Canon fit lenses

[Donki]

Hi guys,

Newbee here was wondering if someone could clear up a few questions for me regaurding lenses.

1. What brands do Canon fit lenses?

2. Which of these brands are the best for image quality?

3. At the end of the day are the Canon lenses the best?

4. Are Canon lenses the only lenses that have IS and does it really make that big a difference?

5. I have the standard 18 - 55mm lenses which came with my 1000d, what should be my first second lenses be? Up to 200mm or 300mm?

I know its quite a few but I have been trawling the internet and getting conflicting info, I always get a straight answer on here.

Ian

[Not4wood]

Hi guys,


Newbee here was wondering if someone could clear up a few questions for me regaurding lenses.

1. What brands do Canon fit lenses?
2. Which of these brands are the best for image quality?
3. At the end of the day are the Canon lenses the best?
4. Are Canon lenses the only lenses that have IS and does it really make that big a difference?
5. I have the standard 18 - 55mm lenses which came with my 1000d, what should be my first second lenses be? Up to 200mm or 300mm?
I know its quite a few but I have been trawling the internet and getting conflicting info, I always get a straight answer on here.
Ian

Welcome to the Village.
Lets see if I can help till your waiting for the Canon Experts to answer you. First, I am not a Canon Expert by far and I would be the first person to let you know LOL.

You asked what brands do Canon fit lenses? I think your asking what Lenses fit Canon? If this is correct, Canon is a major player and they all want you to buy there lenses so they will make there stuff fits your camera. Sigma & Tamron are the two most poplular but if you look at any of the major Digital Photography stores on the net you will see a bunch of manufactures that want your hard earned money. Are they good? Good as the reviews suggest. You will also find reviews of these lens all over the net. My recommendation is Preview for the lens your looking at.
Canon Manufacturer for your Canon Camera will always be the best quality, best sharpness but a bit more expensive. All these other companies are trying to take the edge off of Canon so have to be the best glass for your needs so you will buy from them and no other.

Which Lens? Good question, what are you using it for? Sports, family, portraits, Advertising, Weddings, Bugs (Macro), Wildlife Birds and on and on. Depends on your needs.
For me, we were going on vacation to the UK and I wanted a longer lens with good sharpness to capture the important things that were available. I looked around and the lens I had my heart set on was over $1500.00 and I couldn't afford that when were spending a good amount of money on the trip and I just spent about 2000 on my equipment. My wife would have gone to Britain a Widow. LOL So I got a cheaper version. Not as sharp nor as fast, I wanted a faster lens so I can shoot in the darker moments like Sports or in rooms with lower light levels. Oh well, anyway LOL I got my first extra Glass the Nikor 70-300VR 4.5-5.6 and yes anything 200mm and over unless your walking around with a Tripod all the time will need the Image Stabilization (Canon) and Vibration Reduction (Nikon). It works very well but on this lens its not fast enough. Which means there is not enough light passing thru this lens when wide open. In this case its only f:/4.5 and I wanted at least a f:/2.7 or at best a f:/1.8 now this lens from Nikon was a lot cheaper then the over 1500 smakeroos but I still wanted some sharpness for the images was the stuff dreams are made of.

Good luck, and I am watching to see what the Canon people have to say.

[Codebreaker]

As Mark, states there are a number of alternatives but there is no clear cut answer that one is better than another. There are so many different lenses in all their ranges that it's impossible to generalise.

Canon have different quality build levels (L and Non-L) as do Sigma (EX and others). Both offer lenses with IS.

My first Canon - 300D came with the kit lens of 18-55mm . was OK but suffered from Chromatic Aberration. Given the cost of the lens it was really good but was never, in my opinion, going to keep me happy. Some of the Canon L series lens looked attractive but expensive and one issue remained and that was the crop factor of the APSC sensor. It effectively makes the focal length longer. This is not technically the case but does mean that with a 17-40mm L series lens, the amount you actually capture is equivalant to a 27-64mm lens. This meant getting a lens of the range I needed was limiting my choices.

In the end Sigma came out with a 17-70mm F2.8 lens which I went with and found to be superb. No lens is going to be excellent over its complete range but this does a very good job. I use it pretty much exclusively.

For Macro work I chose the Canon 100mm F2.8 because on paper it appear a better performer than the Sigma equivalent. I have not been dissapointed.

Sigma have two new lense out this year; 120-400mm with OS and a 150-500mm with OS. I'm keeping my eyes open for some controlled reviews of these rather than just individuals images to assess.

Colin

[Donki]

Thanks guys,

I am getting my information together, I to have the standard 18mm-50mm (I think), its reasonable lens for a begineer id say and have been pleased with the results. I have found that my main intrest seems to be lanscapes and nature photography. I haven't had any experience with large zoom but I think it would be fun too.

I dont really understand the focal length mm ranges I just know the higher means greater zoom. If you had £100 - £150 to spend on a good lens, preferably with IS, for lanscape photography which one would you go for? I know its important to have a wide lens but what focal length really is wide, some sites have said 17mm but some say 20mm - 25mm, maybe I have just picked them up wrong.

As a hobby I have to say for someone that is just starting with a DSLR all the figures can get confusing, but very enjoyable.

Thansk for any info.

Ian

[Codebreaker]

Ian....

Good to seen another Uk face around here.:)

I think you may be a bit optimistic thinking you'll get a decent lens with IS for about £100-150. I haven't been shoping for lenses for a while now but I don't think there's much in this price range unless you go second hand.

My main interest is Landscape and I find my Sigma 17-70mm works a treat for that but keep in mind what I said about the Crop Factor of the sensor. It usually makes the focal length appear to be approx. 1.6 more than what's on the box.

Consider also trading off IS against using a tripod. I've never had IS but do use a tripod which in my opinion is far more effective.

Colin

[lowbone]

There is no simple answer to your question. Allot of what determines your final choice is need and money. If you are trying to extend your focal length and are on a limited budget the next sensible purchase for you would probably be the Canon 50-250 IS lens. IS is very valuable especially on long focal lengths where any slight camera shake will be magnified. The newer Canon kit lenses ( 18-55 IS and 50-250 IS ) are pretty good. If you want to shoot low light or macro or any other special need you will have other choices. I personally like to stick with the lenses made by Canon. One of the reasons I switched to Canon from Pentax is that Pentax had a very limited selection of lenses particularly on the long end.. You sound new to the DSLR world and if I were you I would put offf any major lens purchases until you are sure of your needs.

[Donki]

Codebreaker,

I thought I was the only one lo, Northern Ireland here. Thanks for your advise I will have a look at the Sigma, I do use a Tripod and I suppose if I am wanting a ladscape lense IS is really an issue, that would be more for a telephoto.

Lowbone,

I am indeed new, I have had it a week, I dont intend to jump in I am just wantign information so I can build on it. Thanks for your advise aso.

Are prime lens worth a look, these have a fixed focal length, isnt that right, woudl that make them faster?

[Codebreaker]

Hi Ian.....

I'm glad I said UK :-)

Prime lenses may produce better quality images but the trade off is the inconvenience of having a fixed focal length. Pays your money and takes your choice!!

If you have the 18-50mm I'd play around with that first because its in the right ballpark for landscapes. Try and figure out the sweet spot - i.e the best aperture/focal length to shoot at for sharp images and look out for any Chromatic Abberations. Always have the camera set to the best quality image - RAW would be preferable but means you need to get into RAW processing so stick with JPEG to start. You may still find that some images need a little colour/brightness/contrast adjustment and sharpening. Judge them only on screen and at 100% zoom.

Colin

[Inspeqtor]

Colin,

What is Chromatic Abberations? Thank you :)

[Codebreaker]

Chromatic Abberation occurs when the different wavelengths of light take a slightly different path through the lens. You don't get all the colours to line up. Its also known as Purple Fringing.

If you have say a dark building or some trees against a very light or even burnt out sky you may notice some Purple Fringing around the building edges.

