Reading mode: Light Dark

Steadman's Tips: First Lens for New SLR Owner

Go to last post
Even a biggener (at least one ready to buy a DSLR) might very likely have a specific type of photography they are looking to focus on. Maybe sports, landscapes, flowers in their backyard, etc. So, I do not think there is simple answer. If the beginner has absolutely no idea what they want to do maybe they should get a medium range zoom and use the DSLR as a P&S until they start figuring out what they enjoy the best. If being able to do low light photography is what drove them towards a DSLR then a fast prime or set of primes like the 50 1.4 or 1.8 woluld be a good choice.

Would not a zoom actually help learn photography even better as the user can easily experiment and leran what focal lengths work for different conditions? I know, primes are better quality in general, but to simply learn a zoom might be a great tool.

--
Nabil
http://www.pbase.com/crw/d60
 
For D30/D60 owners, I would seriously recommend the EF 35mm f/2.0 lens...

Why? Well, it's FOV is close to a 50mm on a normal SLR, taking into account the multiplier on these cameras. A 28mm would be closer, but the 35mm lens is brighter (I wouldn't suggest the EF 28mm f/1.8).

Another nice feature is the very close focusing of the EF 35mm. It's really quite something if you're out in the woods say, and want close-ups of the leaves without resorting to a macro lens. You can get pretty darn close with this lens.

Picture quality is outstanding. Perhaps not quite as good as the EF 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses, but close.

Finally - it's cheap. Much cheaper than the EF 50mm f/1.4. Nothing is as cheap as the EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II - it's all plastic, and personally, wouldn't want one.

Try it out - you won't be disappointed.
 
DavidP said:
Steadman carefully chose his words: " . . . a single lens to
START LEARNING PHOTOGRAPHY with . . . . "

I think that's the key. Given that reason for picking the lens,
I'd have to agree.

Now, if your goal is to start shooting wildlife pictures, that's a
different story altogether.

If a person knows nothing (or very little) about what effects
controlling aperture and shutter speed has, then he really SHOULD
learn that, somehow. A 50/1.4 is a good lens to learn that with.
Click to expand...
David, as he often does makes a very good comment.

Steadman is addressing the beginning photographer (the one many on the forum complain about because they ask "stupid" what lens should I buy questions.)

He makes a broad statement about learning photography not a specific use. We can all find exceptions to Steadman's point of view, however I give him great credit to writing a lenghty well constructed post that I for one feel is a great addition to the Forum.
Mike Bauer
 
The 50mm f/1.4 & the 35mm f/2 were my first two Canon lenses (previously I always used Nikons). The USM in the 50mm is better than the AF motor in the 35mm f/2, but I use the 35mm for general photography much more often.

Regards,
CLTHRS
 
Not a good advice for the beginner, IMHO.

To begin with, I AM the one. Why someone buys an SLR instead of P&S? Simple: because he wants to change lenses, because he wants to have this flexibility. That means, he thinks about getting at least TWO lenses from the start, or buying one and another one shortly. That's the attractiveness of SLR - changing lenses.

I bought first 28-135IS and in a few days, 50 1.4. I thought, 50/1.4 will be for low light and ultimate sharpness. Guess what? 28-135 has been used 99.9% of the time, 50/1.4 - 0.1%. As I learned SLR, 28-135's almost 5x zoom offered me much more flexibility, while image stabilizer corrected my shake. f/3.5 provided excellent background blur when I wanted it. As a result, I shot tons of excellent pictures, I learned how wide-angle and tele photos look like and what I prefer more, it helped me to settle upon what focal range I need for my photography (and thus, decide on which other lenses to buy).

With 50/1.4 alone, I wouldn't know how 28mm or 135mm photo looks like, so I wouldn't know what next lens to buy... attempts to shoot portraits in low light at f/1.4 would have led me to soft pictures (as 50 is VERY soft at 1.4) and extremely shallow DOF (one eye in focus, and this is the only sharp part of picture... 1/10th of an inch DOF is not for the beginner!!) - which would lead to disappointment and thinking that the lens is defective... and hand shake will ruin many pictures...

