New to photography, need lens help

BQ22 · Nov 2, 2016

Good evening all! I am getting into some photography and I have a couple of questions. I understand some of the concepts but not all. The camera I have is a 30D to learn in and plan on grabbing a newer one after snagging a few lenses. My lens starting point is EF 85mm 1.8, EFS 18-55mm, and EF 75-300mm.

1. As far as prime lenses go, would it be beneficial to get a 24mm 2.8, and a 50mm 1.8? I love the 85mm but it's a tad long for indoor use. Can the 24mm take good group photos in doors? Is there a downside to haveing both? Is there a better option?

2. I understand that the mm on the lens is multiplied by 1.6 to get the full frame equilavent. From what I have read, a good macro lens in a 100mm canon (i forget the rest of the info). My assumption is that this is great for FF and shooting insects and such. My question is this, would a 60mm macro lens accomplish the same on a crop sensor since that equates to a 96mm lens in FF? Can you keep more distance between you and your subject?

Thanks for reading and double thanks for a response!

480sparky · Nov 2, 2016

There's no way to answer Q1. We have no idea what your needs and goals are for your images. Yes, it's nice to have them. But if they don't meet your needs, or they are focal lengths you won't use much, it seems a waste of time.

As for Q2, yes, it will give you the equivelant field of view, but there's also other considerations. Depth of field will be different.

BQ22 · Nov 2, 2016

Thanks 480 for commenting. I see what you're saying about the first question, its a bit broad and vague. I really don't have any direction with what I am doing. I have a camera and I want to take photos that range from my family, to landscapes, to close up nature. Will the proposed lenses work for the majority.... What lens might you suggest to someone starting out who just wants to take a variety photos?

snowbear · Nov 2, 2016

The view angle changes with the so-called crop sensors but the focal length will still be 60mm and the apparent size of the objects in the scene will still be the same.

Derrel · Nov 2, 2016

the "real issue" though is that a 60mm lens for insects is a SUCKY focal length. Minimum focusing distance will be RIGHT in front of the filter threads, and with focal length LOSS due to lens extension, you'll have a shorter-than-60mm lens, at MFD and also about an f/5.6 maximum aperture at 1:1. In short, for bugs, you really want a LONGER lens, like a 100, or 150mm, or a 180mm or a 200mm lens. Seriously: 60mm is not "really" 96mm at minimum focusing distance; there will be focal length loss; this is how things work on most macro lenses.

For insects, I've found that the 180mm macro lens is the ticket...you'll get life-size or 1:1 around 18 inches from the focal plane With a 60mm macro, you'll have 1:1 magnification about 1 inch from the front of the lens, or around 6 inches or so from the focal plane...sucky.

As to 24/2.8 for groups: yeah, somewhat workable, 38.4mm is the E-quivalant. The issue though is that the FRONT row of a group will be markedly larger than the second row, which will be larger than a third row of people arranged i either ranks, or posed informally...

BQ22 · Nov 2, 2016

Good info. So much to learn...

Derrel · Nov 2, 2016

BQ22 said:
Good info. So much to learn...

Yeah...I would hate to suggest to anybody that a 60mm macro lens is "good for insects" and such...it is a focal length that just does not work all that well on small subjects from close ranges because, at its closest focusing distance, the lens and camera and the photographer are ALL very,very CLOSE TO the subject matter. You, or you and your camera, can easily throw a shadow on the subject matter; flash units at this close a distance have tremendous fall-off in light within a mere couple of inches (due to the Inverse Square Law), whereas with a longer focal length lens, like a 180mm macro, you are literally FARTHER AWAY, and light fall-off is more moderate. And so on an so on.

I have 55,60,90,and 180mm macro lenses, and have owned the Canon 100mm EF, the second version, which is a decent macro lens. I vastly prefer the longer lenses for smaller subjects. The 55mm and 60mm lenses are fine for copy-stand work, where you are copying things like books, or 8.5 x 11 inch flat sheets of paper.

I would suggest a 100mm macro lens is the starting point to look at, for most people, for most uses. Specifically for small insects, the 180mm or 200mm macro lenses have reasons for their existence.

BQ22 · Nov 2, 2016

Great! How about for general photography... on the street, a birthday party and such. Is the kit lens okay? Is the 24mm and 50mm good to begin with? What would you suggest for general use? Are these prime lenses a good starting point? I chose these because a) I have no idea what I am doing and the picture quality on the 85 I just picked up is way better than the kit lens, and b) a nice zoom lens seems to be about $1000- $1700. I just don't have that yet. Oh and I saw a few guys in YouTube say the 24 or the 50 was their everyday waking around lens.

