Professional Web Applications Themes

Canon EOS 10D Lens ?? - Photography

Hey guys, thanks for the advice........I'm going with the Canon EOS 10D. I'm pretty sure the $1,500 price tag is just for the body. Can anyone recommend a decent lens for it? Maybe something from 28 - 100 ? Does not have to be a Canon lens, just a really good one that does not cost an arm & leg. I had to really convince my wife that we needed a new camera :) Thanks, Ron...

  1. #1

    Default Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    Hey guys, thanks for the advice........I'm going with the Canon EOS
    10D. I'm pretty sure the $1,500 price tag is just for the body. Can
    anyone recommend a decent lens for it? Maybe something from 28 - 100
    ? Does not have to be a Canon lens, just a really good one that does
    not cost an arm & leg. I had to really convince my wife that we
    needed a new camera :)

    Thanks, Ron
    Ron Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    Just keep in mind that you need to multiply 1.6 to the effective focal
    length to understand what you're getting in focal length...

    example:

    28-100mm = 45-180mm (aperture stays the same...)

    Paul
    //////////////



    "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:36k0jvss294bq5gvvnp380778622h2tj3q4ax.com...
    > Hey guys, thanks for the advice........I'm going with the Canon EOS
    > 10D. I'm pretty sure the $1,500 price tag is just for the body. Can
    > anyone recommend a decent lens for it? Maybe something from 28 - 100
    > ? Does not have to be a Canon lens, just a really good one that does
    > not cost an arm & leg. I had to really convince my wife that we
    > needed a new camera :)
    >
    > Thanks, Ron

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003


    Paul Brecht Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    Paul, I'm not trying to have a "techie -fest" with you or anyone. And I
    wasn't meaning to offend you. But, the field of view being changed because
    the CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm film frame, does not equate to an
    increase in focal length. It doesn't magnify the image, it crops it.
    And no, if you purchase a 15mm lense, on a 35mm film camera it will have
    it's entire field of view. Used on the 10D, it will be narrower than the
    35mm camera. But, it is still a 15mm lense.
    It just won't provide the same coverage on a 10D as it would on a regular
    35mm SLR.
    It's too bad companies like Canon and Nikon etc. don't publish the
    difference in Field of View with a given lense when used with a film SLR or
    a Digital SLR. That would , in my opinion, be much better. Maybe they
    should instead publish the actual Field of View angles for a given lense
    with used with film or digital cameras. That way it would be clear what a
    person was going to get , with whatever camera they used it on.
    Well, enough of this, I didn't mean to get carried away with this. I just
    think that saying that it magnifies the image is wrong and mis-leading.
    james

    "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    news:j1idnbBxf4RKjLKiXTWJiQgiganews.com...
    > I know that although you're right, it's not right to say that you can get
    > the wide angle of a 15mm lens & that the lens still acts like a 15mm...
    >
    > Because the field of view (FOV) changes, it responds more like one at a
    1.58
    > magnification. We can have a techie -fest, but I'm trying to explain
    to
    > someone that would easier understand it this way...
    >
    > That's why B&H, Adorama & such reason this way as well...
    >
    > Paul
    > ////////////
    >
    >
    > "james" <jjames700earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:JQDXa.547$Q63.28209newsread2.prod.itd.earthl ink.net...
    > > Inline:
    > > "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    > > news:vPycnZCprPmqm7KiXTWJkAgiganews.com...
    > > > Just keep in mind that you need to multiply 1.6 to the effective focal
    > > > length to understand what you're getting in focal length...
    > > >
    > > > example:
    > > >
    > > > 28-100mm = 45-180mm (aperture stays the same...)
    > > >
    > > > Paul
    > > > //////////////
    > >
    > > The Focal Length stays the same too. It's only the Field of View that
    > gets
    > > changed. (the area that the lense sees)
    > > At 28mm then 10D will have the same Field of View as a 45mm Lense. And
    at
    > > 100mm it will have the same Field of View as a 160mm lense would have.
    > But,
    > > the actual Focal Length does not change.
    > > The reason being that at the focuse point the CMOS sensor(being smaller)
    > > will only see the middle part of the image being focused on it using a
    > lense
    > > designed for 35mm Film cameras.
    > > It is the same as cropping an image in Photoshop. The image is no
    larger,
    > > unless you enlarge the cropped image.
    > > Too many people think the conversion that is mentioned( most say 1.6 for
    > the
    > > Canon Sensor, but, if I remember correctly it's 1.58 according to Canon)
    > > somehow causes the lense to become a longer lense( increased focal
    length)
    > > which is not so. It makes a newbie think that they are somehow getting
    a
    > > longer , more powerful lense even though they are buying one with a
    > smaller
    > > focal length. The only way to increase the focal length of any given
    > lense
    > > is to use
    > > an extender tube or a tele converter like a 2X tele converter. Which
    > works
    > > pretty good, but, can cause the Auto Focuse to be a bit slower.
    > > james
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:36k0jvss294bq5gvvnp380778622h2tj3q4ax.com...
    > > > > Hey guys, thanks for the advice........I'm going with the Canon EOS
    > > > > 10D. I'm pretty sure the $1,500 price tag is just for the body.
    Can
    > > > > anyone recommend a decent lens for it? Maybe something from 28 -
    100
    > > > > ? Does not have to be a Canon lens, just a really good one that
    does
    > > > > not cost an arm & leg. I had to really convince my wife that we
    > > > > needed a new camera :)
    > > > >
    > > > > Thanks, Ron
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > ---
    > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > > > Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003
    >
    >
    >

    james Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    When I got mine, I got a 512MB memory card and the Canon 20-35 and
    28-200 lenses. They're not the expensive "L" series but I've been
    quite pleased with their performance. And when you factor in the 1.6X
    thing, they give me pretty much from the equivalent of 32mm on up.
    Randall Ainsworth Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    James,

    No offense - point taken...

    I just think the reason they (& I) explain it that way is because people
    understand zoom magnification more so than the degree of angle. That's all I
    was saying. The term "techie -fest" was just an off the cuff, one liner
    meant in sarcasm - nothing personal...

