Another Christmas Wish List, for a beginner

Siffy

Siffy

New member
Like the title says, I've been asked to provide a wish list, and I'd decided months ago to get a nice camera. It'll be for macro shots and to replace my 7 year old 4mp Kodak. I just want to do things right the first time by asking the more experienced. Let me know if I leave anything out. I'm basically starting from scratch.

Canon Rebel XTi body

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Auto Focus Lens
or
Canon 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Lens

Will the 17-85mm do everything the 18-55mm lens will do and then some? From what I've read it makes sense to get the 17-85mm, but I'm not completely sure if it is a replacement lens. And am I correct in thinking either of these will serve as an "everyday" type lens for taking shots of people?

Sigma Telephoto 150mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS

Lexar - 8GB CompactFlash Memory Card (300x speed)
or
Lexar - 2GB CompactFlash Memory Card (133x speed)

Is 300x worth shopping for or is 133x plenty? I lean toward the 8gb because it's 4x the storage and 3x the speed for 3x the cost ($70 for the 2gb and $213 for the 8gb).

Extra battery pack

Haven't picked out a tripod or case yet, will likely buy those and the Sigma lens myself after the holidays.

Finally, will I want an expensive flash like the 430EX? Or will the built in one serve most needs?

Anything I've not thought of?

Thanks
 
I do not know a lot about lenses as I am still new to dslr myself. I can say though to get the fastest card you can. You will be glad you did everytime you connect to get the pictures especially with a dlsr as you can very easily take hundreds of pictures in a very short amount of time. The built in flash is enough to get started and I feel more lenses are a better choice then a flash. However if you are going to be shooting outside or for events with a lot of people a more powerful flash will really help out. Plus the ability to bounce the flash makes for some nice effects. Either way you are in for a lot of fun. I have only had my dslr for a few months but I am learning every time I pick it up and it is really cool when you start to get the hang of it.

My only noob advice is when you get it put it into manual mode and don't use the auto modes until you can get some good pictures. That how I taught myself all about how the different settings work and am better able to understand how the various auto modes help.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Nikon user, so I can't comment on the specifics, but I have some general suggestions...

My 17-55 lens is one of my most favorite lenses (for general house, people, event type shots) and when I'm not using that I'm using my 70-200 (bring that thing closer, it's too far away, or it's moving very fast and I want to stop it in its tracks).

I have a 105mm macro lens that I like a lot. With the 150 you'll find a shallower depth of field than the 105 or the 55/60 (whatever Canon's equiv is). The trade off is that you'll be able to view things at 1:1 magnification further back in your tank. I like the combo of a 105 and a 1.4 or 2.0 TC (or extentions) to get the other 50mm though for added versatility.

I suggest getting 2 cards, rather than just one, so factor that into your pricing as well (one in the cam and one in the reader is my typical MO).


I have 3 batteries. One in the cam, one fresh in the bag and one that's either on the charger or has been charged and not returned to the bag.

I have an expensive flash. I need a lesson on how to use it. LOL. But I can say that the on-board flash shows a shadow from some of my lenses so there are times I NEED an external flash. I never use it for fish photography though.

You could easily spend 2x the camera on the tripod. Since you can get away with a cheapie to get started, I'd recommend a cheapie now and then when you really know what you want in a tripod you can look for the legs/head that will best suit your needs.
 
Just curious has anybody here used the 180mm L series macro from canon. It is something I might be interested in splurging on if it is a good lens for tank shooting.
 
Minimum focus distance on that lens is 18", so on a 2' tank, right up against the glass you'll still get 1:1 repro on the stuff in the back. You will have to be back pretty far to get the near stuff though.
 
Phyl (and Saiyan),

I appreciate the comments. I do have some more/follow up questions.

I'm still unsure whether I'd be better off getting an 18-55mm or 17-85mm lens. The 70-200mm or similar lens will have to wait for now, but maybe one day.

On the macro lens, I'm not sure what you mean by shallower depth of field, but I think I'm still settled on the Sigma 150. And to answer your (not exactly question) comment, Canon makes a 50, 60, 100, 180, and now 65mm macro lens.

As for 2 cards. I'll likely be using a cord connected directly from the laptop to the camera to copy files, so I figured I'd go all out with 1 really nice card. And possibly buy a 2nd not quite as nice card later.

Now... I'm still not 100% on the camera itself, would you recommend a Nikon over a Canon? One thing that'd be nice (for me in particular, not everyone), is the Nikon D40x uses SD instead of CF, and my laptop has a built in SD reader but no built in CF reader. The downside to that is SD is so much slower than CF. But I'd like to hear your reasons for Nikon over Canon.

Thanks,
Will
 
Regarding which lens you should get, I'd say get whichever one has the best image quality. The lens with the most high quality glass would be my preference. You can always cover the spread of the focal ranges at a later time.

Depth of field is the amount of your image that appears in focus. My images HERE were taken with the 105 Nikkor lens with my Nikon D200. With the depth of field the entire image is in focus. I can show you some photos taken with a shallow depth of field where only the mouth of a ric is in focus.

As for the ever popular Canon v. Nikon debate, that's going to come down to personal preference. I like the feel of the Nikon in my hands and the accessibilities of the controls. I feel like everything is at my fingertips (and I don't have to go into the menu for much). You'd do well to hold both in your hands and see which one feels better.
 
I decided to continue my old thread rather than start a new one, since it's a continuation of stuff I need to buy... Down to my next question.

What's the difference between a $85 Polarizer filter and a $25 one?

I haven't been able to search much on it. The search function doesn't seem to like the word "filter". It produced an error at least a dozen times.

But from what I've read, multi-coated glass is superior. Are there any benefits from using a UV filter for aquarium macros? I'm wondering if this lens filter will be a good choice?

In another note, we purchased my camera yesterday. And got a pretty good deal on it at Wolf Cameras even. The standard kit 18-55mm lens was back ordered so they gave me a 18-55mm IS and a 75-300mm in a 2 lens kit for $200 more than the body alone. I was there for the purchase at my dad's request so he'd get exactly what I wanted. I just have to wait til Christmas Day to use it.

And I'm still not settled on a macro lens. I learn toward the Canon 100mm to have the same 58mm filter size as the 2 lenses I already have, but the Sigma 150mm ends up being a pretty good deal since its price already includes a hood, a case, and a tripod mount.

I think I'd hate having to carry 2 sizes of filters. Are step up or step down rings appropriate? Do they work well generally? And should I buy larger filters and step up rings or will smaller filters and step down rings work just as well?

Thanks and TIA for all the help and advice already received and forthcoming. :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11400170#post11400170 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Siffy
I
What's the difference between a $85 Polarizer filter and a $25 one?
Click to expand...

$60 :D

Multicoating on filters eliminates lens flair and distortion. Anything that you put in front of your less degrades your image. If you've going to drop $500-$1500 on a lens it doesn't make much sense to have it looking through a piece of $25 junk.

That Hoya is $85 but it's still not very good. The snap rings come up and the filter comes apart in your hand.

I use B+W multicoated polarizers on most of my landscape shots. All but my macro use the same size but I still buy a separate filter for each. It's a hassle moving them around when shooting.

Cheers
 
I like the Canon 100mm. It's not so heavy that I feel a need for a tripod mount. In fact, I use that lens for most of my general purpose use (and took a [pretty silly] picture of the moon with it last night), so it obviously can be used for more than just macro. It can certainly take photos of anything in your tank. You'll only get 1:1 at it's close focus distance, though (I think about 8"?).
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11420747#post11420747 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
$60 :D

Multicoating on filters eliminates lens flair and distortion. Anything that you put in front of your less degrades your image. If you've going to drop $500-$1500 on a lens it doesn't make much sense to have it looking through a piece of $25 junk.

That Hoya is $85 but it's still not very good. The snap rings come up and the filter comes apart in your hand.

I use B+W multicoated polarizers on most of my landscape shots. All but my macro use the same size but I still buy a separate filter for each. It's a hassle moving them around when shooting.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Thanks, I hadn't planned to buy the cheaper one unless I was told it wasn't junk. Now I see they're both junk...

B+W is a brand? This is a recommendable filter? http://www.adorama.com/BW58CPLKS.html

Now after looking more, even more confused/unsure what to buy. Top, Linear, Circular, Wide, etc... geez. I would guess not top, circular over linear, and not wide.... so how about this one?
http://www.adorama.com/BW58CPLMDP.html
Is Multi-Resistive similar to Multi Coated? Or yet another grade?
http://www.adorama.com/BW58CPLKS.html
 
Thanks, beerguy. Ok, now that I've found a good filter, I've just got to find a place that sells one in 72mm. That is IF B+W even makes one. I should be able to accomplish that with google and their website. Or I could use a step up adapter. Is that considered taboo or acceptable if it's only a small step? I'm wondering what the drawbacks will be. Thanks again.
 
The more I see, the more I want a macro lens. But this is what I've accomplished my first time with the XTi I got for Christmas and the almost stock lens. 18-55mm IS. I thought I'd just share the whole album rather than directly load a bunch. This is c_stowers 's 120g tank.

http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/uahpimp/Chris Tank 2007-12-27/

But here's one of the ones I liked best.

IMG_0562.jpg


I've got some actinic only shots I need to go through and upload in a bit. Hope you enjoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Canon Lens Advice
Replies
0
Views
692
JJudge951
J
Pife
Shooting under blue...
Replies
2
Views
758
Pife
Pife
MiNdErAsR
Looking to upgrade...
Replies
14
Views
2K
jroovers
jroovers
NTP66
Looking to move into the dSLR world
Replies
6
Views
687
JaYbIrD1969
JaYbIrD1969
M
DSLR's and Lenses
Replies
14
Views
2K
Reef Bass
Reef Bass
Back
Top