What's new
By:
Filters

Canon 450d

Geoff1991

Geoff1991

AKA "Sparky"
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
1,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Wolverhampton, UK
Well ive tried a few cameras, and i think i like that the best.

But, what lenses would i need? Ive an interest in photography so im going to be buying a fairly decent camera to get me started, ive read the 450d is pretty good.

I dont want a huge zoom lens , i think id like a lens for macro pictures and general purpose to start with. Example of what i want to do, take pictures of fish/shrimp and full tanks shots. And anything general like pictures for ebay etc

What are your recommendations?

Edit: Links to products on amazon.co.uk or any trusted site would be appreciated.

Edit:

<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-Came...7671&sr=8-1" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-Came...7671&sr=8-1</a>

Whats that lens like that comes with the camera in that line? i dont really understand all the 18-55mm stuff :S

Sorry for all the questions, but think id need a flash as well? which flash?
 
I can't see your latest links so not sure what you're referring to - but great choice for a camera.

I use the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro F2.8 with great results. Though invest in a flash as well and practice loads (read your manual!) :good:
 
Sorry, links fixed. Would the lens with the camera be ok for a general purpose and the second lens be ok for macro?

Yeah, ive had a play with a few, including a nikon D90 i think it was, and i found that i liked this one best.

Edit: would the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro F2.8 be better for macro then? Seems a pretty reasonable price.
 
Lovely camera that, good choice B-)

As far as lens's are concerned, I think with SLR's you get what you pay for. I have always been wary of long lens like the 28-300 (not including the 50-500, but that is a rarity!), for a start, f3.5 at 28mm is fairly slow and it will quickly decrease as you increase zoom (I wonder how quickly?). Also 28mm is a little bit long for many general purpose outdoor shots tbh. I know I occasionally get frustrated with 17mm (don't forget 17mm is really 27mm and the 28mm is equivelent to 45mm in real world due to crop factor!) However, I am sure it is ok as a walkabout lens but I suspect you are equally well off with a prosumer for anything other than low light / quick response images.
I would also suggest the most important thing with tank shots is a good quality flash that has pan / tilt and at least adjustable manual levels. Sigma flashes are pretty good (my own and others I have read about tend to have unreliable exposure control between shots though) but you might be better off with a Canon flash if you can stretch your budget - worth looking second hand?

I use a Sigma 17-70 for close shots and general purpose and it is a nice lens. I would love a dedicated macro lens (my 17-70 has 1:2.4 macro feature and will nearly focus up to front lens at 70mm!) and anything above a Sigma 105 would be my personal choice. I also use a Sigma 70-300 for shooting dragonflies on macro setting (stationary and inflight) as I can shoot without getting too close. A bit hit and miss but I have got some fairly nice shots that aren't a million miles from much more expensive lens's. So the 17-70 and 70-300 APO are a nice combo both capable of macro. So, at least take a look at them before making your final decision.

I am sure there are other options so maybe go along to Canon forums (POTN) or similar and ask what the more experienced users think?

Olly.
 
I have had the 400D for over a year now, model below yours.

The lens you get looks to be the kit lens I got but with image stabilisation. Mine ain't a bad lens, abit soft though.

Its worth looking at other walk about lenses as well, and then buying one with the body only, but of course it depends on your budget.

Being a student I know how the cost racks up.

I use a Tamron 70-300mm zoom lens, which is pretty good, but my mates sigma of the same range is crisper (hes on Nikon).

I since upgraded the kit lens to a Canon 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 which ain't too bad either. I'd love a better lens, but good lenses are a black hole for money!

Agree with keenonfish, a good flash is very useful for tank shots, I spend ages deleting bad shots of reflected glass.
 
Tom499 said:
The lens you get looks to be the kit lens I got but with image stabilisation. Mine ain't a bad lens, abit soft though.
Click to expand...

The Canon kit is slated as being poor, but far from it I found it to be a very capable lens. At the time I wanted larger aperture and something fairly capable of macro so that is the only reason I upgraded the kit. There are superb examples of what the standard kit is capable of in POTN. I am sure the 450d comes with IS too which should make this lens even better!
 
It depends on how much cash you want to flash.
That kit lens is really very basic though fair for every-day outside snaps in good light and good enough to start with (as I see the body only options aren't much less so you may as well pay a little extra and get that lens.) In my opinion you'd struggle to use that with great results on fish - even with the flash. As for the flash, great if you can spend that much.
And in time you may want to progress to a better main all-round lens. But I tend to agree that I also don't like the wide/long range zoom's
Just read some reviews on everything you want to buy and go for it.
 
Well the above stuff would be to start me off, i could always upgrade later, ill probably get the camera and a macro lens first (maybe the canon one i linked to...), then the flash on my next pay day.
 
That's an absolutely superb lens and probably my personal favourite for portraits - however not suitable for fish shots at all. For that the 60mm is far more suited. And whichever lens you go for, don't forget the x1.6 factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor.
 
Heya Geoff, I've been shooting with Canon for awhile and have researched just about ever canon lens more than I should have... haha.

As far as quality goes with true macro lenses, like that 60 and 100mm you've looked at, they're pretty much the same. The difference will be the minimum focusing distance, ie how far away you have to be from the subject to obtain the largest image size. From the reviews and feedback I've read, the quality on both the 60 or 100 are very very close, but the 100 is a little more popular because the minimum focusing distance is larger. I haven't used either personally, instead I have a sigma 150mm macro lens, though I wouldn't recommend it for you in this case. On the upside, plenty of people have said that the 60 or even 100mm can double as a good portrait lens, so it adds some flexibility.

Another option to consider is something like Kenko Extension Tubes, these guys are *far* cheaper and still offer many of the benefits of macro lenses, plus you can use them with a normal lens you may already be getting. And if you decide to get a true macro lens, you can always use these with the macro lens to get even closer images. Now to be completely honest with you, fish are usually large enough that you won't be using a macro lens to its largest magnification ratio: 1:1, so the kenkos might be a good choice.

For a general walk around lens, the 28-135mm is a solid choice, I've owned that in the past and been very happy with it. The 17-85 is also a good choice, it just depends on if you think you'll need the wide angle, or zoom end more. I haven't used the 17-85 myself, but many reviews say its a great choice as well.

As far as the flashes go, I've only got a 430EX II, and have been very happy with it so far. If your primary usage is going to be for taking picture of your fish, then the difference in cash is better put towards a ST-E2 for off camera flash imho. That lets you put the flash above the tank and avoid nasty glare issues. I took these photos the other day with my macro lens and off camera flash, just for fun. These are a few of my better macro photos, also done with the 430EX II. And more likely than not would look just as good (or better) with the 60mm / 100mm canon macros, you'd just have to get physically closer to the subject for the same shot because of the difference in the minimum focusing distance

PS Most of this equiment, minus the 450 itself can be purchased 2nd hand for cheaper off sites like [URL="http://www.dgrin.com/"]http://www.dgrin.com/[/URL] or [URL="http://photography-on-the.net/"]http://photography-on-the.net/[/URL]
 
PS If you have any other questions you can PM me and I'll be more than happy to talk to you about photography equipment, or general questions. I didn't mention it above, but I've also owned the 18-55mm kit lens, and was very impressed by the quality for how much it cost, but that being said there are far better general purpose lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jaylach
Since it seems OK I'll add some of my photos.
2
Replies
16
Views
2K
jaylach
jaylach
I Like Rare Fish
50g, 90g, and 30g tank and Equipment for sale
Replies
1
Views
308
I Like Rare Fish
I Like Rare Fish
F
Desperately seeking fish photography tips
Replies
5
Views
936
I Like Rare Fish
I Like Rare Fish
K
Betta with Hole in the Head, and other tank problems for newbs
Replies
3
Views
654
MaloK
MaloK
E
New symptoms poorly molly:(
2 3
Replies
30
Views
3K
Elena82x
E

Most reactions

Useful Links

Back
Top