[SayNoToPistons]

Hi. I have a Canon Elan 7e SLR (film) that came with the "not-so-good" 28-90 EF USM kit lens. I am looking to upgrade the lens because the kit lens is really holding the quality of the images back and it doesnt seem like the money i spend on film and developing them is worth it. I would like a lens i can use in a variety of ranges and i'm not looking to spend over $180 for a lens i can find on ebay. I've been told that i should look at the Canon 28-105mm lens:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-Zoom-Wide-...QQcmdZViewItem

What other lenses should I look for in my price range?


Edit: I'm also looking for a way to transfer the photos onto my computer. My flatbed scanner *(3 in 1 HP cheapo printer) doesnt do a very good job and you can clearly see the scan lines. What alternatives are there? (please don't mention DSLRs)

 

[ingwe]

Sorry, just have Nikon stuff. Bad for you, good for my post count.

One thing though, although you probably know this, photography transcends brand names. So, can you elaborate on what you find lacking with your current lens? Not fast enough? Not sharp enough? Geometric bokeh? What kind of photos are you taking (action, portrait, landscape, all of the above)?

Excellent lenses are most likely expensive--but there are exceptions. And if you're serious (what ever that means), excellent lenses are worth it.

Oh, while I'm pontificating, the best lens is your brain.

Okay Canon boys, your turn.

 

[dj_mocok]

I am not a Canon user, but if I wanted to go for image quality in a budget, I would get either normal prime like 50mm or third party zoom lens, like Tamron 17-50mm.
But I'm not sure if you can mount it on a Canon SLR though - can't quite remember if it's a digital only.

But if I were still to choose to go film way nowadays, maybe my ideal choice would be something from Leica or Zeiss rangefinder.

 

[mochimon]

judging by your price range im pretty sure you dont want better optics.

the usual thing for a new photographer to lust after is more magnification. everybody wants a longer focal length. "my new camera has 200x zoom!!!" ive always found that unless you are after some kind of nature shot (or peeping tom kind of stuff

) longer lenses do not yeild "better" photographs for the layman. the focal range you have right now is pretty typical ie. images from this lens are similar to what your eye sees.

im guessing that what you're really after is something "different". that said, i would experiment with a macro or super wide lens. try the canon 50mm f/2.5 macro out first. most people find macro fascinating. if you can spring for the 100mm f/2.8 usm im sure you'll find its effect more dramatic.

otherwise you could try something like the sigma 20mm f/1.8 or the canon 2.8 if you dont mind spending the extra cash.

you'll find that as an amature it is much too expensive to get into zooms of real quality. id say the money spent on those things would be much better spent on some audio stuff(unless its your livelyhood). so you should try to look for fixed lenses.

one really cheap alternative is to find one of those kit lenses at something like 17-55mm on ebay or craigslist. they come with rebels. the wide end of these lenses is actually pretty cool for someone starting out and they get the job done. you can usually find em for like 50-70 dollars.

 

[jjcha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if I were still to choose to go film way nowadays, maybe my ideal choice would be something from Leica or Zeiss rangefinder.

Eh? and not a Nikon S3??

Best,

-Jason

 

[majid]

Don't bother with the zoom, you have to hit the $1K+ 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L IS to make a difference.

Get the 50mm f/1.4 USM or the 35mm f/2. You won't find anything optically better under $1000. This will be reflected in the "wow" factor in your photos. The discipline of a fixed-focal lens will also be salutary.

You may need to reconsider what film you are using. When you factor the cost of processing, pro films are not that much more expensive than consumer grades.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eh? and not a Nikon S3?? Best, -Jason

I was posting a thread in Leica forum the other day (on photo.net), asking about the difference in terms of bokeh between Leica and higher end Nikon lenses, and one guy linked me to this flickr search result, and damn - the images there floored me. So many gorgeous pictures.

Those kind of images are exactly my taste (what I'm looking for in terms of bokeh), and now I realise how much I would love to have a Leica M8 + Noctilux 50mm f/1 combo.

I know my current gear can produce nice bokeh as well, but there's something about this Leica that I love but can't really explain... I think it's the colour&contrast and bokeh. I don't know, but it has this "magic" to it, even if the object is just simple everyday thing.

But there's no way I can afford that M8+Noctilux combo. You on the other hand for sure can afford it, hehe... why not try that combo the next time you visit a proper camera shop, who knows you might love it too.

Sorry for a bit OT post, but I'm sure the OP don't mind since it's also photography related, hehe...

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those kind of images are exactly my taste (what I'm looking for in terms of bokeh), and now I realise how much I would love to have a Leica M8 + Noctilux 50mm f/1 combo.

I have one (I paid $2K for my Noctilux used, can't believe they retail for $5.5K now). You would have as much fun with an Epson R-D1 and a 35mm f/1.2 Nokton, for 1/3 the price.

There are also a number of Nikkors that produce the creamy bokeh you crave, foremost the 105mm and 135mm DC (defocus control).

 

[dj_mocok]

I got 85mm 1.4 but to be honest, I think the Noctilux produces better point of lights.

So you got yours for 2 grand? Wow, 2K is a "bargain" man, I just checked yesterday, and there were like 5K plus. Nice buy indeed.

JJcha got an Epson (he posted some pictures last time), and yes looked like he was having a great time with that little rangefinder.

See, like this picture for example, I can reproduce this with my 85mm 1.4, but not the quality of point of lights (how they 'stack'). With my Nikkor, they don't stack that smooth - close, but yet not as good.
With Noctilux, I think the point of lights are more delicate. I know for some people this is very trivial thing (or if they noticed at all), but this tiny bit like this is the one that makes the picture got its magic or not IMO.

This is taken with my Nikkor; from my picture collections, I think this is the closest one to that Leica, but as you can see, it's still not as smooth.

PS: Let me know when you are starting "My Noctilux is on loan program" thread.

 

[GAD]

Primes will usually get you better quality than zooms. The 50mm f/1.4 is an awesome lens for only $300.

If you want a step up in image quality, you're probably going to need to spend a little more.

GAD

 

[SayNoToPistons]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ingwe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry, just have Nikon stuff. Bad for you, good for my post count. One thing though, although you probably know this, photography transcends brand names. So, can you elaborate on what you find lacking with your current lens? Not fast enough? Not sharp enough? Geometric bokeh? What kind of photos are you taking (action, portrait, landscape, all of the above)? Excellent lenses are most likely expensive--but there are exceptions. And if you're serious (what ever that means), excellent lenses are worth it. Oh, while I'm pontificating, the best lens is your brain. Okay Canon boys, your turn.

It's not sharp enough and the build quality of the stock kit lens is terrible. I take all types of pics (all of the above). I am not a serious photographer as you can tell. I just like to experiment with the camera because it does seem fun exploring new skills to make my photos better. I'm not looking for something too expensive yet, that's why i got an SLR instead of a DSLR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am not a Canon user, but if I wanted to go for image quality in a budget, I would get either normal prime like 50mm or third party zoom lens, like Tamron 17-50mm. But I'm not sure if you can mount it on a Canon SLR though - can't quite remember if it's a digital only. But if I were still to choose to go film way nowadays, maybe my ideal choice would be something from Leica or Zeiss rangefinder.

I'm also looking at the 50mm lens too but i would prefer getting the 28-105mm.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mochimon /img/forum/go_quote.gif judging by your price range im pretty sure you dont want better optics. the usual thing for a new photographer to lust after is more magnification. everybody wants a longer focal length. "my new camera has 200x zoom!!!" ive always found that unless you are after some kind of nature shot (or peeping tom kind of stuff ) longer lenses do not yeild "better" photographs for the layman. the focal range you have right now is pretty typical ie. images from this lens are similar to what your eye sees. im guessing that what you're really after is something "different". that said, i would experiment with a macro or super wide lens. try the canon 50mm f/2.5 macro out first. most people find macro fascinating. if you can spring for the 100mm f/2.8 usm im sure you'll find its effect more dramatic. otherwise you could try something like the sigma 20mm f/1.8 or the canon 2.8 if you dont mind spending the extra cash. you'll find that as an amature it is much too expensive to get into zooms of real quality. id say the money spent on those things would be much better spent on some audio stuff(unless its your livelyhood). so you should try to look for fixed lenses. one really cheap alternative is to find one of those kit lenses at something like 17-55mm on ebay or craigslist. they come with rebels. the wide end of these lenses is actually pretty cool for someone starting out and they get the job done. you can usually find em for like 50-70 dollars.

Actually i'm not too big on the zoom thing, but it would be nice to have some

. I usually take pictures of cars at car club meets and i just like to capture the beauty of the car itself and the background (from city streets at night to trees). I just want a higher quality lens i can use with the body.

 

[SayNoToPistons]

Sorry i didn't forget about the rest of you guys. I just dropped by to check out my thread for a bit, now i have to head out. Thanks!

 

[SayNoToPistons]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50mm-f-...QQcmdZViewItem


Is this the 50MM you guys are talking about?

 

[Samgotit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SayNoToPistons /img/forum/go_quote.gif http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50mm-f-...QQcmdZViewItem Is this the 50MM you guys are talking about?

The 50 f/1.4 is a great lens, but you won't get one for under $230 used if not higher.

The 28-105mm is exactly what you should be looking for in your price range. After, you can save for the cheapo, yet fantastic 50 f1.8 for low light/sharper images:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8...0856858&sr=8-1


I have owned all three of the above lenses. Another advantage of the 28-105mm is that it's a very fast focusing USM lens. There are 3 versions of the 28-105mm. Make sure you get the f/3.5-4.5 version shown below:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-105mm...0857090&sr=1-1

I'd buy at POTN's FS forum way before ebay, though. You should be able to pick up the 28-105 for under $200:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...splay.php?f=14


Edit: I see you are shooting a car club. Forget about a prime for now for that purpose. Primes are wonderfully romantic, but I'm assuming you will want every thing from details to whole car shots. IMHO, you'll get much more from the zoom.

Edit # 2: If your ABSOLUTE bottom line is sharpness, go for the 50mm f1.8 for $75 bucks. It's very sharp for what it is. Its build quality is not lovely (all plastic, including mount), but I used mine since the days I had an A2 (film) until just recently. It never gave me problems. But know that it's legendary for being a slow focuser.

 

[CBS]

If I can offer any advice from my years as a professional photographer...

Its the 6 inches behind the camera that make the most difference.

1> Know what you are shooting (this is utmost - as this will give you an idea for your working distance )

2> Zooms are the most usefull and efficient for variety...

3> Know what your end product will be. If your quality is mainly to be viewed on the computer than lenses won't make any difference, but focal lengths will as this is what allows for more creativity.... again know what you want to shoot

4> Will you be shooting ambient - indoors/outdoors, what time of day ? / flash / hot lights in future ??? Are you handholding or using a tripod ? What ISO are you using ?

I would say the 28-105 is a much better usefull choice than a 50mm prime...Who cares if the prime is sharper, I'd rather have the ability to get the shot... You might find your self in a situation when you have no room to walk back and a 50 mm may be to long for cars and trucks... also if you have room than a 105 range will give you more compression and soften the background which is generally a nice effect.... the 50 won't do this as effectively.


In a 150$ range for lenses you are limited to non pro lenses for the most part, but like I said - know what to do with 6 inches.