Besides, beginners mostly shoot outdoors in daylight, or with on-camera flash indoors, so wide aperture is not an absolutely necessary thing.

50/1.4 creates too many obstacles on beginner's path... Did your parents teach you to walk by putting obstacles in your path, by making it harder than it already is? Zooming with your feet, lack of IS and shallow DOF wide open are such obstacles for a beginner photographer.

28-135IS is only $100 more expensive than 50/1.4. On tight budget, IMHO, it's a better choice.

But my final advice is not this. Hello, Mr. Beginner. You already paid $2K or so for a DSLR. In a couple of years or even sooner you will want to upgrade to newer, better DSLR. So that $2K is a history, it's like $3K you once paid for that 486DX computer 10 yrs ago... It will be gone. But if you invest $2-3K in good lenses, they will serve you for many years. So, go and buy 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L. This is an investment. It will pay you off by pictures you wouldn't regret. Learn to take great pictures with great lenses, and you will grow to the point when you will be able to utilize their potential, and not spend all over again after realizing that you outgrew those cheapo lenses.

Photo opportunities come and pass, it's better to shoot with best lenses available and not regret later.

Same for shooting in RAW vs JPEG. Shoot RAW. Later, you will not regret this. Better software is coming, your skills improve, and when you only shoot in JPEG, at some point you'll wish you've shot in RAW all these years.

This is the same point of view as regarding tripods - get the very best tripod, instead of buying cheap one, than realizing it's not steady enough, then another one, then another...

You get what you pay for.
 
Mishkin said:
With 50/1.4 alone, I wouldn't know how 28mm or 135mm photo looks
like, so I wouldn't know what next lens to buy... attempts to shoot
portraits in low light at f/1.4 would have led me to soft pictures
(as 50 is VERY soft at 1.4) and extremely shallow DOF (one eye in
focus, and this is the only sharp part of picture... 1/10th of an
inch DOF is not for the beginner!!) - which would lead to
disappointment and thinking that the lens is defective... and hand
shake will ruin many pictures...
Click to expand...
Without the 50/1.4, you'd never learn just how shallow the DOF is at f/1.4

You'd also never learn the wonders of using the 50/1.4 for handheld low-light shots. If you back up to a longer distance for the shot, the DOF isn't all that bad.
Mishkin said:
Besides, beginners mostly shoot outdoors in daylight, or with
on-camera flash indoors, so wide aperture is not an absolutely
necessary thing.
Click to expand...
Again, his post was directed more towards somebody wanting to LEARN PHOTOGRAPHY. Such a person might want to be able to experiment in low light photography, without flash.
Mishkin said:
50/1.4 creates too many obstacles on beginner's path... Did your
parents teach you to walk by putting obstacles in your path, by
making it harder than it already is? Zooming with your feet, lack
of IS and shallow DOF wide open are such obstacles for a beginner
photographer.
Click to expand...
"Zooming with your feet" is a very important thing to learn. You get a MUCH different picture (because of perspective) if you walk closer with the 50/1.4 than if you zoom in to 100mm with your 28-135.

If all you ever do is zoom, you may not notice this for a long time.

Yes, the things you mention can be considered "obstacles". But, without obstacles, it's harder to learn.

Good advice on RAW and tripods.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
If learning photography wasn't your primary goal, then the 50/1.4 probably wasn't the right initial lens choice.
Andrew Cawte said:
Quite right. I bought my D30 as a first SLR, having previously
owned an automatic APS zoom camera. I didn't want to 'learn
photography' as a primary goal, I wanted to take pictures with
better technical quality and without having to buy films all the
time.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
DavidP said:
Mishkin said:
With 50/1.4 alone, I wouldn't know how 28mm or 135mm photo looks
like, so I wouldn't know what next lens to buy... attempts to shoot
portraits in low light at f/1.4 would have led me to soft pictures
(as 50 is VERY soft at 1.4) and extremely shallow DOF (one eye in
focus, and this is the only sharp part of picture... 1/10th of an
inch DOF is not for the beginner!!) - which would lead to
disappointment and thinking that the lens is defective... and hand
shake will ruin many pictures...
Click to expand...
Without the 50/1.4, you'd never learn just how shallow the DOF is
at f/1.4

