I need advice in buying my first camera and lenses!

[ac12]

- The most important part of any camera system is the lenses. Canon doesnt do much for EOS-M. They release like one lens per year, and there are mostly only dark zooms, not fixed maximum aperture ones, and it look them about two years to even offer a zoom trinity. The three prime lenses are not even 1.5x apart in focal length, and only one is actually really bright, so they cannot even be used as a prime trinity. Sony btw is even worse, they havent released any new lens for their crop system for how many years now ? Neither for their SLT system, for that matter. They keep these systems on life support.

Neither Canon nor Nikon has adequately supported their APS-C dSLR line either.
Both companies treat APS-C as a beginner/casual amateur market.
Few if any GOOD lenses, I think Nikon has ONE f/2.8 constant aperture zoom, NO ONE has a long f/2.8 constant aperture zoom, few primes.

I had to get the FX 70-200/4 because NO ONE makes an equivalent DX/APS-C lens, which would be around 45-135. The closest is the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8, which never made it to a version-2.

Look at the lack of primes. Canon does not even make an EF-S 35mm, normal lens. Of all the lenses to not make???? The only option is the Yongnuo 35/2.

Can't agree. I have the Nikon D500 APS-C 21mp body that I use for wildlife and birding. The AF system on this camera is the same as on my D850 45 mp FF (considered professional camera) and leads the industry. It runs at 10fps with a large buffer feeding an XQD card with an SDXC card in the 2nd slot, great for low light situations at ISO 100-51200, and has all the bells and whistles of the D850. Before that I bought a D7200, which is a great camera for portraits, events, macro, city shots, even landscapes and astro-photography.

I would like Nikon to produce more high quality DX lenses. Until then I use my pro level FX lenses on my DX bodies, but there are some DX lenses, like the Tamron 18-400mm where there are no FX equivalents.

At the end of the day, pick the gear that matches what you shoot and how you show your images.

That is what I mean.
We have some GREAT DX cameras, but not the DX lens to match. If we want GOOD glass, especially fast glass, we have to buy FX lenses.

Case in point, the FX 70-200 (1.4-4x on FX). The DX equivalent is 45-135, which no one makes. The closest Nikon lens was the DX 55-200 (1.6-5.7x). But it was a variable f/4-5.6 lens. I wanted a constant f/2.8, but would settle for constant f/4.
Using a 70-200 on a DX camera, it is a 2-5.7x lens. The issue is the short end now has too much magnification for a DX camera.​

Some of the AF-P lenses are finally getting us there, but they are still slow variable zooms.
Except for the 17-55/2.8 and 16-80/2.8-4, there is nothing fast on the long end, all f/x-5.6 zooms.
As for the zoom range of some of the DX lenses, agree.

This lens frustration was pushing me to upgrade from DX to FX.
Instead I went the other way to m4/3, where the 12-100/4 (0.5-4x) is now my queen.

Though I still use the D7200 for fast sports, as the Olympus EM1 is not up to the task.

 

[bentcountershaft]

There's really no need for a DX only telephoto lens though. The idea behind the DX mount (and the EF-s for Canon) is to provide wide angle capability for crop sensor cameras. The lens base is actually closer to the sensor as I recall, than a full frame counterpart, which enable this. On the telephoto end it doesn't matter.

 

[ac12]

There's really no need for a DX only telephoto lens though. The idea behind the DX mount (and the EF-s for Canon) is to provide wide angle capability for crop sensor cameras. The lens base is actually closer to the sensor as I recall, than a full frame counterpart, which enable this. On the telephoto end it doesn't matter.

Except to make the lens smaller.
The DX image circle is not as large as the FX image circle, so can the long DX lens be smaller/lighter?
Example the 70-200/2.8 FX lens is a standard lens and a great field lens, with a 1.4-4x magification range. But it is big and HEAVY.
A DX equivalent would be approx 45-135, with a similar 1.3-3.9x magnification.
My hope was that by going down from 200mm to 135 to 140mm at the long end, the lens would be smaller and lighter than the FX 70-200/2.8 lens, and still be a fast f/2.8.
Sigma flubbed that opportunity on the 50-150 by making that lens in the case of a 70-200/2.8, so no size/weight savings.

The other is to match the focal length+aperture+IQ.
Example, the 70-200 is a great focal length range, but as I've said before, there is NO DX equivalent to the FX 70-200/2.8, which would be 45-135. The closest in FL are the discontinued Sigma 50-150/2.8 and the variable aperture Nikon/Canon 55-200/4-5.6.
I use a 70-200 on my DX camera, and the loss of the 20mm on the wide end hurts. I can always crop into an image, but I can't create what was not captured.
The 55-200/4-5.6 are slower consumer grade lenses. It is a slow f/5.6 lens when shooting a football/soccer game in manual mode, and that f/5.6 hurts when shooting a night game. This is really a daytime lens, which is maybe when 99+% of the users shoot it.

So while FX does physically work on DX, it does not always work well in use.

The Canon EF-S has a shorter registration distance than the EF.
Nikon DX/FX has the same registration distance, I think.

 

[Derrel]

As far as size and weight savings for DX-optimized lenses....there really is almost no size or weight savings on telephotos. The original Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Vr from 2001 was a Really good lens on DX digital...on FF, its edges and corners were substandard once we got past 12MP on FX. On 24 MP FX, that lens,although it _covered_ the full 24x36mm image area, had visible corner problems, but the barrel was skinny..yes, it covered a 43mm diameter image circle, but it did so poorly at the edge, because the lens was designed for a really GOOD center-performance, which made it an excellent performer on a DX sensor. Although designed to cover FX, the lens was really _optimized_ for DX, and it would be 5,6 years before Nikon released an FX Nikon digital. As a result of its slender barrel, _this_ is perhaps the smallest,lightest, best-handling f/2.8 70-200 zoom ever made. It is a GREAT lens to work with...other similar f/2.8 lenses are like fat, tubby stove pipe sections. dPreview compared this lens with Canon's similarly spec'd 70-200 f/2.8 some years ago.

The 70-300zoom is a good example: most 70-300mm lenses from the film era (I have one) are roughly the same size and weight as current offerings. A 70-300 designed for FX is basically the same size as one designed for DX. Same goes for the 300mm primes...Oly's 300mm f/4 is NOT a "lightweight", but is about the same length and weigh as a 300mm f/4 designed 25 years ago, for film.

It's true...Canon and Nikon and to a lesser extent, Pentax, offer lens lineups optimized more for full-frame digital than for DX sensor use.

As ac12 wrote: "
The Canon EF-S has a shorter registration distance than the EF.
Nikon DX/FX has the same registration distance, I think."

YES, CORRECT!

 

[bentcountershaft]

I should consider changing my signature to indicate that I've probably forgotten more than I know about photography and equipment.

 

[ac12]

As far as size and weight savings for DX-optimized lenses....there really is almost no size or weight savings on telephotos. The original Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Vr from 2001 was a Really good lens on DX digital...on FF, its edges and corners were substandard once we got past 12MP on FX. On 24 MP FX, that lens,although it _covered_ the full 24x36mm image area, had visible corner problems, but the barrel was skinny..yes, it covered a 43mm diameter image circle, but it did so poorly at the edge, because the lens was designed for a really GOOD center-performance, which made it an excellent performer on a DX sensor. Although designed to cover FX, the lens was really _optimized_ for DX, and it would be 5,6 years before Nikon released an FX Nikon digital. As a result of its slender barrel, _this_ is perhaps the smallest,lightest, best-handling f/2.8 70-200 zoom ever made. It is a GREAT lens to work with...other similar f/2.8 lenses are like fat, tubby stove pipe sections. dPreview compared this lens with Canon's similarly spec'd 70-200 f/2.8 some years ago.

The 70-300zoom is a good example: most 70-300mm lenses from the film era (I have one) are roughly the same size and weight as current offerings. A 70-300 designed for FX is basically the same size as one designed for DX. Same goes for the 300mm primes...Oly's 300mm f/4 is NOT a "lightweight", but is about the same length and weigh as a 300mm f/4 designed 25 years ago, for film.

It's true...Canon and Nikon and to a lesser extent, Pentax, offer lens lineups optimized more for full-frame digital than for DX sensor use.

As ac12 wrote: "
The Canon EF-S has a shorter registration distance than the EF.
Nikon DX/FX has the same registration distance, I think."

YES, CORRECT!

Yes I agree. 300mm is 300mm no mater the sensor size. And the math for the diameter of the objective lens does not consider sensor/film size. focal length / aperture = diameter. So 300mm / f/4 = 75mm.

But what I meant about the FX 70-200 vs. a DX lens was not the same focal length, but the equivalent focal length, at the same magnification.

A 70-200 on a FX/FF camera is a 1.4-4x lens. But put on a DX camera it is a 2-5.7x lens.
To maintain the FX magnification, the DX camera need a shorter zoom. So applying the 1.5x crop to the 70-200, I come to 45-135 (1.3-3.9x).​

The shorter FL would in theory mean a smaller lens. Using the objective lens diameter calculation: 200mm / f/2.8 = 72mm, 135mm / f/2.8 = 48mm. So the DX lens could be smaller, at the same 4x magnification as the FX lens.
Having said that, the manufacturer can botch it. Sigma's 50-150/2.8 was apparently built in the case of a 70-200/2.8, so there was NO size/weight savings.

