OT: Camera lenses

UlfLaursen wrote on 3/14/2010, 11:31 PM
Hi

I am looking for some good rescourses for understanding the basics of lenses for still cameras (have Canon) explained for newbies.

I do understand the very basics such as 17-55 mm is zoom and that the lower the f value the better in low light etc. but I hear the difference in values if for a specific lens you have full-frame vs. not full frame f.ex.

Another thing I have hard to figure is this:

I have ordered this lens for my new 550D:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html
It cost $1.060 I get zoom from 17-55 mm and f 2.8 all the way

Then I look at this one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-GREY/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html
It cost $344. I get no zoom but I get f 1.4

What would I use the second one for and why is there such a price difference in thoose 2 - they are in the same series of lenses from Canon. I know I get zoom in the first one, sure that is one reason, but the aperture is ½ on the second one on the other hand.

I hope some of you can help me just a little to better understand this :-)

Thanks in advance :-)

/Ulf

Comments

Yoyodyne wrote on 3/15/2010, 2:11 AM
well....

Answer in two parts.

A prime lens (non-zoom lens), in general is going to be faster than a zoom lens, there is just less optics (glass) for light to travel through. A faster lens is going to be better in low light and you can achieve a shallower depth of field.

A fast zoom lens, like a 2.8, is going to cost more because of the quality of optics. It's tough to make a zoom lens that lets a lot of light in so they can charge a premium for them. 2.8 is pretty fast for a zoom lens.

"What would I use the second one for (aka the 1.4 - 50mm)"

This is a "portrait lens" and would be great for shots of people. On the 550D this would be a great lens for an interview shot of a single person for example.

There is a reason movies are made with prime lenses. A good prime lens looks amazing, they have an almost 3D quality. With a 550D you have access to some awesome Canon glass, rent a few prime lenses and compare to the zooms. The nice Canon zooms look great but the sweet prime lenses "go to 11" as they say.

I have the Canon 1.4-50mm and the 7D. I've been getting a huge reaction from clients with this combo - it just looks so cinematic.
ritsmer wrote on 3/15/2010, 2:53 AM
Hi Ulf -

Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_lens
and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_Portrait_Lenses
FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 3/15/2010, 3:48 AM
you need to ask your self what will I be using lenses for. For weddings I use 17-85mm 4.5. Another very usefull lens to the Canon 10mm - 22mm 3.5 which is a loverly wide angle to fit everything in. A lens with an Fstop of 1.2 will give you a shallower depth of field which you will use at weddings but if you were shooting scenes and building you'd want to use an F22 Fstop which most lens have anyway. You will find that lenses that have lower Fstops (1.2) available are most expensive.

I wouldn't bother with the 55-85 but go for the 17-85mm 4.5

farss wrote on 3/15/2010, 5:01 AM
Generally with lenses you get what you pay for. Of course you can pay a LOT more to get the 14th coat of wax.

Keep in mind that lenses designed for stills photography and lenses designed for film and TV are build with different needs and prices. With cine/TV lenses a lot of the money can go into the mechanics as well as the glass itself. Breathing, tracking and backfocus stability are big issues for cine lenses that a stills photog doesn't care about.

Reasonable cine style lenses are now starting to appear for the DSLRs that avoid having to use PL mounts which do not work at all well on these lightweight camera bodies. Zeiss should have a complete set of primes for under $10K very soon which is quite a bargain.

Bob.
MUTTLEY wrote on 3/15/2010, 9:12 AM

Ulf, here's the latest I'm drooling over, a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. Not out yet but available for pre-order, though at $2,499.00 I think I'm going to be waiting awhile! =)

Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L

- Ray
Underground Planet

UlfLaursen wrote on 3/15/2010, 12:22 PM
Thanks a lot guys :-)

/Ulf
PerroneFord wrote on 3/15/2010, 12:44 PM
Maybe you guys can explain something to me. I understand zoom lenses. I understand how they can speed the workflow.

But what I don't understand is how people fall in love with these so much. Most SLR zooms are PAINFULLY slow. I've owned some slow zooms, and in fact, have a couple right now, but I offered $30 for each of them (A Nikon 28-80, and Sigma 70-300) because they are barely worth anything to me.

I see people post footage on various forums where they've shot indoors with these slow zooms, and they are all FULL of noise and artifacts because you have to shoot at ISO 1600 just to get anything useful from them.

The 2.8 zooms are about as slow as I would want on my camera, and even then, demand strict attention to lighting indoors. If you only shoot everything outside in sunlight, then things are different . But maybe someone can explain to me this fascination with slow glass just because it has a zoom on it.
UlfLaursen wrote on 3/15/2010, 11:28 PM
To be honest, my wife and I one year ago bought a 70-300 for our old Olympus E500. My wife wanted to go out and take pictures of birds, landscape etc.
At that time we almost knew nothing about the game, so we just looked at the 70-300 and the size, which both was great (in our minds).
The reality has been that she has used it once, and let me just say the result was not stunning ;-)
So IMO the facinasination comes from people (like I once was myself) that does not know a lot about the stuff.

/Ulf
MUTTLEY wrote on 3/16/2010, 11:31 AM

No fascination here! The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 I got I got for free and I love it! Obviously not perfect for all situations but a real nice one to have in the tool kit. I really don't think it comes down to fascination so much as budget, at least for myself. And having used the Sony EX1 with a Letus35 Extreme for a few years now, I'm no stranger to light loss. Being able to shoot with the 2.8 without the Letus is amazing and a heck of a lot easier to compensate for and get something usable than with the EX1. Not that it's better overall than an EX1, but at least in low light using a Letus it's a whole new world. =)

- Ray
Underground Planet
PerroneFord wrote on 3/16/2010, 11:58 AM
The lens on the EX1 is F1.9. How nice would it be to have a S35mm sensor behind it instead of 1/2"..... It zooms from 34mm - ~400. THAT would be lovely to have