Best lens KM 5D

Hi all, I've been lurking here off and on for the last year. I bought a KM 5D two years ago. The biggest reason for buying it was because I already had two Minolta lenses (beer cans from what I can gather from the lingo here) from a Minolta 5xi: a 28-70mm and an 80-200mm. I figured that as the lenses would fit a dslr I could save myself some money. I wasn't happy with the results and found out that these lenses were only ave, not to mention the pictures are slightly larger due to the refraction mirrors being smaller on a dslr (I don't remember the acronym for the mirror). I ended up purchasing a Sigma 18-125mm DC. I'm no pro but I can definitely tell the difference between the beer cans and the simga. The minolta lenses, while not super sharp, are definitely sharper then the sigma. After talking to some friends, they are telling me to go out and buy a Nikon. Again, I'm no pro, but I do want sharp pictures of my 2 year old son. I'm happy with my 5D and would like to keep it.

So my question is: what is the best lens for the KM's? I don't have to have some huge range (ie 18-250) because I understand to keep the lens light there has to be compromises. At the same time I don't just want a fixed focal length either (ie 50mm), but just something that gives me a little bit of zoom. Are the sony branded lenses the best?

One last question: I've been reading on here about the slow focusing on some of the lenses. I'd like to have that taken into consideration as well with the recommendations as anyone here who has ever tried to take candid shots of a 2 year old knows that timing is everything. Sorry to ramble on. Thank you all in advance!

Hi there,

Hmm, I find the 5D to be pretty great, and I have played around with Nikons too. How are you shooting - i.e. are you shooting in auto, or aperture/shutter priority? So, are the beercans too hefty? I find mine quite good for portraits. If you haven't visited http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp yet, I have found that it is a great resource, and it was from here that I decided on my recent tamron 17-50mm lens, which I am loving as a walk around lens.
Andy

Hi Andy

I have no complaints what so ever about the 5D. I bought it knowing that I was getting a great camera at a great price point. I do shoot primarily on auto as my son is quite the ball of energy I don't have to time mess w/ settings. I will say that my cousin is more camera savvy then I am and he was having a hard time getting crisp images out of my lenses. I also know that user ignorance on my part is a contributing factor I'm sure. I was just hoping to get some perspective on the different lenses. Thank you for your comments and the link. I will check it out.

Tom

aroddick said:

Hi there,
Hmm, I find the 5D to be pretty great, and I have played around with
Nikons too. How are you shooting - i.e. are you shooting in auto, or
aperture/shutter priority? So, are the beercans too hefty? I find
mine quite good for portraits. If you haven't visited
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp yet, I have found that it is a
great resource, and it was from here that I decided on my recent
tamron 17-50mm lens, which I am loving as a walk around lens.
Andy

Click to expand...

Well, you probably don't have to buy a Nikon. :> ) I've taken a lot of pictures of my toddler grandchildren with my 7D using a Tamron 18-250 lens. It is not a heavy lens and if you are taking pictures in good light or with flash it should be fine. Plus it is a good all around lens when you are off with the kids in the park or at the zoo or whatever. I've also used a Minolta 28-75 2.8 lens. It's faster but more expensive than the Tamron (at least it was when I bought it).

--



Norma

Ill try to help without getting too wordy.. the problem with getting sharp photos, is the technique in taking the shot... there are great lenses offered by all manufacturers.. you mentioned an 80 -200 as one of the two lenses you have. neither of these lenses are considered beer cans..

getting sharp photos is by a large portion the ability of the photographer to compose and set up the shot.. using the right ISO and shutter speed, and aperture. then there is the photographers ability to hold the camera still.

you just cant have a camera and a lens and push the shutter and expect sharp shots.. in taking portraits where there is little or no movement with the subject, you can use a Depthof field DOF that will also alow the camera to be in its sweet spot. All Lenses have a sweet spot, and it usually isint wide open... , many lenses love to be used at F/8 or f/11.. the problem is the available light with a small paerture like f/8 or f/11... so you need a longer shutter time ( speed ) to properly expose the shot

Now you say your two year old wont sit still so you need a fast shutter to stop the action.. but a fast shutter may not offer you enough light. and if you shoot with a wide open aperture to get enough light, it propbably wony be the lenses sweet spot.. to help with these things, and finding the right combination..shooting your child with a tripod will allow you to use a faster shutter to stop the action. Again this faster shutter will allow for stop action and remove any motion blur. But you still need to address the lenses sweet spot..

Understanding how motion blur, and use of a tripod, and the lenses sweet spot all work together, is what makes for a sharp photo, you are not goung to buy a shgarp photo, you are going t have to create it.. using the right combination of components.. you can buy a 2000 dollar camera, and use a 1500 dollar lens and still get soft photos.. conversly a good photographer can take an average 500 dollar SLR and almost any lens, and get a great shot.

If anyone tells you that you can buy this certain lens for your 5D and he guarantees that you will get sharp photos with it.. put that guy on your list of people Not to listen too... Your technique to capture the shot is much more critical than the lens you use. Of course if you have great technique and a great lens, chances are good that you are going to capture some great shots..
If you have poor technique, no camera lens combo will get you great shots.

Sorry for the long post...

Another thing to consider is, your budget... you mentioned an 18 -250 as not being of interest to you... If you are interested in Photogrpahy and dont want to spend alot of money on a lot of lenses, then that partucular lens will be perfect in that it covers alot of range.. you wont need to buy many lenses., That particular lens is used by most people who own one, 90 % of the time...

a 50mm 1.7 lens bought on ebay for 50 to 75 dollars will do well for you in low light situations..and a great portrait lens for your child.

--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.



Please visit my galleries at
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

Thank you for the post evilone. I will put in some serious time to improve my technique. Deep down I knew I was living in a land of Oz in hoping I could just point and click. But I figured I could use all the help I could get in a good lens . I don't have a problem with an 18-250. I would love to have a one lens-does-it-all. I just figured that there would be inherent shortcomings w/ a lens that had such a wide range, kind of a jack of all trades - master of none scenario. Either way I will work with what I have now and report back after sharping up (pun intended) my technique.

Tom,

Yes, I would recommend playing with the settings a bit in more mellow moments (i.e. when your son isn't running around). There are lots of quick ways to set up your camera (for the particular lens you are using) and get great shots. I agree with Evilone that the 50mm fixed lens, which is cheap but SO sharp, is well worth it. The advantage there is that you pop on the 50mm, set your aperture (either for nice bocah or for low light if you are inside), then point and shoot. So yes, a few more steps, but some nice shots. And if you want you can bracket and just rapid fire shoot. I was hesitant about getting fixed lenses, but it vastly improved my photographic eye - ok, I still have a way to go - and really got some decent portraits of fast moving dogs.

Anyways, you will likely get lots of advice from the great folks on this forum...
Andy

Sorry for that long post... just wanted to get you in the right frame of mind...

taking one lens and setting it up to take the same image over and over but changing the aperture will give you some idea of the lenses sweet spot...
--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.



Please visit my galleries at
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

I have to agree that the one lens I usually use when I am around the grandkids (age one and the other now turning four) is my Sony 50/1.4. It is great for low-light in the house, and works great outside, too.
--
Karen Brittan, Minnesota, USA



'The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep
coming along and sticking things in it.' Berkely Breathed

Don't forget the 50mm f1.7 however. Everyone needs one. Really. ;-)
Darwin

Beercan is a 70-210 f 1:4 superb lens, nothing to do with your standard lenses.
The 18-250 Tamron looks like a winner for its versatility and quality.
--
Just passing by...

The Image quality ( IQ ) of the Tamron 18-250, throughout the focal range is very impressive... its a great lens for walking around... it also allows you to not need, want, have, other lenses within the focal range... you do need to address low light situations.. a 50 mm f/1.7, and a beer can 70-210 f/4 will cover this. when you com into some expendable income , the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 would be the icing on the cake. IN the wide lens catergory... a 10 -20 or an 11-18 will cover the wide end.. I am personally waiting on the Tamron, 10-24.
--
Bill
Capturing memories, one at a time.



Please visit my galleries at
http://evil-twin.smugmug.com/

Hi i'm still kind of new to photography also. I started back in march this year and i picked up the 5d also. since then i invested in lenses which i can get for a decent price with fairly good quality. i got the 50mm 1.7, 28-85mm, 70-210 f/4 (beercan), tamron 90mm macro, sigma 10-20mm. I find these lenses with the 5d give me fairly good results considering i got the 50mm for 80$, 28-85 $45, beercan 90$. with just these three lenses you can cover a good range and also shoot in low light as well. The images come out pretty sharp and all of them have great color. You can check out some of my pictures to decide for yourself http://www.flickr.com/photos/23797749@N08/

I also heard the 18-250mm is very good also and i'm considering this lens as well since its more versatile than my 28-85 walk around lens.

The macro and wide angle lens i got expanded my vision. eventually you will want to get that perspective also.
--



Some other photos here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23797749@N08/

I love my 18-250 (tammy) and have had it almost as long as Bill has had his. However it does focus pretty slowly on the 5D (I had mine on my 5D before I went to a700). I think you'l find it frustrating taking pics of kids with one on a 5D as they move so quickly. I used mine last month on holiday with my 5D and it worked splendidly, but for mostly set piece shots.

The 16-80 is much quicker focussing and a useful range for bright indoors but I know it's pricey. The tammy 17-50 is cheaper and brighter..and gets great scores on photozone, but I don't have it. I find most of my indoor shots of kids are in the 70-85mm zone but I would be tempted in your position and put up with having to get a bit closer. The KM 28-75/2.8 is another good bright choice. If you need a wider range the 24-105 is good but a bit slower, or the 28-105 is much better value

Hell, there are so many choices, spend a few hours going through the Dyxum lens reviews, anything over 4.0 is going to be OK, and over 4.5 really quite good. Try ebay in one window and dyxum in another to get a good idea of prices and performance. (just don't opt for the new ebay look..its truly awful!)

You will see just what a good range of lenses we have to choose from, but the days of the cheap 50/1.7 seem to have gone...$150 seems to be the normal price today unless you are lucky.

cheers

tom