or more, well, dozens, anyway, lenses that meet your criteria. Some of the older ones are available used for almost nothing. The newest ones and the fanciest ones have IS, large apertures, etc. There are, I hear ;), some good to decent L lenses in this range.

[William Michael]

>>> What do you think is a great lens for a new guy starting out? Just to learn fundamentals of photography. I would like to go with a high quality lens (for a 5D) <<< (JLT)

 

and

 

>>> I strongly disagree with the old-school advice to start out with a single 'normal' prime. <<< (DM)

 

and

 

 

>>> And I strongly agree with Dan's disagreement (for once!). <<< (CS)

 

 

On your 5D: the EF24 to 70F2.8L AND an EF50mmMkIIF1.8.

 

 

The US$80 (approx) for the 50mm should be considered an entrance fee.

 

Having paid it, you need to discipline yourself to use the 50mm to learn composition, camera angles, camera viewpoint, lighting, subject perspective, etc (and then also use the zoom AT SPECIFIC Focal Lengths to do the same), old school style:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OK0r (Feb 07, 2008; 01:54 a.m.)

 

 

Twenty years ago, no teacher in their right mind would suggest a zoom for a new student.

 

 

The point is, now, an F2.8 zoom is an awesome piece of gear.

 

That does not mean it can not (and IMO should not) be used as a `set of 5 primes` with which to learn: 24mm; 28mm; 35mm; 45mm; 58mm; 70mm.

 

This `set of 5 primes` is much more than I could ever afford to learn with: I got a `fast` 58mm (F2.4 I think) and later a 35mm F4 and finally a 135mm F4, and they each cost the earth.

 

To ensure you know, I am quite serious about getting the 50mm AS WELL AS the zoom: the physical act of having it, (a prime), on the camera makes for a discipline: in your profession you should understand that concept and that learning style.

 

And for US$80, it is a pretty good fast lens for low light work, on a 5D quite useful indoors.

 

WW

 

Sorry I was late to the party guys: I was busy putting on my Thong and Jandles :)

[alan_myers]

First of all, I'd never start out with a single lens. That would sort of defeat the whole purpose of an SLR camera.

 

The "old skool" answer from me would be:

 

20/2.8, 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 135/2 and possibly a 200/2.8.

 

This assumes you can "zoom with your feet".

 

One could possibly buy just every other lens initially, add others in the future. That might make for a kit with 20, 35 and 135mm lenses initially, for example.

 

Many others might choose to have a 50mm lens in there. On full frame, it's just not an important focal length for me, personally.

 

Another "old skool" approach to selecting a minimum number of prime lenses calls for focal length doubling. In this case a lens kit might end up looking like: 24, 50, 100, 200 and perhaps 400mm. The 100mm might be a macro lens, to serve double duty.

 

An alternative doubled focal length kit might be 20, 35, 85, 135 and 300mm. Note that this is not exactly doubling, just as close as the lenses that are offered will allow.

 

There's really no need to cover every single millimeter of focal length, whether you choose primes or with zooms.

 

The Gen X answer from me would be:

 

16-35/2.8 II, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS. The 16-35 might be optional. 24mm is a reasonably wide view on full frame, so even a two lens kit with the 24-70 and 70-200 might do for a while. Or a 20mm might take the 16-35's place.

 

A 1.4X teleconverter can be added to many lens kits to extend their capabilities. It's most effective on fast prime lenses 135mm and longer, but works pretty darned well on the 70-200/2.8 too. It will start to run into auto focusing problems with any lenses f5.6 or slower, on most EOS bodies.

 

A smaller/lighter travel kit might opt for 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 IS or 100-400 IS. Could add a 20mm to this for wider stuff, too, if desired. The 100-400 is an f5.6 at it's long end, so it's not as useful with a 1.4X teleconverter.

 

A few millimeters change in focal length makes a far more dramatic difference in wide angle lenses, than it does in telephotos.

 

You really need to just get started shooting and see what works or what doesn't work for your particular style of shooting. That's dictated by the subjects you shoot and how you try to capture them in your images. Each of us has our own styles and subjecst, which is as it should be. In the end, we all choose different lenses for this reason, so it's not easy or perhaps even particularly wise to try advise someone else to "go buy this particular lens, it will do everything you ever need."

 

Once you get a lens, shoot with it and see what it does for you, you will find out if it does or doesn't accomplish some things you want. That will help you determine if you need to buy another lens or replace the one you've got.

 

Until you start shooting, you'll never really know. So, pick one or two and get started shooting!

 

You can always sell off or trade in a lens that you decide is wrong for you, at relatively little loss of value with the better quality Canon lenses.

[PuppyDigs]

"First of all, I'd never start out with a single lens. That would sort of defeat the whole purpose

of an SLR camera."

 

Actually most do start with a single lens, not because they wish to defeat the"whole purpose

of an SLR camera." but because they're not as well-heeled as you. They add the second lens

later after mastering the first and saving up some bread. Personally I find the main charm

and attraction of a SLR to be the viewfinder and not the lenses.

[m_barbu1]

Of course, the 0.2 second start-up time and > 1 fps doesn't hurt, either. ;-)