Derrel · Nov 3, 2016

BQ22 said:
Great! How about for general photography... on the street, a birthday party and such. Is the kit lens okay? Is the 24mm and 50mm good to begin with? What would you suggest for general use? Are these prime lenses a good starting point? I chose these because a) I have no idea what I am doing and the picture quality on the 85 I just picked up is way better than the kit lens, and b) a nice zoom lens seems to be about $1000- $1700. I just don't have that yet. Oh and I saw a few guys in YouTube say the 24 or the 50 was their everyday waking around lens.

There are "kit" type zooms in the 18-55 range everywhere, as well as somewhat more expansive lenses in the 17-70mm or 18-70 or 18-105,18-135, 18-140 type ranges; I think the determining factor depends in large part what a person considers to be a wide-angle type focal length. Older people such as myself grow up in a world where 35mm (on FF) was a wide-angle, 28 was wider still, and a 24mm was quite wide, and 20mm to 18mm was ultra-wide. So, make your choice accordingly, based on FOV factor. Kit zooms are fine for much use, but are slow in aperture most of the time. Consider the 3rd-party lenses for Canon or Nikon cameras, since APS-C has some 'gaps' in camera-maker lens offerings.

Prime 24mm and 50mm lenses are decent choices, and a FULL SET of primes can easily cost LESS than a high-end zoom at $1,699 or $1,799. Canon makes some nice, affordable $200-ish primes these days. The Canon 85/1.8 EF is a nice lens, had one, liked it, but 85mm was originally designed for FF use; on a 1.6x it's more like a fast 135mm equivalent.

photo1x1.com · Nov 3, 2016

Hi, I´d first start out with the kit lens, or one of Derrels suggestions on 17-70mm or 18-105mm, etc. (depending on your budget) and use it one or two weeks to see how those focal lengths look like. Usually beginners don´t have the best idea of focal lengths. Even though you seem to have done quite some research, it is still better to see it live. Then I´d start deciding what prime lenses I liked next.
I absolutely love prime lenses, but changing lenses when you are quickly out shooting isn´t for everyone, but it sure gives you the better image quality.
To mimic the use of several primes instead of a zoom, you could make an experiment. Use your kit only as a 24mm and 50mm lens for example. And every time you want to change your framing, get closer or further away instead of zooming, OR remove your lens, zoom it from 24 to 50mm and put it back on the camera. Sounds silly, but it gives you an idea of working with primes.
For me the selling point for primes is not so much the image quality, but more the look and feel. An image shot with open aperture and therefore very shallow depth of field is what I prefer to a flat look where almost everything is sharp (except for groups of people where sometimes you have to close the aperture to get more than one person in focus).
That said, 24mm f2.8 doesn´t blur the background too much. It wouldn´t be one of my first choices. Also as Derrel said, the first row in a group portrait looks bigger, and the people on the outside look heavier than those on the inside. So if you can avoid wideangle for group shots, do it.
The people on youtube you are talking about have already settled on a style they like, that´s why they can easily use only one focal length as everyday walking around. You first should make that decision, before you move on.

OGsPhotography · Nov 3, 2016

Get the nifty thrifty!
Great lens.

You mentioned the 85 feels long so get a shorter lens (50). Pretty simple.

100mm Canon Macro is probably my next GAS aquisition. It'll fill a hole in my calabilities, be fun, and smell good out of the box too.

I feel like it is an expense that can wait while I learn on other lenses because I dont have a real need for macro, no one is asking me for macro shots at the moment.

Specialized lighting with the macro lens is an added cost associated and is holding me back from pulling the trigger on that piece of kit.

So, if your buying for fun as you say your just starting and basically creating a hobby, why not?

I'd probably get a 24mm pancake, but my long term goal is a 24-70 2.8L on a 5Dmark iv to pair with the 70-200 on a 70D.

I hope that makes sense as I relate your questions to my own journey.

Id probably drop the kit lens and the 75-300 ( litterally I just sold both them lenses iff in the past few months). Id shoot the 85mm ( in my case 50mm) all day and never bother with them other pieces of junk. They have their uses but IMO they make good paperweights and thats about it.

davidharmier60 · Sep 23, 2017

Coming at this nearly a year later. I have FD 50mm both 1.8 (My preference) and 1.4.
All my stuff was bought with aircraft and Airshows in mind. I have FD 70-210 and 100-300. All for AE-1. Also have an EOS650 with off brand 18-35, 28-105 and 70-300.
Zoom works great at Air show
Short for stuff on the ground and long for fighters and not so long for C-5 and such.
I have a pretty hopeless hope to get a DSLR body (rather want a 40D). And plan to get an adapter or several probably at least one for Nikon to EF. Anyhow that's my take on the whole lense thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk