Lens question, for Canon SLR

liorde · Feb 13, 2004

Hello,
I am new to photography and want to take a next step inside. I am currently interested in the Canon Elan 7 body with a 28-105mm lens. My question is, since I am on a tight budget, I am considering between 2 types. The f/4-5.6 and the f/3.5-4.5 models. How much difference is there really to this technical detail? Since they are around 100$ apart I would like to know if it is worth the "investment".
Also, if you folks here have another suggestion to propose me, maybe another camera brand & model, I would be glad to hear about it.

Thank-you.

slightlyawake · Feb 13, 2004

I have not heard one single good thing about the 28-105 4-5.6, everyperson who I've talked to say to avoid that lens like it was radioactive, along with 28-90 usm, horrible reviews.

I recently bought the 28-105 3.5-4.5 lens and can tell you it is a great lens! :lol:

If budget is a problem you might want to try one of the rebel series cameras, spend as much as you can afford on the lens, it is far more important than the actual body. You could try ebay, film cameras are going for next to nothing, of course, there are always some risk, so it's up to you.

good luck!

slightlyawake · Feb 13, 2004

one other suggestion i forgot to make. You might want to consider buying the canon 50mm 1.8 lens. It is one of the only lens that can be described as being both cheap and of quality. It sells for as low as $65, i have one and i love it!

liorde · Feb 14, 2004

It was very important to me to decide on the lens.
I still want the Elan 7 body. The 50mm lens is a good option, thanks for suggesting it. I currently have a Pentax K-1000 with a 50mm lens. Does a pretty good job.
If you have any other suggestions please tell me.

Thanks again.

soulfly · Feb 14, 2004

I'm with Slighltyawake on this one, I like that 50mm,1.8 lens. I use the Canon T70, now considered a dinosaur, so I hear, but, gotta say, I had the chance to upgrade, but found I prefer mine to the "new" versions, like the rebel. I like the weight of mine. anyway I use the 50mm and I have a Sakar zoom-macro 75mm-300mm. I love this lens. I use I about 90% of the time. I love doing macro or close up flower stuff...

liorde · Feb 15, 2004

Can you please explain, what is a macro lens? What makes it different from another lens? And is Sakar then name of the manufacturer? What are the uses of a macro lens?

Thanks again.

doxx · Feb 15, 2004

I 2nd the 50mm f1.8 - great lens (at least optically) for small budgets.

You might want to take a look at Sigma lenses, I'm using two Sigma
zooms (28-135mm and a 15-30mm) on a Rebel and on a 10D. The
quality is as good as the Canon consumer lenses and the prices are
decent. The wide zoom has a noisy AF motor though.

If you want a Canon lens, go for USM - focussing is quiet and quick.
Either way, make a trip to your local camera store and try different
lenses on your camera to see if you like the handling/weight/speed
noise.

Top of the line (quality and price) is always Canon L glass...

soulfly · Feb 15, 2004

Sakar is the maker of my lens, and there lenses are more "affordable" than some of the others. It has a larger dropoff of light than my canon lens, but, I just compensate for that and I am ok. Macro is supposed to be for really close ups. but I am not sure if it is a true macro, since I havent tried to push it to 1:1 but will try that soon i think.. I use it for alot of flower close ups, etc. but it is also a 75 to 300mm zoom, so its fun to use and very versatile.

liorde · Feb 16, 2004

Since I have no bidget for a "3rd party" flash, I would like to ask how good is the flash that is built in on the camera...
Also, I have been recommended to buy the BP-300 battery pack to go along with the camera. How useful is it? Does it make life easier with this camera?

Thanks again,
Lior

wwjoeld · Feb 16, 2004

the battery grip actually gives you a vertical shutter and dial, and about twice the battery life. It also makes the camera really nice to hold.

liorde · Feb 17, 2004

I want to know please, if it is good at all...
I do not have the budget to buy the flash I want at the moment. Will the built in flash do the job...?

Thanks.

Kent Frost · Feb 17, 2004

If your macro will do 1:1, that is good. The technical meaning behind this is like this:

Let's say you take a picture of a nickel. If you take the picture at 1:2, then it is half the size of an actual nickel on the negative itself. If you take it at 1:1, it will be roughly life size compared to an actual nickel....once again, that's the size on the negative itself. So you can imagine blowing that up to a 4x5 or even an 8x10. You'll be able to see some detail in that little coin.

tr0gd0o0r · Feb 17, 2004

it is probably worth it to look into a 3rd party flash instead of another lens. I'm not sure if the camera you're looking at comes w/ a 50mm or a 28-80 or there about, but either way they're both pretty versatile. and an external flash cna do wonders in some situations.

Big Mike · Feb 17, 2004

It depends on what you want to do with your flash. I guess the biggest advantage to the built-in flash is that it is convenient. For more serious flash photography most will say that the built in flashes are underpowered and too close to the lens axis. Even a small hot-shoe flash will probably be better than using the on camera flash.

I also use a canon and really want a 550 EX but can't find room in the budget. I have a couple of Braun flashes that do the job for now though. I got one for free at a garage sale and purchased another at a camera swap meet.