ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Apple Valley, Ca - USA
    Posts
    588

    Help me understand

    I'm pretty new to photography but am very interested in it. I've stated before that I recently bought a sony f828 and I'm glad I did. It's verstile, does all that I want, for now, and it's great to learn on. I am though, sometime in the future going to step it up to a real dslr. One thing about the sony that makes beginning photography easy is it has a flexible built in lens. I've been researching SLR lenses and an getting more and more confused. When I go full DSLR I'm guessing I'm going to need 2 or 3 lenses to cover most situations. I was checking out Ritz online and they are listing the drebel in a starter kit with two lenses:

    Sigma 28-80mm Autofocus Lens
    Mount: Canon EF
    Lens Constructions: 7 Groups 7 Elements
    Angle of View (Diagonal): 75.4 degrees -30.3 degrees
    Minimum Aperture: f22
    Minimum Focusing Distance: 19-inches (9.8-inches Macro) / .5m (.25m Macro)
    Magnifications: 1:5.4 (1:2 Macro):
    Filter Size: 55
    Dimensions (Dia x Length) 2.7 x 2.8inches / 69.5 x 71.4mm / (Fully Extended Length 96.5mm / 3.8in)
    Weight: 9oz / 255g

    Sigma 70-300mm Autofocus Lens
    Mount: Canon EF
    Lens Constructions: 10 Groups 14 Elements
    Angle of View: 34.3 degrees -8.2 degrees
    Number of blades in diaphragm: 9
    Minimum Aperture: f22-32
    Minimum Focusing Distance: 150cm / 59.1in (Macro 95cm / 37.4in)
    Magnifications: 1:4 ( 1:2 Macro)
    Filter Size: 58mm
    Dimensions (Dia x Length) 74.5 x 119.5mm / 2.9 x 4.7in (Fully Extended Length 208.3mm / 8.2in)
    Weight: 585g / 20.6oz

    Could someone explain to me what some of the less obvious specifications mean, and what a person should look for when buying lenses?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Charles Hess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    785
    Others here who use Canon will be able to recommend some excellent Canon lenses for you. The ones you list are consumer-oriented lenses, will give you "OK" results, but will not give you the image quality that the drebel could give you with some better lenses. Most will agree that you should get the best lenses possible. Be patient, I'm sure the nice Canon users on this site will post.

  3. #3
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649
    Yet another Nikon poster here, but cameras are cameras. I'd probably recommend getting the best (one) lens you can afford, probably in the 28-80mm range for starters. Other than focal length, the most important spec is *maximum* aperture, which isn't listed here (I looked three times, did I miss it?). Less expensive zoom lenses usually have variable apertures, which might mean that - for example - at 28mm, it's an f3.5 lens but at 80mm it's an f4.5 lens. Not only are those maximum apertures pretty slow which will hurt you in low light or when you want a really shallow depth of field - they are a big pain when you're shooting manually because it's one more thing to worry about. A "pro" lens like this would probably be a constant f2.8.

    One other thing that I see is that the two lenses have slightly different filter sizes. You can get an adapter ring, but it's one more little hassle to deal with. You could build a nice Nikon kit that uses all 62mm filters or 77mm filters on pro lenses...

    The other stuff probably isn't very important - except maybe minimum focusing distance if you shoot macro-type subjects. Bottom line is always image quality, regardless of brand.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Apple Valley, Ca - USA
    Posts
    588
    I'm not asking about those canon lenses specifically, just about slr lenses in general. I just used the canon package as an example. I have noticed that a lot of lenses don't have aperatures bigger than f3.5, and was just confused in general about what to look for in a lens. Your explanation helps a lot, thanks.

    How does the lens on my Sony compare to a good SLR lens? It's listed as a 28-200, f2-f2.8 with a min aperature of f8, and its min focus distance is like 2cm (@28mm). I've noticed that a lot of the SLR lenses, unless they are macro specific, have pretty long min focus distances, like 36" or so...

  5. #5
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649
    Quote Originally Posted by bmadau
    How does the lens on my Sony compare to a good SLR lens? It's listed as a 28-200, f2-f2.8 with a min aperature of f8, and its min focus distance is like 2cm (@28mm). I've noticed that a lot of the SLR lenses, unless they are macro specific, have pretty long min focus distances, like 36" or so...
    Different animal entirely - well, sort of. I was just talking to someone last week who has one, and if I remember right it has a Zeiss lens. Hasselblad lenses use Zeiss glass too - obviously very good. A camera like that will have a smaller imaging sensor versus a DSLR. The pros/cons of both could fill a book, but that lens is probably a 28-200 equivalent (as in equivalent focal lengths to the 35mm format). The real focal length of that lens is probably closer to 7mm on the wide end. Not being an optical engineer I can't tell you all of the specifics of how and why, but I think it's generally easier to make a short focal length lens focus closer than a longer lens. When your focal length is 7mm or thereabouts, it's not too tough. My Nikon Coolpix does that too. Also, most SLR lenses will stop down to f22 (some only 16, some up to 32) instead of f8 which again is common for cameras like this.

    If you really want to get into macro work, the Sony will make life pretty easy. Bottom line isn't minimum focusing distance, it's the size of the image of the subject versus the actual size of the subject. IOW, with 35mm you would have 1:1 ratio if you could take a picture of a quarter (25 cent) and make it fill the negative or slide from top to bottom. With digital I guess it's different terminology but same concept. Whether you got that 1:1 ration by being 6" away or 30" away doesn't always matter, but the longer working distance can be helpful (say if your subject is a poisonous spider or if you're casting a shadow on your subject because the camera is so close).

    Hope all of this rambling helps...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Apple Valley, Ca - USA
    Posts
    588
    Actually, your rambling fills in a lot of holes in what I already knew. thanks a lot. I know it'll take me a while to understand it all. I just want to be able to know what the heck people are talking about!

    I've got a good grip on sensor size properties. ISO800 on my camera is efectively useless, imo. Very grainy noisy pics... ISO64 sure works good though. I rarely change it, and just leave it on auto.

    I just checked the sony website, and it's a 7-51mm lens, with the previously mentioned 35mm equiv. How does the focal lenth (correct?) change between 35mm equivs and dslr sensors?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. HELP!Photoshop CS won't open my NEF files. . .
    By christopher_platt in forum Photo Printers, Drives, Computers & Other Hardware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-28-2004, 10:31 PM
  2. Fading Memories
    By Old Timer in forum ViewFinder
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-16-2004, 06:08 AM
  3. PMA - Vegas, Baby!
    By Photo-John in forum ViewFinder
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-2004, 08:43 AM
  4. 10D, Chromakey and size.
    By Scourh in forum Studio & Lighting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2004, 02:01 PM
  5. A B&W shot from today
    By ThoughtfulPirate in forum Photo Critique
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-09-2004, 06:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •