Lens Selection

[corvus]

Hoping for some lens help.

I have always been a point and shoot girl because until now I've always been on the go. I mostly only took photos of cool stuff I saw in the field and considering I spent a lot of time in the field crashing through the bush, climbing rock faces, sliding down slippery river banks, and tramping through swamps at night, I just couldn't really be taking good cameras with me.

So now I've got myself out of all that crazy field work and have become painfully aware of how much I hate my point and shoot. It's terrible in low light, the flash is too bright and positioned too far from the lens, and it just seems incapable of actually taking a photo when I hit the shutter button. Usually takes about an extra second. So I dragged OH's Canon 300D out and have started playing around with that. He has one lens for it, which is a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3. We are soon going on a trip up through the centre of Australia, so I had decided I was going to buy a 17-50mm f2.8 lens, and I figured a Canon 50mm f1.8 lens because everyone says they are super useful, and then I was thinking maybe a 90mm macro lens, or a nice telephoto. I like taking photos of nature, but I don't have a favourite bit of it, really. I love landscapes, I love little details, and I love critters that won't let me get close to them. I would probably say I love the last one best, and I have a lot of crappy photos of birds in the distance. I keep persisting with it even though I rarely get anywhere with a point and shoot.

Today I discovered that the lens I have has a whole lot of fungus in it. Bad enough to show up quite prominently in a lot of shots. Considering I was finding the lens pretty slow and difficult in low light, I am thinking it might be better to just write this lens off and buy a replacement that is better suited to me?

Advice would be much appreciated. I'm not really sure what I'm doing. I very much know what I will be taking photos of because it's what I've always been taking photos of: dogs at play, wildlife, pretty plants and fungus and macroinvertebrates, and gorgeous landscapes.

[rubiton]

I would not be putting it anywhere near a camera and then would be taking it to a repair place to see if its worth repairing or better to buy a new lens. You dont want to introduce fugus into the camera (because that would mean a repair or replace).

[Rappie]

Depending on how brave you are, how much you want to keep the lens and how much money you want to spend on it .... my OH has bought several lenses off ebay that have ended up having fungus in them and he's carefully dismantled them, cleaned them and put them back together.

I'm no real help with lenses, a) because we have Pentax gear and b) because I haven't really used any enough to really know what I'm doing We have a 77mm f1.8 which is absolutely beautiful for portraits, but that doesn't help you on a field trip. When we went to New Caledonia, OH and I took 3 lenses between us. I had a 40mm f2.8 which, although it had some limitations performed admirably for both landscapes and almost but not quite macro. OH has since bought me a 35mm macro (1:1) Like I said, this probably doesn't help you, but the prime lenses are the ones we use most often.

[redangel]

Slightly OT but how does a fungus affected lens affect pictures? ie what does the result look like? I am hesitant to go into humid areas with my camera (like butterfly house) for fear of this problem?

[corvus]

On the photos I've taken, the fungus shows up mostly at long focal lengths or when the background is light. It looks like a grey tree root crawling into the photo and seems to also cause some slight lens flaring where the fungus itself isn't very visible? It's pretty awful, but I understand it takes a while to get that bad. Considering the lens is about 7 years old and is rarely used, it's not all that surprising.

Thanks Rappie, that does help as it happens. I've been trying to decide whether to replace the fungus lens with another zoom or just get primes. I guess a zoom is pretty useful, but realistically I only use it when I'm too lazy to get closer or farther from the dogs when they are hooning around. I think I might go with primes and see how it goes. The zoom is still usable in some conditions as long as I don't use it at full length.

[Kirislin]

On the photos I've taken, the fungus shows up mostly at long focal lengths or when the background is light. It looks like a grey tree root crawling into the photo and seems to also cause some slight lens flaring where the fungus itself isn't very visible? It's pretty awful, but I understand it takes a while to get that bad. Considering the lens is about 7 years old and is rarely used, it's not all that surprising.

Thanks Rappie, that does help as it happens. I've been trying to decide whether to replace the fungus lens with another zoom or just get primes. I guess a zoom is pretty useful, but realistically I only use it when I'm too lazy to get closer or farther from the dogs when they are hooning around. I think I might go with primes and see how it goes. The zoom is still usable in some conditions as long as I don't use it at full length.

Is this the lens with the fungus? dont put it on your camera! it will spread the fungus to the camera and to all your other lenses, just think STD's with people.

[kja]

First, what is your realistic budget for glass?

Second, how much glass do you seriously want to take? Each lens takes up room and adds weight and the more you take the less you'll use.

Third, what is your absolute priority - versatility or specific types of shots. List the specifics.

With those three things, I (and others) can narrow your list down a lot!

Reading your first post, you're looking at like 5 or 6 lenses and that's just too many for a holiday where photo isn't the focus (ba da bum)!

[corvus]

Too late, the fungus lens has been on the camera for years.

Kja, I would say I like versatility (who doesn't!), but I think if I had to choose versatility over better quality shots of specific types, I'd choose the latter. Here are the types of things I want to take shots of in order of priority:

* The doggies, obviously. I love action shots when they are playing. Mid-leap is awesome. They will play literally anywhere, on the couch to up and down a beach.