Hmmm, maybe I should have looked at that the original 70-200/2.8 VR, rather than the 70-200/4. I got the f/4 lens because the current f/2.8 lens was 2x the weight. Now you got me thinking, maybe I can get a 70-200/2.8. Now to go do some research on that lens.

 

[Derrel]

It is true...the majority of "traditional" 24x36mm format lens lengths have not been offered as DX lenses, but there HAVE BEEN a few exceptions. Nikon has offered 12-24mm, 18-55, 18-70,17-55, 18-105,18-135, and 18-140mm lenses, as well as 10mm, 35mm,40mm macro, and 85mm macro primes, and perhaps others that I cannot recall. Plus, there are third-party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Rokinon, and others.

But yeah...it's as if the majority of DX lenses are designed as lower-cost "consumer" lenses, with prices in the $100-$450 range, while the high-dollar, high-performance lenses are designed to perform best on 24x36mm digital cameras or on mirrorless FF cameras.

There have been just a handful of high-dollar, top-grade lenses released for DX cameras.

 

[ac12]

It is true...the majority of "traditional" 24x36mm format lens lengths have not been offered as DX lenses, but there HAVE BEEN a few exceptions. Nikon has offered 12-24mm, 18-55, 18-70,17-55, 18-105,18-135, and 18-140mm lenses, as well as 10mm, 35mm,40mm macro, and 85mm macro primes, and perhaps others that I cannot recall. Plus, there are third-party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Rokinon, and others.

But yeah...it's as if the majority of DX lenses are designed as lower-cost "consumer" lenses, with prices in the $100-$450 range, while the high-dollar, high-performance lenses are designed to perform best on 24x36mm digital cameras or on mirrorless FF cameras.

There have been just a handful of high-dollar, top-grade lenses released for DX cameras.

Agree.

The sad part is, the DX camera IS capable of a LOT more IQ than it is delivering.

I put the Nikon 70-200 on my D7200, and when shooting football, I could clearly see the eyes of the players. And I can crop deep into an image. For day games where I used to use the 18-140, I would use the 70-200 instead. That put me on notice that I had to consider either upgrading my standard lens (the 18-140), or upgrade to FX and the better lenses.
So the DX camera can do good IQ, but is being held back by the consumer grade lenses.

It is a tough balance that Nikon is riding, with the high end DX cameras and FX.

BTW, I tried the Sigma 17-50/2.8. Nice lens but two faults.
#1 - The zoom ring turns the WRONG WAY, for a Nikon user. (But the right way for a Canon user.) This really screwed me up, I kept turning the zoom ring the wrong way, and loosing shots. I gave up in frustration. For me, this was fatal. For sport and fast action, were I use muscle memory to zoom, all the zoom rings have to turn in the SAME direction.
#2 - The zoom throw is too short, at about 60 degrees. Because of the resulting steep zoom cam, that made the turning effort of the zoom ring high.

 

[Itchyfeet1969]

Hey guys,

So, I'm really into photography lately and decided to buy my first camera. I don't want to be a professional photographer as an occupation and earn money with it, I will take it as a hobby and picture vlogging.

So I decided to buy canon m50, as I heard it's great in 1080p videos and quite good in pics. And the price is good for me.

Also I want to buy lenses for it, but still don't know what to get. In addition to the kit lens (15-45 mm) what lenses should I buy ? My maximum budget for the lenses alone would be 340 dollars.

I will mainly take pictures for landscapes, portrait for people (I want the blurry background so much)
Astro photography (if it requires expensive kits I will leave it for later, not important)
Selfies, food (dish size) and some little videos.

Umm so what do you recommend ? And what about my choice for the camera as my first camera ?

Thanks

From what I have read on mirror less cameras, the battery life is not as good at DSLR cameras, so I would invest in extra batteries just in case.


Sent from my TA-1012 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Itchyfeet1969]

Hey guys,

So, I'm really into photography lately and decided to buy my first camera. I don't want to be a professional photographer as an occupation and earn money with it, I will take it as a hobby and picture vlogging.

So I decided to buy canon m50, as I heard it's great in 1080p videos and quite good in pics. And the price is good for me.

Also I want to buy lenses for it, but still don't know what to get. In addition to the kit lens (15-45 mm) what lenses should I buy ? My maximum budget for the lenses alone would be 340 dollars.

I will mainly take pictures for landscapes, portrait for people (I want the blurry background so much)
Astro photography (if it requires expensive kits I will leave it for later, not important)
Selfies, food (dish size) and some little videos.

Umm so what do you recommend ? And what about my choice for the camera as my first camera ?

Thanks

From what I have read about mirrorless cameras, their battery life is not as good as DSLR cameras, so I would invest in some extra batteries just to be on the safe side.

Sent from my TA-1012 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app