Canon Lenses

[jazzitupphotography]

OK thanks! So maybe I can start with the 50 mm and see how I like my 18-55 during the summer. (Only got it in January, so I've only had snow to work with). I don't think the 70-200 would fit in my camera bag... haha. I'll probably wait til after college.
I have access to the 50 mm at my local camera store. Is the price fair enough? Keep in mind it's in canadian dollars.
http://golden-image.zoneimage.ca/en/spec_sheet.html?catalog[name]=Canon-EF-50mm-F%2F1.8-II-Lenses&catalog[product_guids][0]=3a93440d-146e-44dc-bb76-32da64fa6300

Does anyone have any pointers on getting a nice blurred background? I've been on full Manual mode ever since I got my DSLR and I've got the shutter speed down pat but don't really understand the aperture all that much. I normally don't touch it unless I'm just playing around at home.

 

[jazzitupphotography]

Nevermind the link, the lens is $130.

 

[Overread]

For the blured background effect there are a few factors to consider:

1) focal length - the longer the lens the greater the amount of background blur that is possible.

2) aperture and depth of field - generally speaking a smaller aperture (bigger f number) will have a greater depth of field (area of photo in focus). That means there is less chance for getting a fully blurred background in a shot. The opposite - a bigger aperture, (smaller f number) is what is needed to get a more blurry background.

3) distance from the lens and size of subject - both of these will also imapact your chances of a blurry background

For horses things are a bit tricky since they are such big animals - idealy a really long telephoto lens (like 300mm or greater) would be used - that would let you shoot from further off which would mean you could use a larger aperture to cover the depth of field needed for the horse. If you are closer (using a shorter focal length) then you need more depth of field since the reletive distances from the different points on the horse are getting greater - that will alter the situation and beyond that my theory on this gets way to weak to give any final answers.

Short answer is keep experimenting and try to keep your aperture as wide (small f number) as you can when shooting

 

[TheOtherBob]

Does anyone have any pointers on getting a nice blurred background? I've been on full Manual mode ever since I got my DSLR and I've got the shutter speed down pat but don't really understand the aperture all that much. I normally don't touch it unless I'm just playing around at home.

I'm no expert, so this is just my (mis)understanding of how it works, but basically aperture controls the amount of light going into your camera -- it's the size of the opening in the lens. As a result, it also strongly contributes to the "depth of field" of your shot. To see different depths of field (and therefore different levels of background blur), try putting your camera on "Aperture Priority" and taking the same shot at different apertures. (For the fullest effect, take the shots at 55mm.) Generally speaking, the more "open" the aperture (i.e. the lower the number), the more the background will be blurred.

When you get the 50mm, you'll be able to see the effect really strongly.

 

[jazzitupphotography]

sweet! I just tried it and it worked! I thought the lower the aperture (higher numbers) the more depth of field, but I guess I had it upside down! No wonder my backgrounds are always focused.. haha..

 

[bigtwinky]

The main things for getting a background blurry are:

-wide aperture (1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 4.0)
-long focal lenght
-distance between the subject and the background...the more distance, the more blurry

I'd still look into a 28-135..see if you can get one used. I think its a great all around lens, not too expensive, good focal range, decent image quality. Its not ultra long, its not ultra wide...

Check out this website for canadian prices Photography, Digital Camera, Lens Price Comparisons for Canadians - photoprice.ca

 

[randerson07]

I have 4 lens that I can recommend in the ranges your looking at.

1. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 I think its right around $400. Its a well built lens, nice and wide and takes wonderful photos. This lens stays on my woman's 350D and she loves it

2. Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 also right around $400. This lens rotates between my 10D and my Elan 7E(a 35mm Film SLR). on the Elan its nice and wide, on the 10D I would prefer something wider. To me it seems less well built than the 17-50 but still nicer than the 18-55 kit lens, with constant aperture to boot.

3. Canon 70(or75 not sure)-300 f/4-5.6 IS. This lens can be had used pretty cheaply, Its a wonderful lens and with the IS I dont miss having a constant Aperture. The build quality is good, not great, but the image quality is wonderful.

4. Canon 70-200 F/4 L. I got the lens used for $475 shipped a couple years ago. The build and Image Qaulity are simply awesome. I rarely use the lens only because my style doesnt really equate well to a long tele lens, but this lens never dispoints. Would I prefer 2.8 and IS, sure, but I dont need it.

If you get one of the Tamrons used you could also probably go and get a cheaper long zoom. Ive owed the Canon 70-300 non-IS and while its a cheaply made lens, it takes good pictures in daylight or on a tripod.