You'd also never learn the wonders of using the 50/1.4 for handheld
low-light shots. If you back up to a longer distance for the
shot, the DOF isn't all that bad.
DavidP #28649 said:
Besides, beginners mostly shoot outdoors in daylight, or with
on-camera flash indoors, so wide aperture is not an absolutely
necessary thing.
Click to expand...
Again, his post was directed more towards somebody wanting to LEARN
PHOTOGRAPHY. Such a person might want to be able to experiment in
low light photography, without flash.
DavidP #28649 said:
50/1.4 creates too many obstacles on beginner's path... Did your
parents teach you to walk by putting obstacles in your path, by
making it harder than it already is? Zooming with your feet, lack
of IS and shallow DOF wide open are such obstacles for a beginner
photographer.
Click to expand...
"Zooming with your feet" is a very important thing to learn. You
get a MUCH different picture (because of perspective) if you walk
closer with the 50/1.4 than if you zoom in to 100mm with your
28-135.

If all you ever do is zoom, you may not notice this for a long time.

Yes, the things you mention can be considered "obstacles". But,
without obstacles, it's harder to learn.

Good advice on RAW and tripods.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
 
Lee Rothman said:
as glowingly as you speak of the 50mm 1.4, and frankly I am more in
agreement with you than disagreement, it is NO "typical" L lens as
far as it's ultimate performance is concerned. It is not as
"perfect" a lens as you might insinuate. But with that said I would
whole heartedly support the idea of a person considering it as
their first lens. It isn't blindingly fast (due to the fact it does
NOT posess the true Ring USM autofocus motor). it is nice and
light, very sharp (but NOT without it's achilles heels if you're
really critical) It WILL do all you say as far as enabling one to
experience the depth of field differences available to them via the
excellent lower light performance vs. say a typical zoom. All in
all with some temperance I agree that the 50mm 1.4 is an excellent
"starter" lens for someone that wants to experience excellent
sharpness without the price tag usually associated with a lens of
that capability. In this world there are truly NO free lunches, but
you can get a very nice box lunch with this lens indeed. ;-)
Click to expand...
 
Adam-T said:
For most people, the FAR CHEAPER f1.8 (£79) is good enough - the
Mk1 metal mount version is made every bit as well as the 1.4 (used
about the same price as a new Mk2) and it's AFD motor (on my 1987
example) seems as fast as the Micro USM on the 1.4 - the Bokeh
isn't up to 1.4 standards, but it's a damn sharp lens for anywhere
near the price -

the Mk2 may look like it would be more at home squirting water than
taking pictures but optically is up there with the Mk1 - these are
the bargain lenses, the 1.4 costs about the same as a 28-135IS or
24-85 in the UK!.

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60.

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Click to expand...
 
David Pichevin said:
Another informative post that new DSLR owners will appreciate.

However, my humble opinion would be no to the 50mm 1.4 and yes to
the 50mm 1.8.

Of course, if you've got the money, why not, but as a beginner lens
for someone on a tight budget (purchase of only one lens possible)
I don't see any reason to go for the 1.4. Fast lens yes, but the
1.8 will do just as well. It will be very inexpensive and leave
some room for more later.

I started with a used D30, that I still have, and the 50mm 1.8
(that I rarely use now). I have used that combo for about 3 months
and indeed, it allowed me to really get a hold of that new thing
the DSLR was for me, coming from a consumer level camera with
slower lens and extra-large DOF. So much more creativity was
possible. I shot everything from animals (try to sneak up on birds
with a 50mm lens, quite a sport), to flowers, to people, to
landscapes, panoramas etc...working on composition and placement,
point of view etc...

Then I purchased the 28-135 IS and I have practically used only
that lens since last June. I think it is a fantastic lens, at a
great pice, that can handle mostly anything. It seems that I got a
sharp copy also, judging by what is said around here. If you are
interested in shooting quite a bit of everything then this is the
lens. Especially if you are a no-tripod type like I am.