* Landscapes. I love those wide lens landscape shots where everything is crystal clear and it looks like you can walk right into the photo. I am a bit weird. I also like to take photos of random patches of bush or forest. I like to imagine weird little critters in there. Sometimes I even draw them in. OH likes taking pictures of clouds.

* Wildlife. I am a birder at heart and cannot walk past a bird without trying to photograph it. I've never had a camera with anything less than 10x optical zoom because at least half my photos are taken at 300mm. Some of them even turn out! I have steady hands from years of looking through 10x binos.

* Macro for insects and other little critters. I definitely like taking photos of fungus. That's pretty easy at the moment with the fungus lens! I like closeups of things like feet or eyes, and scales, feathers and fur in minute detail make me happy.

ETA I spoke to someone at the camera service centre in Elizabeth St about the fungus and they said there's no way to tell how much it would cost to clean it without looking at it and that costs $45, which gets deducted from the cleaning price if you go ahead with it. They also said there's no reason to be concerned about the fungus spreading to the camera body unless there's evidence that it is there, which doesn't seem like there is. From what I know about fungus, the spores are everywhere, literally everywhere. But they need the right conditions to grow.

Edited July 20, 2010 by corvus

[kja]

Budget?

[corvus]

Oh right, budget.

That's a hard one. I just got my leave from my last job paid out, and it was around 2 grand. So I guess I've got that much to play with at least.

[kja]

All rounders:

Canon 24-105L - this is just a fabulous walk around lens.

Canon 70-200*

Sigma 18-200 - again, a great walk around lens with a great wide end. For a one lens solution, I'd be looking here and then adding specialty lenses if I wanted something specific.

Sigma 17-70 macro

You'll have to look to see which length suits you and if you like the other things each offers (like the "macro" of the shorter Sigma, for instance)

*70 is pretty damned long for a start focal length, but whap a 1.4 TC on this thing to get your reach for birding etc and it's a good option to consider. I'd pair it with the Sigma 17-70 or similar for a two lens set-up.

A dedicated macro will add weight to your bag and not be as versatile. You'll end up changing lenses a lot and you may not be comfortable doing that outside on the go. The 60mm Canon rocks socks, is the bees knees - but you have to get pretty close. The 100 (old version, I probably wouldn't spring for the new version) Canon macro is also awesome. Both are more than capable for shooting portraits. The 100 is kinda hard to hand hold at slow shutters combined with wide apertures and it's a bit of a beast.

Long lens:

Canon 100-400L

I have no idea how much these lenses are so you'll have to source that yourself, but they are the ones I'd start looking at.

[corvus]

Thanks kja.

I am thinking if I got a macro I probably wouldn't take it on holiday. Holidays would be the wide angle and a long lens. Seriously, that's all I take photos of on holidays. Oh wait, inevitably I find a lizard that I need to photograph. And I've just realised we are going to Kakadu where we will inevitably find a myriad of small reptiles, insects and frogs that I will want to photograph. Gah! Maybe I just keep the point and shoot handy for a walk around camera. It takes some nice photos as long as the light is good and nothing is moving. And there are no twigs in the way to confuse it.

[kja]

LOL I adore my baby Canon SD1200 and have made it do things it was not meant to do And I'd never wander around without it.

Any of those walk arounds will be able to do the lizard thing and remember that you can shoot to crop - you won't go to photographer hell if you do And don't be afraid to use a lens for something other than you think it should be used for.

I only had a second to grab this shot and I had the 70-200 on, so I went with what I had. Not cropped and these guys are smaller than lizards

The downside to this lens is that it's big and heavy. The Sigma 18-200s are nice and small and light and I've done grasshoppers with it before...

Edited July 20, 2010 by kja

[corvus]

Okay, the 70-200 with a TC makes sense. Should I go for f4 with IS or f2.8 without IS?

[Linda K]

an extender will lose you 2 stops, so would be going the 2.8.

When I went landscape photographing, would have a backpack with all the camera gear, and went with the 70-200, the 16-35, and the 100 macro. With these I had most things covered, and as Kristin said, would make do otherwise. Another thing if you do not already have it, esp if you want to get the tack sharp all the way through shots (which means shooting at least F16, and ideally ISO 100), is a tripod. If you are walking around, a good lightweight one is a must (I have a carbon fibre one that can support about 5kg), but is so light weight, along with a pistol grip tripod head. the downside is that these are not cheap, but I would not be shooting without the tripod - it is the must for low light / sunrise / sunset shots, and with the right backpack, it can attach to the side, so you aren't carrying the weight in your hands all the time.

[kja]

Find a used 70-200 2.8 IS, imho. here's one from the other day at POTN

[corvus]

Find a used 70-200 2.8 IS, imho.

Ha! Done! I found a pro photographer locally that was selling one and picked it up this morning. It is quite heavy, but I think I'll get used to it soon enough. Compared to carrying 4 cage traps through the bush, it's a breeze! It takes very nice photos. I can't wait until I actually know how to get the most out of it. I'm already in love with it. Takes such pretty, sharp images.

[kja]

Glad you love it! I love mine, too