03-24-2015 07:46 PM
"You are still confused about lenses, aren't you?"
I suppose I was just a little. Best Buy confused me in how they worded the lens compatibilty for the new Rebel T6s. On Best Buy website it says.....EF-S/ EF which made me think only those lens would work. Did'nt think "FF" was included, seems to be omitted. Now if I understand you correctly, you're saying only bodies labled "EF lens mount compatibilty", will only work with EF lenses. If correct, I'm straight now. BB sometimes incorrectly mis-state specs for products on their website. I always have to check to be sure before I buy. My plan is to get good glass to replace my 18-55mm, 55-250mm kit lenses that I can use with both the cameras I will have in the future. Then I can add more lens as/if needed.
I am absobing much you said though. I'm understanding much more since we 1st talked. I'm not ready to get another camera at this point, but I am doing my research and gathering data, to plan my way ahead. My thinking is to get a better walkaround for now. If I have a lens I can be happy with for now, I can take my time and plan my upgrades, carefully and intelligently. Hence my inquiry about the Canon EF 28-.135mm USM. Also, how do you think this lens would fit in my plan?...Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM? Better or worst??? What you've said about the new Rebel T6s is heartwarming. Now I'm back to plan A with either the T3i & 70D as maybe my future option. though the 7D mark 11 is still also on the table. I will want to upgrade my lens with ones that will work with all of my cameras. I also understand the lower the aperture number of a lense, the better in low light it will be, right. The higher the number.... worst.
You say the "Canon EF 28-135" can be found for $300.00!!! Where??? BB has it listed for $479.00 new, and Canon, on the Canon site is $389.00 refurb.
Biggs just how many cameras do you have? I thought you only had the gear listed here. Must be nice. That's interesting what you say about tele zooms. great pics. I sure thought tele zooms were for mostly distance shots. I hear and read guys talking about using them for far off shots at ball games and distant wildlife, etc. You must educate me as to why would one use a 600mm Lens for a 40ft shot? I do that all the time with my 55-250mm kit lens, even my 18-200mm. My shots look Ok to me. Now I know your lens is much shaper, much less or no distortion. That's a given. I know your shots would be a much higher quality. But still am confused as to the why would that level a lens ($$$$$) be needed for such a short distance? Why not a good quality standard zoom? Even an L standard zoom?
A thought: Though you're giving me a answer, you never know when a newbie will look in on this post and find his answer also.
Believe it or not, I am beginning to understand things better since we 1st talked. Even things that puzzled me before we met that I have'nt mentioned. The light bulb is starting to come on. .
03-24-2015 08:46 PM
Those are great pics. Very sharp, brillant color. I can see all the fine detail. I guess your 600mm lens made the difference. Your pics look better than any of mine I ever took, and I thought I've taken a few good ones. I've not took any pics nice and clear as yours here.
03-25-2015 10:52 AM - edited 03-25-2015 10:54 AM
EF-S is a crop lens design. It will only fit crop bodies.
EF is a Full Frame design. It can fit FF and crop bodies.
In this case it is the camera body that determines what it can use. FF bodies and 1.3 crop 1 series can only use EF.
1.6 crop bodies like the Rebels and the xxD a long with the 7D Mk II all can use either EF-S or EF (crop or FF). Look for those letters in the name of the lens.
Try here .... Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens This is my store of choice but there are other good outlets, too.
Before you buy any more lenses, decide on your path or you are going to spend a lot of money. You really need to know which system you are going to stay with. Very first thing, the big difference with the two are just numbers to be able to identify either. That is all they are. There is nothing wrong with sticking with a 1.6 crop. There is nothing magical about FF. And you can even have both. Each system has some basic advantages and disadvantages. They compliment more than compete.
If you are reading a site that puts down croppers, leave that site today. They don't know of what they speak.
Repeat, before you buy any more lenses, decide on your path.
"Biggs just how many cameras do you have?"
I really don't know the exact number and/or how many lenses. I guess I should take an inventory. I guess a dozen cameras and 25 lenses? There is another person in this household that believs I have way too many.
But I only use the 1Ds Mk III and the 1D Mk IV mostly, 90% of the time. Yes, one is a FF and the latter is a 1.3 crop. You soon find the gems that you just love to work with.
"I hear and read guys talking about using them for far off shots at ball games and distant wildlife, etc."