And again, I shot animals (easier than with the 50mm), landscape,
panos, people, flowers, insects, buildings and was very satisfied
with the result. And when you are in the zoo's vivarium (no tripods
in there), shooting a lizard hand-held through the glass at ISO 800
and a shutter speed of 1/13s and enough DOF, you're really happy
with the lens :)

Now, I ordered a 70-200 F/4L as the next step after owning the D30
for about 8 months (and probably a little close-up filter soon to
fit one of those lenses, probably the 28-135, and open up some more
possibilities for cheap). The 28-135, while not a macro lens, can
go fairly close and give you some good close-ups. gotta get used to
the trick of getting as close as possible while not getting closer
than the lens can handle :)

My own little experince with this.

David.

--
Canon D30
My photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/davidp
Click to expand...
 
DavidP said:
If a person strictly wants to learn, I think the 50/1.4 makes an
excellent choice. If they have a larger budget, and want a more
"normal" lens, then the 35/1.4 is an excellent choice. If they
have a much smaller budget, then the 50/1.8 is definitely the way
to go.

The 28-135 is still my recommendation for the ultimate
point/n/shoot lens. With that and a 50/1.8, one can both learn
photography and have a good lens to put on the camera and have
about the same focal range that they had with the old point/n/shoot
that they used to carry around. With the added benefit of IS.
Brian Kennedy said:
A good beginners lens kit should start with either a fixed 50 or 35
or a zoom in the normal range, like a 28-135 or 28-105, IMO. Later,
add a prime long lens and either a wide angle prime or zoom, and
you have a kit that can pretty much shoot everything.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
 
Brian Kennedy said:
Jim Kelly said:
One thing that gives my f4 lens some help is having iso 1000 and
for many who don't print much and post to the net primarily - noise
is dramatically reduced when image is resized for the net.
Click to expand...
Yowza! f/4 is a fast lens. Don't be intimidated by f/2.8 zooms.
You're only missing out on a stop. Unless you are shooting in
very low light, you shouldn't need ISO 1000 too often!
Member said:
I am no expert but I would never buy a 50f1.4 primarily because it
does not have ring usm.
Click to expand...
I think you should try it before you knock it. Maybe this is
perpetuation of an internet or DPR myth or snobbery ;-). The 50/1.4
is just another USM design. It focuses quickly and silently, just
like other USM lenses.
Member said:
My next lens will likely be a Canon 20f2.8.
Click to expand...
A terrific wide angle lens. Your current lens choices are lacking
on the wide side.
Member said:
If I had been able to afford a 1D - I would have bought a
28-70Lf2.8 $1100 and a 70-200Lf2.8 $1100 without a doubt due to its
low noise at high iso inherent capabilites.
Click to expand...
Both good lenses. The 28-70 is my favorite. Your 70-200/4 is just
as good, lighter, and cheaper than the f/2.8 zoom.

In any event, I agree with Steadman, despite the knocks he's taken
for posting what he posted. A 50/1.4 is a terrific first lens
choice, and will open the eyes of novice photographers as to what
they've been missing ;-). Also, I strongly agree that "L" lenses
are too heavily promoted among the equipment-happy here. Most of
the photos posted here could just as easily have been shot with a
28-300; few would ever notice a difference.

A good beginners lens kit should start with either a fixed 50 or 35
or a zoom in the normal range, like a 28-135 or 28-105, IMO. Later,
add a prime long lens and either a wide angle prime or zoom, and
you have a kit that can pretty much shoot everything.

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/
Click to expand...
 
Your comments, while very compelling and logical, leave me unconvinced. Personally, I highly recommend the 28-70 (or 24-70) f/2.8L lens as a first lens. Provides versatilty and reasonably fast speed. I have no particular interest in natural low-light photogtaphy, and suggest that many others feel the same way. Of course, that's not to say that I don't appreciate the odd natural low-light quality image. Indeed, I do. It's just that I prefer my subjects to be well lit, be it natural or artificial lighting. My 50mm f/1.4 has been on my D30 less than half a dozen times and only once on my 1D. It's focal length is too restrictive for me. That said; I believe your efforts in attempting to educate those people new to digital SLR photography is admirable. Please, keep up the good work.

Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
 
Hello,

You raise some interesting points and I empathize with your positions and your experiences as described.

However,I think the greatest obstacles to learning (photography) are (not in any particular order or ranking):

1. lack of an open mind (preconceived notions, lack of originality)

2. lack of experience with and understanding how aperture affects DOF and light capture

3. dependence on "slow" zooms (hard to explain succinctly here)

4. Use of slow lenses that necessitate slow shutter speeds (making the shot prone to shake blur)

5. Dependence upon on-camera flash lighting (creates a single 'look')

6. Blaming the equipment rather than looking at the photographer's skills and techniques.

7. Expecting the camera to "do it all" for the image to be good.

8. Lack of understanding how different Focal Lengths affects the 'look' of an image.

I could go on...but will stop here.

Anyway, I thank you for your contribution to the thread. It was interesting to read and a different POV.

Sincerely,

Steadman
 
Mishkin said:
Not a good advice for the beginner, IMHO.

To begin with, I AM the one. Why someone buys an SLR instead of
P&S? Simple: because he wants to change lenses, because he wants to
have this flexibility. That means, he thinks about getting at least
TWO lenses from the start, or buying one and another one shortly.
That's the attractiveness of SLR - changing lenses.

I bought first 28-135IS and in a few days, 50 1.4. I thought,
50/1.4 will be for low light and ultimate sharpness. Guess what?
28-135 has been used 99.9% of the time, 50/1.4 - 0.1%. As I learned
SLR, 28-135's almost 5x zoom offered me much more flexibility,
while image stabilizer corrected my shake. f/3.5 provided excellent
background blur when I wanted it. As a result, I shot tons of
excellent pictures, I learned how wide-angle and tele photos look
like and what I prefer more, it helped me to settle upon what focal
range I need for my photography (and thus, decide on which other
lenses to buy).

With 50/1.4 alone, I wouldn't know how 28mm or 135mm photo looks
like, so I wouldn't know what next lens to buy... attempts to shoot
portraits in low light at f/1.4 would have led me to soft pictures
(as 50 is VERY soft at 1.4) and extremely shallow DOF (one eye in
focus, and this is the only sharp part of picture... 1/10th of an
inch DOF is not for the beginner!!) - which would lead to
disappointment and thinking that the lens is defective... and hand
shake will ruin many pictures...

Besides, beginners mostly shoot outdoors in daylight, or with
on-camera flash indoors, so wide aperture is not an absolutely
necessary thing.

50/1.4 creates too many obstacles on beginner's path... Did your
parents teach you to walk by putting obstacles in your path, by
making it harder than it already is? Zooming with your feet, lack
of IS and shallow DOF wide open are such obstacles for a beginner
photographer.

28-135IS is only $100 more expensive than 50/1.4. On tight budget,
IMHO, it's a better choice.

But my final advice is not this. Hello, Mr. Beginner. You already
paid $2K or so for a DSLR. In a couple of years or even sooner you
will want to upgrade to newer, better DSLR. So that $2K is a
history, it's like $3K you once paid for that 486DX computer 10 yrs
ago... It will be gone. But if you invest $2-3K in good lenses,
they will serve you for many years. So, go and buy 24-70 2.8L and
70-200 2.8L. This is an investment. It will pay you off by pictures
you wouldn't regret. Learn to take great pictures with great
lenses, and you will grow to the point when you will be able to
utilize their potential, and not spend all over again after
realizing that you outgrew those cheapo lenses.

Photo opportunities come and pass, it's better to shoot with best
lenses available and not regret later.

Same for shooting in RAW vs JPEG. Shoot RAW. Later, you will not
regret this. Better software is coming, your skills improve, and
when you only shoot in JPEG, at some point you'll wish you've shot
in RAW all these years.

This is the same point of view as regarding tripods - get the very
best tripod, instead of buying cheap one, than realizing it's not
steady enough, then another one, then another...