The build up of the lens effects how good or bad this may be.

Lightroom has some good tools for minimising this.

Colin

[Byron Gale]

Charles,

In short, Chromatic Aberration appears as color that wasn't really there when you took the picture. It manifests along higher-contrast edges, and often has a purple or blue cast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

Byron

edit: I see that Colin has already replied... once again, my typing speed comes in last!

[ljameso1]

Ian, The range of zoom you already have is great for wide landscapes. If you find yourself wanting to zoom past 55mm may want to consider something in the 75-300 range. A good tripod will beat IS every time. I do buy lens with IS in telephotos as don't always have the luxury of tripod for animal shots. If you find yourself wanting close-ups would save for a good macro. The advice to play with what you have to get a better idea of what will want in future is good. FYI for landscape photography don't really see the advantage of fast lens. You are likely to want to stop down to get greater depth of field. One other interesting tidbit. Last year I tried to find a used canon zoom to give to my niece. I had a terrible time and was told by National Camera that Canon users don't tend to trade in their lenses, so most must be happy with them.

[Inspeqtor]

Colin and Byron,

Thank you both. I think I now understand what Chromatic Abberations means.

[GaryK]

Ian

If you are into landscapes more .. I would stick with the tripod (best you can afford). The need for IS is negated with a tripod and in fact most IS systems have trouble if they are used with a tripod. (most, if not all, IS/OS/VR you can turn off but people forget).

[Not4wood]

See thats what all the confusion is about. In the Image Stability uses, one always thinks of hand held and turned off for Tripod. If you dont always have a Tripod available then you use the IS features.

For example, on my 70-300 I have the Nikon version of Image Stability and its called Vibration Reduction. I had to hand hold a lot of the shots due to not being able to drag my Tripod on the Tour Bus and not hurting people :twisted:. Even though sorry I got carried away LOL. In the mornings when I was able to get out without anybody else in the way I did take out my Tripod and shoot. But I did get to use the VR feature a lot on this trip and it worked out very well indeed.

Look in my signature for my link to my Photo Galleries and you can see the two glass I had used. My Kit Lens 18-135 Non-Vr and my 70-300VR lens made this trip very remarkable.

[BruceM]

Ian

If you are into landscapes more .. I would stick with the tripod (best you can afford). The need for IS is negated with a tripod and in fact most IS systems have trouble if they are used with a tripod. (most, if not all, IS/OS/VR you can turn off but people forget).

Gary, could you elaborate a bit more on that please? What kind of trouble?

I have 3 canon lenses, all with IS, and have not had any problems or noticed anything odd in the images, when using the camera on a tripod.

You have me curious now, thinking maybe I am not noticing something or there's something else I should be looking for in my images.

Thanks.

[efarnstrom]

Thanks for this interesting discussion. I've been following this thread because I am a new dSLR owner. I, too, forget to turn off the IS when using a tripod...I just figured if something is good, more would be better?? You know, the braces or suspenders and a belttype of thing?:eek: However, I understand having the IS on is using battery power, so it should be turned off when using a tripod.

The camera I bought as a kit from Costco included two lens: EF-S 18-55 and 55-250. I have used the smaller lens to do close-ups of flowers. Not as good as a macro lens I'm sure, but it gives a fairly close shot. It is the overall lens I use for shooting people and fairly close landscapes. I now have had the opportunity to use the longer lens on vacation and haven't downloaded the results to study them as yet.

One thing I have done is taken almost every shot with RAW+jpg. I am just a beginner at RAW editing, but I was very pleased that my beginning editing in RAW produced much better results than the jpg put out by the camera. I downloaded the RAW upgrade from Adobe to take advantage of the Canon profile. Maybe that is the reason I am getting very good results.

[ljameso1]

IS in use on a tripod will actually cause camera movement. This is most obvious when using a telephoto and long exposure. Some IS lenses have a tripod mode, but most say in their instruction manual to turn off when using a tripod. The real purpose of IS is to allow hand holding at 1-2 stops slower shutter speeds.

[Codebreaker]

I've never quite figured out why some IS lenses need to have the IS turned off when on a tripod. This is not true of all lenses but I guess those that do - well the designers must have had a reason.

But given the weight of some lenses hand holding them is impractical anyway - so there are lenses which do allow IS to be turned when on a tripod.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/300mm_f_2_8.shtml

Colin

[Not4wood]

I've never quite figured out why some IS lenses need to have the IS turned off when on a tripod. This is not true of all lenses but I guess those that do - well the designers must have had a reason.
But given the weight of some lenses hand holding them is impractical anyway - so there are lenses which do allow IS to be turned when on a tripod.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/300mm_f_2_8.shtml
Colin

The first thing you have to understand is the way the Stability is trying to keep the lens from moving. I am not educated in this area but it seems to me that the gyro's in the lens are trying to compensate for any slight movement. Some glass even have a Tripod sensor so that the gyro's dont go bangin around and making the image worse.
In the article above you also have to remember each manufacturer is different and you should check the manual with each lens. In the above article I will quote here,

Quoted from the Luminous Landscapes review linked above of this L series Lens,
"One advancement that Canon has included in this latest generation of IS lenses is the ability for IS to work even when the lens is tripod mounted. This is very worthwhile since even a tripod mounted lens is subject to vibration. I felt tremendous confidence using this lens under a wide range of conditions."

That lens is the latest generation and in a special breed that you must understand is made special to able to be in the Stabiiazation ON position when mounted on a Tripod. Very expensive and not too common for us to own.

The average Glass that is in our budget, granted (some budgets are more then others) but these range from a tripod sensor to having the Image Stabilization turned off when mounted on a Tripod. Manufacturers instructions will explain the rules for each lens. My long VR Lens must be in the "OFF" position when mounted on a Tripod.

In closing this is why its confusing to most of the people. When purchasing a glass with any kind of Image Stabilization you must be aware of that lens's requirements when being on a Tripod. No guessing, each lens is different and each manufacturer has its own abilities or requirements on what it wants from that particular lens.

[Chuck S.]

A year or two ago, there was a discussion here that implied you could actually damage your lens by leaving VR/IS on when tripod-mounted. I don't know whether that's true, but it certainly gave me pause...

Truth be told, though, it's very hard for me to remember to turn off IS; too many things to remember, not enough active memory sites remaining in my old brain....:o

[efarnstrom]

What?? You, too?? Since I have only had my camera for less than a month, I am finding it difficult to even remember to check what the camera was set on when I last used it:eek:

[Not4wood]

Oh yeah, I found that out the hard way.

I had something that was worth shooting, I ran over and grabbed my camera and because I was playing with it and set somethings and changed others it was nowhere near where it should have been when I needed it. I took the shots, after playing with the camera for a short amount of time I had to put it back to a level where I could take the shot.

I then read an article on just this subject right before this past summer about making sure the camera is in a ready state and the writter actually mentioned leaving the settings not only in an average state but also setting it in one of the Program Modes so if needed the camera only has to be put into the On Position and is ready to go without fiddling.

I had gotten into this habit right before our big trip and did this every Night as a just in case. Worked out pretty well in the mornings when I went out to shoot. I didn't have to play with the settings too much, it was always in a normal place instead of being set up with a 25 second shutter speed and so on. :D

One of the better Lessons I had learned and was easy to get into the Habit of.

[efarnstrom]

That is great advice! I'd better go check my camera now before the trip home from Portland Oregon today. It is surely set on cloudy and as soon as we hit the California border there is sunshine waiting for us.

[Chuck S.]

It is surely set on cloudy and as soon as we hit the California border there is sunshine waiting for us.

Es, if you use RAW, you don't need to worry about the white balance setting! :)

[Not4wood]

Es, if you use RAW, you don't need to worry about the white balance setting! :)


Chuck,

You got me curious. Why Not?

On Auto WB my camera is good but not as good as I would like it to be. I found that the varying light sometimes makes my images Blue to heavy Blue and it makes me crazy trying to color correct them. I found that if I play with the WB settings from Cloudy to Shade and varying the intensity depending on the light I can either get it right in camera or close enough that I don't have to think about it in Post Processing, I just do it without thinking. From what I understand, even shooting in Raw just like your changing your ISO you also have to change your WB to get a proper color with your exposures.

That also goes for me when I use my Ciruclar Polarizer. It isnt a ND but a slight Blue cast and in normal Sunlight I have to set my WB to Shade +1 or +2 depending on how the light is.

[Inspeqtor]

Since this thread is about lenses, I got an email from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Lens/dp/B001ET6QFY/ref=br_lf_m_1000279441_1_9_ttl?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=photo&pf_rd_p=441294801&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1401&pf_rd_i=1000279441&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=15NPCVJ5DTCW8NNRHP5Z) that has me absolutely drooling. I want one of these!!!

Any LARGE donations appreciated :rolleyes: :eek:

[Sepiana]

Since this thread is about lenses, I got an email from Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Lens/dp/B001ET6QFY/ref=br_lf_m_1000279441_1_9_ttl?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=photo&pf_rd_p=441294801&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1401&pf_rd_i=1000279441&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=15NPCVJ5DTCW8NNRHP5Z) that has me absolutely drooling.


Charles, you're drooling? I'm salivating (like Pavlov's dog):D

EDIT: Thanks for the link!

[Inspeqtor]

Sepiana,

I'm drooling and you are salivating. That poor lens is going to drown! Oh well..... :rolleyes:

[Inspeqtor]

Sepiana,

I forgot to say you are most welcome for the link! :D

[Chuck S.]

Chuck,

You got me curious. Why Not?

On Auto WB my camera is good but not as good as I would like it to be. I found that the varying light sometimes makes my images Blue to heavy Blue and it makes me crazy trying to color correct them. I found that if I play with the WB settings from Cloudy to Shade and varying the intensity depending on the light I can either get it right in camera or close enough that I don't have to think about it in Post Processing, I just do it without thinking. From what I understand, even shooting in Raw just like your changing your ISO you also have to change your WB to get a proper color with your exposures.

That also goes for me when I use my Ciruclar Polarizer. It isnt a ND but a slight Blue cast and in normal Sunlight I have to set my WB to Shade +1 or +2 depending on how the light is.

Mark, as I understand it (and this may be a little off but hopefully not too far off...): In JPEG mode, the WB setting is used to modify the image delivered to the memory card, along with sharpness, saturation, and contrast based on either camera defaults or custom settings. However, RAW images don't have any of these settings applied to the image delivered to the memory card. The WB setting is included but no modifications are made to the RAW image per se.

When you open a RAW image in ACR or LR, a WB setting is applied, usually As Shot - which uses the actual camera setting from the data supplied with the image. The WB dropdown for a RAW image includes most/all of the settings that could have been chosen (daylight, cloudy, tungsten, fluorescent, etc.). Sometimes, it's as easy as picking one of those presets; other times, you need to fiddles with the temperature and tint sliders. But you can get it right eventually. In the case of the JPEG, the WB setting has been applied in-camera, and if it's way off, the corrections in ACR/LR are much more difficult and may cause a loss of detail as the color curves are shifted and stretched to make up for the error.

Having said all that - and especially if you want to minimize or eliminate post-processing, setting the WB and exposure correctly and using JPEG will work a very large percentage of the time!

[efarnstrom]

Okay, I get what you are saying about not needing the WB set if I was shooting in RAW.

Since I am learning about photography, I used this trip (just home today!) to practice using the creative settings. Since I had two 4GB CF cards, and a 1GB that came with the camera, I have been shooting in RAW+jpg. I had a borrowed laptop that I used to download the shots, then I looked at the jpg to see if I could edit with RAW to get a better outcome than the camera did. Usually I could, so maybe my creative settings weren't exactly what was called for on that shot.:eek:

I have so much enjoyed reading this thread to educate myself on the subject of camera use and lens. Thanks for responding!