DSLR: What lens should I get?

In article <1164390755.626705.77290.TakeThisOut@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Markus Dehmann <markus.dehmann.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)

"Wide range" can be achieved with additional lenses at any time -
remember, the "wider range" an individual lens has, the more likely it
is to have problems (focus, chromatic aberrations, falloff, etc.) at
some point in its range, usually at one end or the other. Better to go
with more, but shorter zoom range, lenses, or with primes.

> * fast

Shutter speed, or frames per second, aperture, exposure, or what? All
of which can be described using the multi-functional word, "fast" :^)

> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras

OK, that narrows it down. But remember, if you don't have any current
lenses or other _specific_ reasons to stick to one brand, you should
not rule others out - go to the camera shop and TRY the various mmodels
in your price range - you might find that the feel of one vs the feel
of another makes the difference to you, or the function, or controls,
etc. Don't rule one out over the other simply because of "I've always
had" - I know that that often strikes many here as heresy, but it's
actually sound advice (gawd, the usenet wars over "this brand of
camers/lens/sensor/etc. vs the other" are endless, and in the end no
one ever really convinces the other, so the arguments are pointless,
really - but then, this IS usenet... pointless arguments is one of the
things that it is all about).

> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon.

For under $1000 (actually, under $800), you could go the next step up
and get the XTi (400D), which adds additional capabilities, as well as
a much larger screen - the puny 1.8" screen on the 350D was a nightmare
to be able to see, especially if you had the histogram enabled, which
made the image shrink even more to be able to fit the histogram on the
screen at the same time. Or for under $500, you could stick to the XT
(350D) and spend the extra money on an additional lens or something.

> So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6.

Actually, not that much (see below).

> Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?

The 18-55mm (remember that because of the smaller sensor on most
digital SLRs to actually multiply that by 1.6, so it's effectively a
28-88mm, not all that much wider at the low end than the 35-140mm you
now have) is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
works.

>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus
>

TIP #1: No matter what you get, You'll want to use the camera for a
while before deciding on what additional lenses you might like to add -
you might find your creative "juices" flowing in an entirely different
direction than they do with your current camera, simply because of the
wider variety of choices that you will have available to you for
effects, composition, and control.

TIP #2: Two things to buy at the get-go in addition to the camera: a
polarizer and a tripod. ESPECIALLY if you continue to do landscapes,
but the tripod will also be extremely useful for your macro and
close-up photography. For this kind of thing, something like the Gitzo
2220 Explorer or similar (with a center column that can be extended and
swung down towards the ground) would be ideal. I use the 2220 Explorer
myself and love it, although it's heavier than the new carbon-fiber or
basalt models - light weight is good when you hve to trudge for miles,
but weight increases stability in wind and such (it also has a hook
from the center column to be able to hang additional weight, and I
carry a mesh bag and ziplocks for using either rocks or sand or water
to hang from the column if necessary. You'll also need a ballhead for
the tripod, so go with an inexpensive one to start, something like the
Benro - you can get them for under $100 on eBay, and for an inexpensive
starter ballhead, they are more than capable.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

In article <1164390755.626705.77290.TakeThisOut@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Markus Dehmann <markus.dehmann.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)

"Wide range" can be achieved with additional lenses at any time -
remember, the "wider range" an individual lens has, the more likely it
is to have problems (focus, chromatic aberrations, falloff, etc.) at
some point in its range, usually at one end or the other. Better to go
with more, but shorter zoom range, lenses, or with primes.

> * fast

Shutter speed, or frames per second, aperture, exposure, or what? All
of which can be described using the multi-functional word, "fast" :^)

> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras

OK, that narrows it down. But remember, if you don't have any current
lenses or other _specific_ reasons to stick to one brand, you should
not rule others out - go to the camera shop and TRY the various mmodels
in your price range - you might find that the feel of one vs the feel
of another makes the difference to you, or the function, or controls,
etc. Don't rule one out over the other simply because of "I've always
had" - I know that that often strikes many here as heresy, but it's
actually sound advice (gawd, the usenet wars over "this brand of
camers/lens/sensor/etc. vs the other" are endless, and in the end no
one ever really convinces the other, so the arguments are pointless,
really - but then, this IS usenet... pointless arguments is one of the
things that it is all about).

> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon.

For under $1000 (actually, under $800), you could go the next step up
and get the XTi (400D), which adds additional capabilities, as well as
a much larger screen - the puny 1.8" screen on the 350D was a nightmare
to be able to see, especially if you had the histogram enabled, which
made the image shrink even more to be able to fit the histogram on the
screen at the same time. Or for under $500, you could stick to the XT
(350D) and spend the extra money on an additional lens or something.

> So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6.

Actually, not that much (see below).

> Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?

The 18-55mm (remember that because of the smaller sensor on most
digital SLRs to actually multiply that by 1.6, so it's effectively a
28-88mm, not all that much wider at the low end than the 35-140mm you
now have) is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
works.

>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus
>

TIP #1: No matter what you get, You'll want to use the camera for a
while before deciding on what additional lenses you might like to add -
you might find your creative "juices" flowing in an entirely different
direction than they do with your current camera, simply because of the
wider variety of choices that you will have available to you for
effects, composition, and control.

TIP #2: Two things to buy at the get-go in addition to the camera: a
polarizer and a tripod. ESPECIALLY if you continue to do landscapes,
but the tripod will also be extremely useful for your macro and
close-up photography. For this kind of thing, something like the Gitzo
2220 Explorer or similar (with a center column that can be extended and
swung down towards the ground) would be ideal. I use the 2220 Explorer
myself and love it, although it's heavier than the new carbon-fiber or
basalt models - light weight is good when you hve to trudge for miles,
but weight increases stability in wind and such (it also has a hook
from the center column to be able to hang additional weight, and I
carry a mesh bag and ziplocks for using either rocks or sand or water
to hang from the column if necessary. You'll also need a ballhead for
the tripod, so go with an inexpensive one to start, something like the
Benro - you can get them for under $100 on eBay, and for an inexpensive
starter ballhead, they are more than capable.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

In article <1164390755.626705.77290 DeleteThis @j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Markus Dehmann <markus.dehmann DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)

"Wide range" can be achieved with additional lenses at any time -
remember, the "wider range" an individual lens has, the more likely it
is to have problems (focus, chromatic aberrations, falloff, etc.) at
some point in its range, usually at one end or the other. Better to go
with more, but shorter zoom range, lenses, or with primes.

> * fast

Shutter speed, or frames per second, aperture, exposure, or what? All
of which can be described using the multi-functional word, "fast" :^)

> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras

OK, that narrows it down. But remember, if you don't have any current
lenses or other _specific_ reasons to stick to one brand, you should
not rule others out - go to the camera shop and TRY the various mmodels
in your price range - you might find that the feel of one vs the feel
of another makes the difference to you, or the function, or controls,
etc. Don't rule one out over the other simply because of "I've always
had" - I know that that often strikes many here as heresy, but it's
actually sound advice (gawd, the usenet wars over "this brand of
camers/lens/sensor/etc. vs the other" are endless, and in the end no
one ever really convinces the other, so the arguments are pointless,
really - but then, this IS usenet... pointless arguments is one of the
things that it is all about).

> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon.

For under $1000 (actually, under $800), you could go the next step up
and get the XTi (400D), which adds additional capabilities, as well as
a much larger screen - the puny 1.8" screen on the 350D was a nightmare
to be able to see, especially if you had the histogram enabled, which
made the image shrink even more to be able to fit the histogram on the
screen at the same time. Or for under $500, you could stick to the XT
(350D) and spend the extra money on an additional lens or something.

> So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6.

Actually, not that much (see below).

> Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?

The 18-55mm (remember that because of the smaller sensor on most
digital SLRs to actually multiply that by 1.6, so it's effectively a
28-88mm, not all that much wider at the low end than the 35-140mm you
now have) is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
works.

>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus
>

TIP #1: No matter what you get, You'll want to use the camera for a
while before deciding on what additional lenses you might like to add -
you might find your creative "juices" flowing in an entirely different
direction than they do with your current camera, simply because of the
wider variety of choices that you will have available to you for
effects, composition, and control.

TIP #2: Two things to buy at the get-go in addition to the camera: a
polarizer and a tripod. ESPECIALLY if you continue to do landscapes,
but the tripod will also be extremely useful for your macro and
close-up photography. For this kind of thing, something like the Gitzo
2220 Explorer or similar (with a center column that can be extended and
swung down towards the ground) would be ideal. I use the 2220 Explorer
myself and love it, although it's heavier than the new carbon-fiber or
basalt models - light weight is good when you hve to trudge for miles,
but weight increases stability in wind and such (it also has a hook
from the center column to be able to hang additional weight, and I
carry a mesh bag and ziplocks for using either rocks or sand or water
to hang from the column if necessary. You'll also need a ballhead for
the tripod, so go with an inexpensive one to start, something like the
Benro - you can get them for under $100 on eBay, and for an inexpensive
starter ballhead, they are more than capable.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

In article <1164390755.626705.77290.DeleteThis@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Markus Dehmann <markus.dehmann.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)

"Wide range" can be achieved with additional lenses at any time -
remember, the "wider range" an individual lens has, the more likely it
is to have problems (focus, chromatic aberrations, falloff, etc.) at
some point in its range, usually at one end or the other. Better to go
with more, but shorter zoom range, lenses, or with primes.

> * fast

Shutter speed, or frames per second, aperture, exposure, or what? All
of which can be described using the multi-functional word, "fast" :^)

> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras

OK, that narrows it down. But remember, if you don't have any current
lenses or other _specific_ reasons to stick to one brand, you should
not rule others out - go to the camera shop and TRY the various mmodels
in your price range - you might find that the feel of one vs the feel
of another makes the difference to you, or the function, or controls,
etc. Don't rule one out over the other simply because of "I've always
had" - I know that that often strikes many here as heresy, but it's
actually sound advice (gawd, the usenet wars over "this brand of
camers/lens/sensor/etc. vs the other" are endless, and in the end no
one ever really convinces the other, so the arguments are pointless,
really - but then, this IS usenet... pointless arguments is one of the
things that it is all about).

> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon.

For under $1000 (actually, under $800), you could go the next step up
and get the XTi (400D), which adds additional capabilities, as well as
a much larger screen - the puny 1.8" screen on the 350D was a nightmare
to be able to see, especially if you had the histogram enabled, which
made the image shrink even more to be able to fit the histogram on the
screen at the same time. Or for under $500, you could stick to the XT
(350D) and spend the extra money on an additional lens or something.

> So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6.

Actually, not that much (see below).

> Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?

The 18-55mm (remember that because of the smaller sensor on most
digital SLRs to actually multiply that by 1.6, so it's effectively a
28-88mm, not all that much wider at the low end than the 35-140mm you
now have) is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
works.

>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus
>

TIP #1: No matter what you get, You'll want to use the camera for a
while before deciding on what additional lenses you might like to add -
you might find your creative "juices" flowing in an entirely different
direction than they do with your current camera, simply because of the
wider variety of choices that you will have available to you for
effects, composition, and control.

TIP #2: Two things to buy at the get-go in addition to the camera: a
polarizer and a tripod. ESPECIALLY if you continue to do landscapes,
but the tripod will also be extremely useful for your macro and
close-up photography. For this kind of thing, something like the Gitzo
2220 Explorer or similar (with a center column that can be extended and
swung down towards the ground) would be ideal. I use the 2220 Explorer
myself and love it, although it's heavier than the new carbon-fiber or
basalt models - light weight is good when you hve to trudge for miles,
but weight increases stability in wind and such (it also has a hook
from the center column to be able to hang additional weight, and I
carry a mesh bag and ziplocks for using either rocks or sand or water
to hang from the column if necessary. You'll also need a ballhead for
the tripod, so go with an inexpensive one to start, something like the
Benro - you can get them for under $100 on eBay, and for an inexpensive
starter ballhead, they are more than capable.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

Markus Dehmann wrote:
> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)
> * fast
> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras
>
> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon. So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6. Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?
>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus

Both the Canon and Nikon lines are very good and are about the same
quality and features.

The Rebels are very good values in my opinion, but the equivalent Nikons
are not very different and I don't think you would go wrong with either.

Moving up the line in Nikon or Canon will cost more and if you don't
know why you would want to, you likely don't need to.

As for the lens that 18-55mm Canon lens is a very good lens and any
outstanding value. I strongly suggest starting with it if you choose Canon.
It feels kind of cheap and plastic, but it performs very well. There are
better lenses but no at anything close to that price. It is a good starting
general use lens and you can build on that as you find the need.

I can't make any recommendations for the Nikon line simply because it
has been about 10 years since I owned Nikon and I just don't know that much
about their current products other than the are still a quality product.

I will make one recommendation. Get the camera and lens in your hands
before you buy. Work though the basic processes of taking pictures. Make
sure it fits your hands and that the controls seem "comfortable" for you. No
one else can do that for you. Chances are that coming from a Canon camera
you will find it feels right.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

Markus Dehmann wrote:
> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)
> * fast
> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras
>
> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon. So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6. Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?
>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus

Both the Canon and Nikon lines are very good and are about the same
quality and features.

The Rebels are very good values in my opinion, but the equivalent Nikons
are not very different and I don't think you would go wrong with either.

Moving up the line in Nikon or Canon will cost more and if you don't
know why you would want to, you likely don't need to.

As for the lens that 18-55mm Canon lens is a very good lens and any
outstanding value. I strongly suggest starting with it if you choose Canon.
It feels kind of cheap and plastic, but it performs very well. There are
better lenses but no at anything close to that price. It is a good starting
general use lens and you can build on that as you find the need.

I can't make any recommendations for the Nikon line simply because it
has been about 10 years since I owned Nikon and I just don't know that much
about their current products other than the are still a quality product.

I will make one recommendation. Get the camera and lens in your hands
before you buy. Work though the basic processes of taking pictures. Make
sure it fits your hands and that the controls seem "comfortable" for you. No
one else can do that for you. Chances are that coming from a Canon camera
you will find it feels right.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

Markus Dehmann wrote:
> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)
> * fast
> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras
>
> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon. So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6. Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?
>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus

Both the Canon and Nikon lines are very good and are about the same
quality and features.

The Rebels are very good values in my opinion, but the equivalent Nikons
are not very different and I don't think you would go wrong with either.

Moving up the line in Nikon or Canon will cost more and if you don't
know why you would want to, you likely don't need to.

As for the lens that 18-55mm Canon lens is a very good lens and any
outstanding value. I strongly suggest starting with it if you choose Canon.
It feels kind of cheap and plastic, but it performs very well. There are
better lenses but no at anything close to that price. It is a good starting
general use lens and you can build on that as you find the need.

I can't make any recommendations for the Nikon line simply because it
has been about 10 years since I owned Nikon and I just don't know that much
about their current products other than the are still a quality product.

I will make one recommendation. Get the camera and lens in your hands
before you buy. Work though the basic processes of taking pictures. Make
sure it fits your hands and that the controls seem "comfortable" for you. No
one else can do that for you. Chances are that coming from a Canon camera
you will find it feels right.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

Markus Dehmann wrote:
> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)
> * fast
> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras
>
> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon. So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6. Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?
>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus

Both the Canon and Nikon lines are very good and are about the same
quality and features.

The Rebels are very good values in my opinion, but the equivalent Nikons
are not very different and I don't think you would go wrong with either.

Moving up the line in Nikon or Canon will cost more and if you don't
know why you would want to, you likely don't need to.

As for the lens that 18-55mm Canon lens is a very good lens and any
outstanding value. I strongly suggest starting with it if you choose Canon.
It feels kind of cheap and plastic, but it performs very well. There are
better lenses but no at anything close to that price. It is a good starting
general use lens and you can build on that as you find the need.

I can't make any recommendations for the Nikon line simply because it
has been about 10 years since I owned Nikon and I just don't know that much
about their current products other than the are still a quality product.

I will make one recommendation. Get the camera and lens in your hands
before you buy. Work though the basic processes of taking pictures. Make
sure it fits your hands and that the controls seem "comfortable" for you. No
one else can do that for you. Chances are that coming from a Canon camera
you will find it feels right.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

Markus Dehmann wrote:
> I love taking pictures and experiment a lot with my Canon PowerShot G6
> (f2.0-f3.0, 35-140mm). Now I think it's too slow and it's time to step
> up to a DSLR.
>
> What DSLR is recommendable? And what lens should I get?
>
> It should be/have:
> * lightweight
> * wide range of focal lengths (I like to take detailed macro shots,
> portraits, but also landscape photos)
> * fast
> * under $1000
> * preferrably Canon, since I've always had Canon cameras
>
> I've seen that the Canon Digital Rebel XT 8MP comes with a 18-55mm
> f3.5-5.6 Lens on Amazon. So that's much more wide-angle than I have no
> in my PowerShot G6. Does that mean it will be worse for macro shots /
> portraits? Would it be a good idea to get just the body and then a
> separate lens? Which one?
>
> Thanks for any tips!
> Markus

Both the Canon and Nikon lines are very good and are about the same
quality and features.

The Rebels are very good values in my opinion, but the equivalent Nikons
are not very different and I don't think you would go wrong with either.

Moving up the line in Nikon or Canon will cost more and if you don't
know why you would want to, you likely don't need to.

As for the lens that 18-55mm Canon lens is a very good lens and any
outstanding value. I strongly suggest starting with it if you choose Canon.
It feels kind of cheap and plastic, but it performs very well. There are
better lenses but no at anything close to that price. It is a good starting
general use lens and you can build on that as you find the need.

I can't make any recommendations for the Nikon line simply because it
has been about 10 years since I owned Nikon and I just don't know that much
about their current products other than the are still a quality product.

I will make one recommendation. Get the camera and lens in your hands
before you buy. Work though the basic processes of taking pictures. Make
sure it fits your hands and that the controls seem "comfortable" for you. No
one else can do that for you. Chances are that coming from a Canon camera
you will find it feels right.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

"Ken Lucke" <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote in message
news:241120061101249174%ken@glass-stones.com...
> is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
> cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
> the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
> close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
> works.

Where can you get a decent reversing ring for Canon EOS? I've been looking
for one for a while.

The EF-S 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6 II lens focuses quite close and reaches 0.28
magnification by itself which is pretty good for a general purpose lens. It
focuses to 0.92 feet which is less than six inches from the front of the
lens when focuses close and at 55mm extension.

It also works quite well with diopter filters to get even closer. I've used
it with extension tubes as well but I am not sure if they are better or not.

I've held it reversed on the body and can see that it is very sharp in
reverse with strong magnification.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

"Ken Lucke" <ken DeleteThis @glass-stones.com> wrote in message
news:241120061101249174%ken@glass-stones.com...
> is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
> cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
> the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
> close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
> works.

Where can you get a decent reversing ring for Canon EOS? I've been looking
for one for a while.

The EF-S 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6 II lens focuses quite close and reaches 0.28
magnification by itself which is pretty good for a general purpose lens. It
focuses to 0.92 feet which is less than six inches from the front of the
lens when focuses close and at 55mm extension.

It also works quite well with diopter filters to get even closer. I've used
it with extension tubes as well but I am not sure if they are better or not.

I've held it reversed on the body and can see that it is very sharp in
reverse with strong magnification.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

"Ken Lucke" <ken.DeleteThis@glass-stones.com> wrote in message
news:241120061101249174%ken@glass-stones.com...
> is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
> cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
> the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
> close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
> works.

Where can you get a decent reversing ring for Canon EOS? I've been looking
for one for a while.

The EF-S 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6 II lens focuses quite close and reaches 0.28
magnification by itself which is pretty good for a general purpose lens. It
focuses to 0.92 feet which is less than six inches from the front of the
lens when focuses close and at 55mm extension.

It also works quite well with diopter filters to get even closer. I've used
it with extension tubes as well but I am not sure if they are better or not.

I've held it reversed on the body and can see that it is very sharp in
reverse with strong magnification.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get? 

"Ken Lucke" <ken.RemoveThis@glass-stones.com> wrote in message
news:241120061101249174%ken@glass-stones.com...
> is not bad for macros, and you can actually buy (pretty
> cheaply, I might add) a "reversing ring" for it to allow you to mount
> the lens in reverse on the cammera, which gives some pretty amazing
> close-up results. You lose autofocus, of course, but metering still
> works.

Where can you get a decent reversing ring for Canon EOS? I've been looking
for one for a while.

The EF-S 18-55mm f:3.5-5.6 II lens focuses quite close and reaches 0.28
magnification by itself which is pretty good for a general purpose lens. It
focuses to 0.92 feet which is less than six inches from the front of the
lens when focuses close and at 55mm extension.

It also works quite well with diopter filters to get even closer. I've used
it with extension tubes as well but I am not sure if they are better or not.

I've held it reversed on the body and can see that it is very sharp in
reverse with strong magnification.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR: What lens should I get?