You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
--
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
 
I understand his point about learning DOF, however, f/1.4 is not absolutely necessary for a beginner to learn DOF. Even with f/5.6 the beginner will quickly learn DOF, there is no need to make it SO shallow that it's almost impossible to make a nice portrait.

Point about low light... yes, 50/1.4 will make wonders, but with so shallow DOF the pics will not look nice. Use higher ISO with slower lens, it's that simple. Good enough for a beginner. Also, low light with slower lens will encourage to learn flash photography, which is (E-TTL) often very confusing for beginners.

Zooming with your feet... if you want to lean that, the solution is simple: put a duct tape over the zoom ring and consider your lens as a prime. There is no reason to restrict the photographer to teach him. You can teach kid basic math AND use calculator.

IMHO learning should be an enjoyable experience, not a hurdle. That's why the beginner should begin with EASY tools first and then more tough, like overcoming obstacles of low light, zooming with feet to change perspective, or achieving extremely shallow DOF.

For a beginner, 28-135IS is a better choice, 50/1.4 could be a second lens, but for the beginner with some $$ and a head on shoulders, buying 28(24)-70L and 70-200L from the very beginning is the way to go, since with these lenses, he can throw away thoughts "what if I had a better lens?" and concentrate on technique, and again, save money in the long run since he won't need to sell cheap "beginner" lenses.
DavidP said:
Mishkin said:
With 50/1.4 alone, I wouldn't know how 28mm or 135mm photo looks
like, so I wouldn't know what next lens to buy... attempts to shoot
portraits in low light at f/1.4 would have led me to soft pictures
(as 50 is VERY soft at 1.4) and extremely shallow DOF (one eye in
focus, and this is the only sharp part of picture... 1/10th of an
inch DOF is not for the beginner!!) - which would lead to
disappointment and thinking that the lens is defective... and hand
shake will ruin many pictures...
Click to expand...
Without the 50/1.4, you'd never learn just how shallow the DOF is
at f/1.4

You'd also never learn the wonders of using the 50/1.4 for handheld
low-light shots. If you back up to a longer distance for the
shot, the DOF isn't all that bad.
DavidP #28649 said:
Besides, beginners mostly shoot outdoors in daylight, or with
on-camera flash indoors, so wide aperture is not an absolutely
necessary thing.
Click to expand...
Again, his post was directed more towards somebody wanting to LEARN
PHOTOGRAPHY. Such a person might want to be able to experiment in
low light photography, without flash.
DavidP #28649 said:
50/1.4 creates too many obstacles on beginner's path... Did your
parents teach you to walk by putting obstacles in your path, by
making it harder than it already is? Zooming with your feet, lack
of IS and shallow DOF wide open are such obstacles for a beginner
photographer.
Click to expand...
"Zooming with your feet" is a very important thing to learn. You
get a MUCH different picture (because of perspective) if you walk
closer with the 50/1.4 than if you zoom in to 100mm with your
28-135.

If all you ever do is zoom, you may not notice this for a long time.

Yes, the things you mention can be considered "obstacles". But,
without obstacles, it's harder to learn.

Good advice on RAW and tripods.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
 
Mishkin said:
I understand his point about learning DOF, however, f/1.4 is not
absolutely necessary for a beginner to learn DOF. Even with f/5.6
the beginner will quickly learn DOF, there is no need to make it SO
shallow that it's almost impossible to make a nice portrait.
Click to expand...
Few things are "absolute necessities" to learn. Believe it or not, some people actually DO prefer f/1.4 for portraits. I personally have never cared for it. But without a f/1.4 lens, one can't experience it for himself. Granted, he doesn't have to learn from his OWN experience . . . though doing so often makes it more memorable.
Mishkin said:
Point about low light... yes, 50/1.4 will make wonders, but with so
shallow DOF the pics will not look nice. Use higher ISO with slower
lens, it's that simple. Good enough for a beginner. Also, low light
with slower lens will encourage to learn flash photography, which
is (E-TTL) often very confusing for beginners.
Click to expand...
These photos just wouldn't be possible without a 50/1.4 (AND high ISO):





Yes, you could always use flash for these. (Well, not always - there are often stated restrictions, as well as purely common courtesy). But, the look would be completely different. Without a fast lens, you'd never know that difference from your own shots.
Mishkin said:
Zooming with your feet... if you want to lean that, the solution is
simple: put a duct tape over the zoom ring and consider your lens
as a prime. There is no reason to restrict the photographer to
teach him. You can teach kid basic math AND use calculator.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it could be done. A lot of people don't have the discipline to avoid that zoom ring, though. Kinda like a lot of kids don't have the discipline to turn off the calculator and actually LEARN something. (Try to get change from today's teenagers sometime without letting them use the cash register).
Mishkin said:
IMHO learning should be an enjoyable experience, not a hurdle.
That's why the beginner should begin with EASY tools first and then
more tough, like overcoming obstacles of low light, zooming with
feet to change perspective, or achieving extremely shallow DOF.
Click to expand...
Sure it should be enjoyable. But you won't learn low light without trying it. You won't learn about extremely shallow DOF without trying it. You won't learn perspective without moving your feet.

The 50/1.4 IS an easy tool to learn with. Easier than the 28-135 IS, IMO. It may not be easier to get the shots you want with that lens, though. Just depends on what shots you're after.
Mishkin said:
For a beginner, 28-135IS is a better choice, 50/1.4 could be a
second lens, but for the beginner with some $$ and a head on
shoulders, buying 28(24)-70L and 70-200L from the very beginning is
the way to go, since with these lenses, he can throw away thoughts
"what if I had a better lens?" and concentrate on technique, and
again, save money in the long run since he won't need to sell cheap
"beginner" lenses.
Click to expand...
Personally, I recommend a beginner get BOTH lenses. Or if $ are a real problem, then get the 50/1.8 instead of the f/1.4 version.

Why? This gives him a good "learning lens", AND a lens that will let him go out and "have fun" being able to shoot as if he still has a point/n/shoot.

Now, if this "beginner" has some very specific goals (sports, macro, concert, wildlife), then my recommendations would change.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
The conventional wisdom when I was learning was that there were two important focal lengths to master: 50mm and 35mm. 50mm shows in a frame about what one eye sees, 35mm shows about what two eyes see. Of course with all but the new full frame DSLR's, these views will be cropped quite a bit from their traditional sizes.

I think that the low light arguement is compelling. I also think that the quality argument is compelling for new DSLR photographers. First, digital cameras are perfect for low light conditions. I know that most consumer grade point and shoot digital cameras are not particularly fast, but they are perfectly set up to let you work very close to their limits. By offering instant feedback you can adjust your technique to pull good images out of situations that are right at the edge of what your equipment can do. With film, you have to wait for processing to see if you did it right. DSLR's give you that control and SLR level light gathering capacity. Moving from a point and shoot digital to a DSLR even after 20 years of film photography produced, if not a "Wow!", at least a "Yeah!".

Second, lens quality is important. I know people who shoot film for years and never look at an image at a size larger than 4x6 or what ever the photoprocessor makes. With digital and a reasonable printer, you can make pretty good 8x10's with very little trouble. I've made more 8x10's since I started with digital than I did the entire time I shot film. If you're going to go to 8x10 you need resolution (pixels) and a sharp lens. They don't have to be L-series glass, although the L series lenses test well. I picked up a 85mm f1,8 usm non-L lens and it does very nicely. Photodo rates it above many of the L-series lenses.

To zoom or not to zoom? I suppose no one can resist it. I got the 28-135 USM IS lens. It's a good lens, I use it a lot. I also use my 85mm lens. The 28-135 is not as flexible as it seems. It's not particularly sharp when open wider than about F8, but I do love the IS capability. So it's good outdoors, and with flash. When the light drops, the 85mm 1.8 or the 200m 2.8 L goes on. Another good argument for zoom is travel. When you travel, carrying a bunch of lenses is harder.

Good advice IMHO.
j
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top