Yes you do. And mostly likely they are using a 600mm to 800mm and even longer focal length lenses. The job of a tele is to fill the frame with the subject. The guy on one goal line at a football game does not shoot the plays on the other goal line. He shoots the plays that are on his side of the field, less than 50 yards, at most, even though he might have a super tele. If it is a tiny bird like a Northern Cardinal and you have a 400mm lens than you still must be pretty close and/or crop serverly in PS. If it were and elephant, you don't need to be that close! There is no set rule. Again just what you want the shot to be.
There is no way to get that Cardinal photo with what I had at any greater distance. No matter the bird would have been a lot smaller in the frame if I had shot from farther away.
"I do that all the time with my 55-250mm kit lens, even my 18-200mm."
Do you have a photo you shot of a bird with either of these lenses that you would care to share? I would wager the bird is pretty small. And if you do crop serverly to make the bird larger, the resolution will go into the toilet.
Oh, one more thought....
"Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM? Better or worst???"
This is the best buy, bar none, for a full on pro level "L" lens. I highly recommend it, no matter what body you finally decide on. Get this lens! You can find "white box" deals in the $700 to $800 range brand new full USA warranty.
03-25-2015 12:20 PM
I think I got the lens correct now. the thing that really had me confused is EF. I thought it was a 3rd class of lens besides EF-S, and FF. Now I understand it's actually FF for Full Frame. And I know EF (FF) will work on any Canon body. I know EF-S will not work on Full Frame bodies. That's why I'm considering the EF 28-135 USM, it will work with any body I buy in the future. That's the thing I'm going to pay close attention to from here out, buying lens that will be compatible for my furure bodies in the future. If I am happy with the 28-135 as a walkaround, I will be patient and take my time adding more lens. I did see it for the price you said at B&H. I get stuff from them too. Just recently got 2 sets of microphones, batteries , chargers, and other acc from them. I go to Best Buy alot cause I catch things on sale, sometimes have discount coupons, and use BB rewards points for cash. I got my 18-200 zoom there for $540.00 after discounts. That's why I got it over the 18-135mm. I only paid a few dollars more for it, for more range. I will make less compromise's now, and get the lens I trully want and need. I will wait till I have the money for the best glass I can afford. I may get the EF 24-105mm when I get my next body. The only drawback, why I hesitate going to FF body is the high price of the lens. I do like photography and will proably be getting at least 4 or 5 more lens in the future, probably more. As you say, we should get the lens for the different purpose we need. In L glass that'll cost a bundle. But I do want to be wise and get best glass I can afford, than to get a boatload of inferior lens.
I'm not quite sure how will the higher "28mm" compare to the lower "18mm" of the lens I now have. I'm sure the distance looking through the lens will not be the same. I also am guessing the higher number (.28mm) will give closeup shots shorter withe (as in less wide angle) Am I correct, or no???
"I do that all the time with my 55-250mm kit lens, even my 18-200mm."
I understand what you're saying about the tele zooms now. And no, none of my shots at that distance filled up the frame as yours do in these pics. My shots of a Lion at the Zoo, at about 50-60 ft, made the lion small in the frame in comparison to your bird at full zoom. I got you now. In fact I was wondering why guys/gals, in my photo club at the zoo, were using long zooms like yours, to shoot reptiles inside the glass a foot or so away. Now I know. I saw some amazing shots like yours posted on the website at my photo club yesterday.
Your shots on here are very good my friend. Hope to do 1/2 as good with my own pics. Coming here has been a very good experience and I see I'll learn alot. Best site I could have found. Anyway I'm off for a few hrs, proably will take some pic. Will be back later to look in on your posts.
BTW...I now realise I should have taken my 3 kit lens to the Zoo. I would have gotton better pics. I only took the 1 walkaround lens. Live and learn huh????!!!!!!!!
03-25-2015 12:51 PM
BTW....I hear alot about EF-S lens being comaprable to some distance or another in 35mm and different from the focal range of FF.. What Is the focal range difference of the Canon EF 28-135mm lens from my 18-200mm lens. I know the zoom range is not as far out as mine, but how does it look at the closest distance through the lens??? Any less wide??? How long is the zoom range in comparison??? Hope my question is clear.
03-25-2015 04:02 PM - edited 03-25-2015 04:05 PM
" What Is the focal range difference of the Canon EF 28-135mm lens from my 18-200mm lens."
Remember way back I told you about the diagonal of your sensor? You need to remember that number. Some numbers you need to commit to memory. In photography the better you remember what worked and how, plus a few numbers and all will be better for you.
I will assume you don't remember so here it is again. You crop sensor diagional is 27.3mm so a 28mm to 35mm approx. lens will look normal or about what the human eye sees. The FF sensor is 43.3mm which makes a 50mm, again approx. look normal.
What does this mean? It means on your T3i a lens that is less than 28mm to 35mm is going to appear as WA. Anything above 28mm to 35mm is going to appear telephoto. Of course the farther away from the 28mm to 35mm figure the more extreme it will become.
But there is more, we must convert the apparent focal length change. That figure is 1.6 times. So we now have a 28-135mm lens in hand. How will it appear as compared to using it on a FF camera? 28x1.6=44.8mm 135x1.6=216 Now we have our answer, it will look like a 44-216mm zoom would on a FF. But this is really nonsense as you have the info you need with the diagonal measurement. Right? We established 28mm to 35mm is in the normal range and 135mm is solidly in the tele range. A 28-135mm will appear like normal to a slight tele on your T3i. There will be no WA aspects at all.
Now your 18-200 is very different, isn't it? We know that anything below 28mm to 35mm is WA. 18mm is going to be pretty wide at least 10mm under what is considfered normal eye AOA. If we wnat it converted to what it would appear like on FF, I don't know why you would, but if you did. 18x1.6=28.8mm and 200mmx1.6=320mm A 28-320mm. That is how it compares.
03-25-2015 07:28 PM
I'm following you biggs. I just hope I can remember this, that's my problem sometimes, as you have seen. I know this now, but things like this is hard to retain. I may not remember this so well the next time it comes up. Technical stuff like this, takes time for me to committ it to memory. But I will try. I think I should save important info you tell me in a folder on my Pc, so I can go back and refresh it all as needed. For me I need repartiton....need to hear, or see things, over and over before it becomes permanate in my memory. But it will in time, and it'll seem like 2nd nature when it does.
I was just wondering if I would notice any difference with the EF-28-135mm USM, than I would see if I was using the EF-S 18-135mm USM. I know what that would look like. Same as my EF-S 18-200mm only shorter zoom range. The wideness at 18mm would be the same. I wanted to understand clearly before I order it from B&H. From what you're saying if I understand you correctly, the EF 28-135mm would not be as wide at the 28mm range....as the 18-135mm is at the 18mm range. Seems the farthest zoom range would be longer than with the 18-135 at the far zoom range. Am I correct??? I know when using my EF-S 55-250 the short range (55mm) is narrower and things are not near as close as 18mm would be. I have to really, really, move closer for close up shots, and the witth angle is much narrower. Just trying to get a mental picture of how things will look with the EF 28-135 since I've never used 28mm before. All my lens other than my 2 standard zooms start at 18mm. I'm trying to understand how it looks through different lens with different focal lengths....24-70, 24-105, 17-135, 10-18, 40mm prime, etc.
03-25-2015 08:48 PM
BTW.....I just ordered the Canon EF 28-135 USM Lens from B&H. Will be here tues. They do have good prices on many items I use. If prices are equal with BB most times I order from B&H. I save on taxes and usually no shipping charges. You should get perks for sending them sales. If I don't like the lens gonna blame you ....LOL
03-25-2015 09:02 PM
"I was just wondering if I would notice any difference with the EF-28-135mm USM,..."
This is easy. Zoom your 18-200mm to the 28mm spot (just past the 24 as I don't think you have a 28) and than at the135mm spot (you do have a 135). Take a look!
03-26-2015 08:23 AM
You're right, that was/is easy. I should have thought of that myself. I did know and will remember 1.6 mulltiple factor for crop lenses. That's not my problem. The numbers I understand fine. Harder to know what the real life situation is. It's one thing to say 28mm x 1.6= 44.8. But I'm still vague about how that looks...looking through the lens. How close up in comparison to my 18mm will that look to me, that's What I need to know. Seems that it would not look as wide angle at that mm as it looks through my 18mm I use now. Not just with this lens, but all lens. I'm trying to figure how any other lens would look...looking through any lens, incomparison to the 18mm lens I have now. I know it's simple for you, and guys who understand it all, but It's still so new to me. On paper, I can figure any lens by the 1.6 factor, but still don't understand what....as a example would EF-S 15-85mm look like, looking through the lens. I know 15 x 1.6= 24. and 85x1.6= 136 so that becomes 24mm -136mm. But to me it's all just new numbers. Also I find it difficult to understand how can 40mm, 50mm and 80mm all be right for the same shot, a head shot for instance. Kind of like your 600mm Zoom example. Till you explained it, I did'nt know you guys could or did use it for close shots also, like your bird shots. Sorry Biggs, not your fault, you're explaining fine. It's me. I suppose email is not the best process to teach these things, but I will get there. