Buying Advice needed

[Simoncrowe]

Hi
I am buying a couple of lenses for my girlfriend who is into photography. I know pretty much nothing about cameras or lenses so I'm looking for advice here.
She has a canon eos550d camera and I want to get her 2 new lenses (or one if it can do the job).

We are travelling around australia at the moment and I'd like to get one lens that is great for taking scenic photos as we go to a lot of national parks etc. (I've heard her talk about wanting a "wide angle lens"?
I'd also like to get her one that is good for astrophotography/low light as we experiment with some long exposure shots of the milkyway and lighting up objects and light writing and sunset photos. I've heard that "fast" lens and low f/ numbers are good?....as you can tell I don't know very much...

Either way I'm willing to spend around 800aud(575usd or 370gbp) for each lens or around double for one lens if it can work for both of these jobs. I could go a little higher if there are exceptionally better lens at a higher price gap.

Links to recommended lens are welcome

Thank you very much for your time everyone and if more info is needed I'll try obtain it.

Simon

 

[jaomul]

What lens does she already have.

Canon do a 10-18mm stm lens , that's a good start for a wide angle lens. Another good option is a tokina 11-16 f2.8

 

[Designer]

I'd like to get one lens that is great for taking scenic photos as we go to a lot of national parks etc. (I've heard her talk about wanting a "wide angle lens"?
I'd also like to get her one that is good for astrophotography/low light as we experiment with some long exposure shots of the milkyway and lighting up objects and light writing and sunset photos. I've heard that "fast" lens and low f/ numbers are good?....

Greetings!

What lens does she have now?

"Fast lens" means a relatively wider maximum aperture, and "good" will depend on what you intend for your photograph. It may be inferred that 1.) a wider aperture lets in more light, so there is the possibility of making good exposures in low(er) light. and 2.) lenses with a wider maximum aperture are usually more expensive, and can be somewhat larger and heavier as well.

Naturally, most photography enthusiasts will want faster lenses, but knowing what to do and how to do it will also come in handy. Please don't assume that just getting new lenses will solve every problem, but they are merely tools that she will need to learn how to use. But that's part of the fun!

 

[Simoncrowe]

As its a surprise I just sneaked a look and there is a canon eg 50mm 1:1.8 lens in there. (She complains about not getting enough in frame or something)
Another is a fisheye lens which she complains about not being good enough and is scratched badly and she has a zoom lens too. That's all I know sorry.

All I can ask is which lenses you would purchase for the two purposes above and for the rough price guide above...sorry I can't be of more help.

 

[Designer]

As its a surprise I just sneaked a look and there is a canon eg 50mm 1:1.8 lens in there. (She complains about not getting enough in frame or something)
Another is a fisheye lens which she complains about not being good enough and is scratched badly and she has a zoom lens too. That's all I know sorry.

All I can ask is which lenses you would purchase for the two purposes above and for the rough price guide above...sorry I can't be of more help.

That 50mm with its 1:1.8 maximum aperture ratio is about as fast as one could expect without spending a fortune for a very small improvement. However I can understand her wanting something a bit wider for landscapes.

Here are some links to review sites. I think you now know enough to browse the field and select something based on your budget and availability. (note; different geographical areas and shops are going to stock different items, so if you happen to be near a shop, drop in and ask the proprietor for his recommendation.

Canon Lenses: Digital Photography Review

Canon Lens Reviews

Best Canon Lens and how to choose your next one | Cameralabs

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45

The First Canon Lenses You Should Buy

 

[soufiej]

If your gf already has a 50mm 1.8, I would say buy her a 24mm 2.8; Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Lens Review

It is dirt cheap and very nice for use in a travel situation IMO. It is generically termed a "pancake" lens since it is very shallow and will make for a combined package on her camera that requires very little space in her bag.

It is also far enough away from the 50 mm to serve her purpose of getting more in the frame. It works out to approximately a 35mm lens on what is called a full frame camera. On your gf's camera or most camera's she's likely to own in the future, this is a fairly wide angle lens. Such a focal length would have cost significantly more not that long ago or would have produced far inferior results.

While there are lenses which will provide an even greater width to her view on her present camera, the 24 mm is pretty good for all 'round landscape work and is exceptionally sharp at all positions. To go wider and stay competitive is going to raise your price considerably IMO.

Most shots taken with a wider lens (say, sticking with the 24mm) can be cropped in post production (at the computer) to achieve a more close in appearance without greatly sacrificing image quality.

(You could, as an example, buy your gf a few less expensive but highly useful lenses and spend the balance of your projected budget on higher quality computer software for the purpose of editing and adjusting her shots. )



You might also want to look at the present "kit" lens that comes with most Canon cameras. It is the 18-55mm STM lens; Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens 8114B002 B&H Photo

Again, pretty inexpensive for its quality. It provides a slightly more wide angle view than does the 24mm though I find both to be useful in any particular situation. These are my "go to" lenses along with the 50mm f1.8.

(For getting very up close to wildlife, I use a superzoom, bridge camera rather than a longer lens on my DSLR body. But that's another thread.)

Both lenses BTW offer a closer "minimum focus distance" which makes the 50mm less desirable for "macro" photography or simply getting in close to a subject to really study the subject in a photo. Neither lens is a true macro but will serve as a generally accepted alternative until you are prepared to spend the truly big bucks.



One thing about Canon is their wealth of lenses which fit so many cameras they have produced over the decades. You can find virtually any Canon lens as a pre-owned copy if you look. IMO buying pre-owned is perfectly acceptable since a lens is probably not going to see a lot of abuse and still be sold through a reputable dealer. Buy refurbished from a trusted source and you may even have a warranty. Canon's own refurbished on line sales site is a good place to begin; Canon Refurbished Lenses | Canon Online Store



Astro-photography typically implies a lens with some "zoom power" such as; Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Refurbished | Canon Online Store

So high "mm" value for that lens but look at the "f-stop" value. It too is high which means this is not exactly a good "low light" lens. For photos of the night sky or night time landscapes, you would normally place this lens on a camera which has been mounted onto a sturdy tripod. The camera would have its shutter left open for anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes and, for this sort of shot, it works well.

Removing the lens/camera from the tripod though leaves you with an affordable lens that isn't great for low light situations when the camera is hand held. To find that lens you'll probably spend your entire budget for both lenses on one lens only and still not have a great low light lens.

Her existing 50mm is a pretty good low light lens. It's maximum aperture setting allows in a good deal of light even when compared to, say, the 24mm. It would be my low light lens for now. Once again, taking one more step towards better low light performance will cost considerably more money and not really turn into an overall more useful lens IMO.



It really comes down to how your gf wants to work. Some photographers carry around bags and bags of gear and have multiple lenses for all situations. Others, many actually since great lenses cost great amounts of cash, have more realistic goals.

It is perfectly possible to carry one camera with one or two very good lenses and do fine on a trip. You'll be less worn out from lugging around heavy camera bags and you'll be more ready when any shot pops up. Hanging several camera bags over your shoulder not only does not make you a professional photographer (many use their smart phones for day to day work nowdays), it does succeed in making you look far more like a target for thieves.

How to Carry Less

How to Photograph the Milky Way (notice the lens used here)

Long zoom lenses get the photographer close to the scene. If your gf wants to shoot images of the moon, that's great but also limiting to other use for the lens. Long lenses also make it more difficult to balance and hold a camera for good, in focus shots if the camera is not tripod mounted. So, how many photos of the moon do you really need?

 

[TCampbell]

I'm going to disagree with soufiej on lenses -- especially for astrophotography.

When shooting shots of the night sky, you need a dark sky... well away from urban light pollution and should only be shooting on moonless nights (check the calendar to shoot around the 3rd quarter (when the moon won't be rising until a few hours before dawn so you'll be done shooting long before that's a problem) or even near the "new moon" when the moon is only up during the daytime.

You will need a solid tripod. There's no getting around this (if she does not have one, she will need one.) If it's windy then you'll need a steady tripod but many tripods have a hook at the bottom of the center post and you can hang weight from that hook to help steady the tripod against the wind. Incidentally, some tripods have a hook which is spring-loaded or retracts... so just looking at the tripod you may not necessarily see the hook even if the tripod does have one.

Some rules about astrophotography exposure (well... one big rule): If you want sharp pin-point stars then you will to limit your exposure time. The Earth is spinning and this causes the stars to appear to move from east to west. You might think that the movement is too slow to be noticed but the answer depends on the camera sensor physical size AND the focal length of the lens being used. So here's the rule:

Your girlfriend's camera has an "APS-C" size imaging sensor in it. It's about 23mm x 15mm. Using that camera, your base number is 375 (remember that number). Now divide that number by the focal length of whatever lens she wants to use to capture an image of the night sky. The result is the number of seconds that the camera can expose before the stars start to become elongated and grow "tails" due to the movement of the Earth.

Example: With a 10mm focal length lens the math is easy: 375 ÷ 10 = 37.5. She can take a 37.5 second long exposure if she has a 10mm lens on her camera (such as the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-5.6 lens or the Canon EF-S 10-88mm f/4.5-5.6mm lens.

But notice how this really penalizes you if you use a long focal length lens... using a 300mm focal length lens it would be 375 ÷ 300 = 1.25 ... meaning you get 1.25 seconds to capture the image if you don't want the stars to appear smeared.

The point here is that shorter focal lengths work better.

It's a bit of a special purpose lens, but Rokinon makes an 8mm f/3.5mm fish-eye lens but it is completely manual. That's ok because you MUST manually focus the lens for night-sky images anyway (no camera can auto-focus the stars.) Even the aperture has to be manually set (the lens actually has an aperture ring because it does not have any electronics to operate the aperture blades in the lens.) It's a bit of a special purpose lens though... so that's a bit of an investment for something that will probably not be used very often (unless your girlfriend likes to take a lot of night sky photography shots.)

The downside with the Canon 10-18 is that it has an f/4.5 focal ratio at it's widest aperture and shortest focal length (which is where she'd use it.) The Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-5.6 is about 2/3rds of a stop brighter. If it were a full 1 stop brighter then it would mean that the lens collects twice as much light (meaning she could halve the necessary exposure time.) It's not quite that good... but 2/3rds of a stop is a considerable difference.

Other somewhat comparable lenses would include the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, the Tamron 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6, the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, or the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6

If it were me, I'd probably rather have the Canon which has the lowest possible focal ratio (and tends to do the best in comparisons.

The downside to all of this is that on a stationary tripod, 30-40 seconds isn't exactly a lot of time to get the exposure. She'll be shooting at a high ISO setting (minimally ISO 1600 or 3200). You get a lot of image "noise" at ISO 3200 on her camera (hard core imagers know how to grab a LOT of these exposures (probably a minimum of 10) and then use a stacking program with to knock back the noise. That's a bit advanced.

If she actually wants the stars to have trails, that's easy to do (she'll want a remote shutter release. Some remote shutter releases have a built-in timer (it's technically an "interval timer" because you can set it for the number of frames to capture, the duration of each frame, and the interval to wait between each frame (more useful for time-lapse photography) and so these are often called "intervalometers" (if you search for the product you might want to remember that term.) There's a lower cost option using a simple wired shutter release that does not have a timer. This involves putting the camera into a "continuous" shooting mode, setting the camera to take a 30 second exposure, and the wired remove shutter releases generally always have a shutter button "lock" that will let you lock the button in the pressed position. This causes the camera to just keep taking 30 seconds images one after the other. Put a huge memory card in the camera, press and lock the shutter button, and then wait a few hours and you'll have a several hundred images. These can then be combined using a free program called "StarStax".

If you'd like to take longer images that do not have star trails then you need a tracking head. The tracking head is mounted on the tripod and pointed to the celestial pole (either the north or south celestial pole). The camera is then mounted to the tracking head (and you can use a ball-head for the camera so the camera can be pointed anywhere -- not just at the pole). Now as the Earth rotates from West to East, the tracking head rotates from East to West and at the exact same speed -- causing that area of sky to be held in the camera's view. This allows you to take very long exposures (I just shot a series of 8 minute long exposures of the Andromeda galaxy last weekend and while I haven't processed them yet, even the "straight out of the camera" shots are amazing (and astro-imaginges generally need a lot of adjustment and stretching to bring out the details.)

The tracking heads can be a bit expensive. There are four primary vendors that I know of... those that cost less than $500 USD are the Vixen Polarie and the iOptron SkyTracker. There are a couple which run more than $500 USD and those include the AstroTrac and the Losmandy StarLapse. The Losmandy is the best of them by far (I think it's around $800 USD... I did warn you they can get expensive.) Some HUGE advantages of the tracking head is that (1) now it's no longer a bit deal if your lens does not have an especially low focal ratio and (2) you can actually use long focal length lenses to capture more detailed areas of the sky. (but be warned... the longer the focal length, the more important it is to be particularly accurate when polar-aligning the tracking head.)

If she wants the landscape in the foreground with the Milky Way stretched out across the sky, then ultra-wide lenses and/or fish-eye lenses are what she wants (fish-eye lenses have a distortion which causes things to be bent or curved even if they were straight in real life. Normal wide-angle lenses do not create the curved bubble-like distortion. These allow for the best panoramic images and also allow for the longest possible exposure time in a single image.

 

[wyogirl]

I owned that camera for 3 years. I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which is a great and fast all around lens that is wide enough for most situations. I also have a Tokina 11-16 2.8 which I love. With your budget you could get both.