New member needs help

[lurechunker]

I am new to the forum and asking for help. Our granddaughter plays basketball and I would like to photograph her. I kayak and would like to photograph birds. Is the EOS 760D the camera for me? Other? What lens or lenses? How can I protect my equipment form damage from saltwater? Thank you.

[Waddizzle · Accepted solution]

---

@lurechunker wrote:
My 80D with 18-55 from Canon store will arrive tomorrow. I think I made a mistake by not getting the 28-135. Should I leave the 18-55 in the box and send it back? I'd like to start with an "all-round" lens and one long enough for back yard birds.

---

Do you mean 18-135, instead of 28-135?  The 18-135 lenses are pretty good.  BUT, they will likely cast a shadow when you try to use the flash.  I know that older 18-135mm lenses cast a major shadow on a T5, so I would expect a shadow on an 80D.  The 18-55mm lens has a 35mm equivalent of 29-88mm, which is pretty close to 24-70mm that is very popular for use with full frame camera bodies.

The  STM version of the 18-55mm is a really good lens.  I would hang on to it.  I can guarantee you that whatever plans you have for using the camera, you will find new scenarios to use it.  I would keep the 18-55mm, and pass on buying a 18-135, so that you can budget more money towards your birding lens.  If you can afford to do all of the above, then by all means, buy all of the lenses you want.

[lurechunker]

Thank you. Very logical. Now I am interested in a 1.4 extender. Please discuss the pros and cons.

[Waddizzle]

---

@lurechunker wrote:

Thank you. Very logical. Now I am interested in a 1.4 extender. Please discuss the pros and cons.

---

I don't know much about specifically Canon extenders.  Seeing how they have optical elements, they will affect the image.  There is a great debate as to how much extenders degrade the image.  I leave that discussion to others.

I have a Vivitar 2x extender, and it does soften the images a bit, but you have count pixels to see it.

BTW, I took a look at the Tamron 150-600 G2, and I see that some of the improvements include the ability to update the lens firmware and make focus adjustments, like the Sigma Dock.  The G2 also adds a zoom locking ring that sounds similar to the friction adjustment on the Canon 100-400.  Personally, I like the Sigma approach, which actually locks the lens at specific focal lengths, which eliminates any possibility of lens creep, effectively turning the lens into a prime.

[ebiggs1]

" I am interested in a 1.4 extender."

Everybody that buys a 100-400 is!  Kinda funny isn't it?  It's a great lens, I only wish..................

In the cheaper 150-600mm offerings, I always preferred the Tammy.  Now they have come out with the G2 which is even better.

But the ultimate 150-600mm is the Sigma 'Sport'.  It is big.  It is heavy.  It is tough,  It is beauitful !

Some people like DPP and I agree it has some nice features.  But in the end, it is limited. When you advance beyond a beginner it will not do the job.  LR, too, has its limits.  Not as much as DPP but it does.  DPP can work well with PS as does LR which is as good as it gets in post editing.

[jrhoffman75]

DPP has a built-in tool to transfer to PS and the Batch tool can ne used to transfer a TIFF or JPEG to Lightroom or any other app one prefers.

[ebiggs1]

Photoshop has 'Automate' which will call several programs, not just one. PS can use 'scripts' to do repeated tasks.

Lightroom has 'Edit in' which also can call several different programs. In addition LR can make use of 'Plug-ins' which further enhances its ability to use other software.

[jrhoffman75]

I can't speak for PS Automate, but to me the negative of using LR "Edit in" with DPP is that LR processes the RAW and transfers a TIFF to the external program. IMHO the only reason to use DPP in conjunction with an additional program is that DPP can apply Canon lens corrections, Digital Lighting Optimizer and other Canon tools if one wants to use them. There are some who claim DPP does a better RAW conversion than LR. Others disagree. Certainly DPP converts RAW files exactly how Canon engineering intends; whether one likes that is up to the user. 

There is a LR plugin (I think it's called "Open In" that will send a RAW from LR to an external editor. 

[ebiggs1]

I don't quite understand?  Pretty normal for me.

"...the negative of using LR "Edit in" with DPP is that LR processes the RAW and transfers a TIFF..."

Why would anybody use LR 'Edit in' with DPP?  They are too similar to be using both. I am one who prefers Adobe raw conversion to Canon's own.  There are rare occasions where I do choose to use DPP but not often.

As to what LR transfers I see no problem with it being a tiff.  DPP will do the same thing, I imagine.  I don't use it for that so I really don't know.  Most editing add-ins don't support Canon raw so they have to use some other format. And tiff is the best to do that.

PS also includes the free add-in called Bridge. It offers some data base features to PS.  These three, PS, Bridge, and LR work pretty seamless together.

[Waddizzle]

Again, the whole point has been that DPP will not perform lens correction on third party lenses.  If want to apply lens correction to third party lenses, then you are going to use something other than DPP to convert your RAW files.

[lurechunker]

I ordered an 1.4 extender from B&H after they assured me it is compaible with my kit, it will AF and have IS. I'll use it later this month at Sanibel and hope for a plover.

[ebiggs1]

Good luck.