    Regards,
    Paul
    /////////////
    "james" <jjames700earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:KREXa.676$Q63.34368newsread2.prod.itd.earthl ink.net...
    > Paul, I'm not trying to have a "techie -fest" with you or anyone. And
    I
    > wasn't meaning to offend you. But, the field of view being changed
    because
    > the CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm film frame, does not equate to an
    > increase in focal length. It doesn't magnify the image, it crops it.
    > And no, if you purchase a 15mm lense, on a 35mm film camera it will have
    > it's entire field of view. Used on the 10D, it will be narrower than the
    > 35mm camera. But, it is still a 15mm lense.
    > It just won't provide the same coverage on a 10D as it would on a regular
    > 35mm SLR.
    > It's too bad companies like Canon and Nikon etc. don't publish the
    > difference in Field of View with a given lense when used with a film SLR
    or
    > a Digital SLR. That would , in my opinion, be much better. Maybe they
    > should instead publish the actual Field of View angles for a given lense
    > with used with film or digital cameras. That way it would be clear what a
    > person was going to get , with whatever camera they used it on.
    > Well, enough of this, I didn't mean to get carried away with this. I just
    > think that saying that it magnifies the image is wrong and mis-leading.
    > james
    >
    > "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    > news:j1idnbBxf4RKjLKiXTWJiQgiganews.com...
    > > I know that although you're right, it's not right to say that you can
    get
    > > the wide angle of a 15mm lens & that the lens still acts like a 15mm...
    > >
    > > Because the field of view (FOV) changes, it responds more like one at a
    > 1.58
    > > magnification. We can have a techie -fest, but I'm trying to explain
    > to
    > > someone that would easier understand it this way...
    > >
    > > That's why B&H, Adorama & such reason this way as well...
    > >
    > > Paul
    > > ////////////
    > >
    > >
    > > "james" <jjames700earthlink.net> wrote in message
    > > news:JQDXa.547$Q63.28209newsread2.prod.itd.earthl ink.net...
    > > > Inline:
    > > > "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:vPycnZCprPmqm7KiXTWJkAgiganews.com...
    > > > > Just keep in mind that you need to multiply 1.6 to the effective
    focal
    > > > > length to understand what you're getting in focal length...
    > > > >
    > > > > example:
    > > > >
    > > > > 28-100mm = 45-180mm (aperture stays the same...)
    > > > >
    > > > > Paul
    > > > > //////////////
    > > >
    > > > The Focal Length stays the same too. It's only the Field of View that
    > > gets
    > > > changed. (the area that the lense sees)
    > > > At 28mm then 10D will have the same Field of View as a 45mm Lense.
    And
    > at
    > > > 100mm it will have the same Field of View as a 160mm lense would have.
    > > But,
    > > > the actual Focal Length does not change.
    > > > The reason being that at the focuse point the CMOS sensor(being
    smaller)
    > > > will only see the middle part of the image being focused on it using a
    > > lense
    > > > designed for 35mm Film cameras.
    > > > It is the same as cropping an image in Photoshop. The image is no
    > larger,
    > > > unless you enlarge the cropped image.
    > > > Too many people think the conversion that is mentioned( most say 1.6
    for
    > > the
    > > > Canon Sensor, but, if I remember correctly it's 1.58 according to
    Canon)
    > > > somehow causes the lense to become a longer lense( increased focal
    > length)
    > > > which is not so. It makes a newbie think that they are somehow
    getting
    > a
    > > > longer , more powerful lense even though they are buying one with a
    > > smaller
    > > > focal length. The only way to increase the focal length of any given
    > > lense
    > > > is to use
    > > > an extender tube or a tele converter like a 2X tele converter. Which
    > > works
    > > > pretty good, but, can cause the Auto Focuse to be a bit slower.
    > > > james
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    > > > > news:36k0jvss294bq5gvvnp380778622h2tj3q4ax.com...
    > > > > > Hey guys, thanks for the advice........I'm going with the Canon
    EOS
    > > > > > 10D. I'm pretty sure the $1,500 price tag is just for the body.
    > Can
    > > > > > anyone recommend a decent lens for it? Maybe something from 28 -
    > 100
    > > > > > ? Does not have to be a Canon lens, just a really good one that
    > does
    > > > > > not cost an arm & leg. I had to really convince my wife that we
    > > > > > needed a new camera :)
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Thanks, Ron
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > ---
    > > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > > > > Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---
    > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > > Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003


    Paul Brecht Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    I got to thinking (hmmm..... smell something burning???)

    Focal length really doesn't equal magnification either. I have a 300mm lens
    that is only capable of a 1:6 magnification while I have a 90mm that gets
    1:1...

    Paul
    ///////////////

    "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    news:lIednblPTcE_v7KiU-KYgwgiganews.com...
    > James,
    >
    > No offense - point taken...
    >
    > I just think the reason they (& I) explain it that way is because people
    > understand zoom magnification more so than the degree of angle. That's all
    I
    > was saying. The term "techie -fest" was just an off the cuff, one
    liner
    > meant in sarcasm - nothing personal...
    >
    > Regards,
    > Paul
    > /////////////
    >> > >
    > >
    > >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003


    Paul Brecht Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    I know. Having used a Sony Mavica FD-91 with 14X (supposed to be equal to
    512mm!!) it kind of bums me out to find out that the EF 75mm-300mm USM lense
    I put on layaway is only equal to a 6X in terms equal to a telescope. I
    have been thinking about writing a little program that allows someone to
    plug in their lense's mm rating and have it spit out the magnification
    factor. Also, to compute the angle of view for different lenses , depending
    on what kind of body (film or digital) it is mounted on. That might make a
    good little shareware or freeware utility. I'm still working on my Canon
    RAW converter program. Using the Canon Software Developer's Kit, examples,
    it is slow. But, I think I have found a couple of ways to speed it up.
    (at least faster than Canon's converter).
    james

    "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    news:aaKcnYoEqrfEurKiU-KYgggiganews.com...
    > I got to thinking (hmmm..... smell something burning???)
    >
    > Focal length really doesn't equal magnification either. I have a 300mm
    lens
    > that is only capable of a 1:6 magnification while I have a 90mm that gets
    > 1:1...
    >
    > Paul
    > ///////////////
    >
    > "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    > news:lIednblPTcE_v7KiU-KYgwgiganews.com...
    > > James,
    > >
    > > No offense - point taken...
    > >
    > > I just think the reason they (& I) explain it that way is because people
    > > understand zoom magnification more so than the degree of angle. That's
    all
    > I
    > > was saying. The term "techie -fest" was just an off the cuff, one
    > liner
    > > meant in sarcasm - nothing personal...
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > Paul
    > > /////////////
    > >> > >
    > > >
    > > >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    > Checked by AVG anti-virus system ([url]http://www.grisoft.com[/url]).
    > Version: 6.0.506 / Virus Database: 303 - Release Date: 8/1/2003
    >
    >
    >

    james Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    My workhorse is the 28-105 USM... it works well. My buddy prefers his
    28-135IS USM... but hey, that's a few hundred more. Mine is just cool...
    and like only ~$350CDN or so (can't remember), it's priced just right.

    "Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:36k0jvss294bq5gvvnp380778622h2tj3q4ax.com...
    > Hey guys, thanks for the advice........I'm going with the Canon EOS
    > 10D. I'm pretty sure the $1,500 price tag is just for the body. Can
    > anyone recommend a decent lens for it? Maybe something from 28 - 100
    > ? Does not have to be a Canon lens, just a really good one that does
    > not cost an arm & leg. I had to really convince my wife that we
    > needed a new camera :)
    >
    > Thanks, Ron

    ryan Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    Ron, I'm not sure if it's within your budget, but I just love my Canon
    28-135 IS. It might be a little more expensive, but it's worth it.
    Mario Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Canon EOS 10D Lens ??

    james wrote:
    > Inline:
    > "Paul Brecht" <nowayidontthinkso.net> wrote in message
    > news:vPycnZCprPmqm7KiXTWJkAgiganews.com...
    >
    >>Just keep in mind that you need to multiply 1.6 to the effective focal
    >>length to understand what you're getting in focal length...
    >>
    >>example:
    >>
    >>28-100mm = 45-180mm (aperture stays the same...)
    >>
    >>Paul
    >>//////////////
    >
    >
    > The Focal Length stays the same too. It's only the Field of View that gets
    > changed. (the area that the lense sees)
    > At 28mm then 10D will have the same Field of View as a 45mm Lense. And at
    > 100mm it will have the same Field of View as a 160mm lense would have. But,
    > the actual Focal Length does not change.
    > The reason being that at the focuse point the CMOS sensor(being smaller)
    > will only see the middle part of the image being focused on it using a lense
    > designed for 35mm Film cameras.
    > It is the same as cropping an image in Photoshop. The image is no larger,
    > unless you enlarge the cropped image.
    > Too many people think the conversion that is mentioned( most say 1.6 for the
    > Canon Sensor, but, if I remember correctly it's 1.58 according to Canon)
    > somehow causes the lense to become a longer lense( increased focal length)
    > which is not so. It makes a newbie think that they are somehow getting a
    > longer , more powerful lense even though they are buying one with a smaller
    > focal length. The only way to increase the focal length of any given lense
    > is to use
    > an extender tube or a tele converter like a 2X tele converter. Which works
    > pretty good, but, can cause the Auto Focuse to be a bit slower.
    > james
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Ron" <rfranksadelphia.net> wrote in message
    The effective focal length changes. A matter of semantics?

    1.6 vs 1.58 Wow!

    Bob

    Bob Sull Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Which Canon lens/es?
    By David French in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 7th, 09:57 PM
  2. Sigma 15-30 Lens for Canon
    By Dave.US in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 31st, 11:05 PM
  3. Canon EOS-300 lens=crap?
    By tony in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 11th, 12:53 PM
  4. FS: Canon EOS 300 w/ lens
    By rebecca in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 29th, 05:45 AM
  5. * * * Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO Lens * * *
    By Jim Yuan in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 11th, 01:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139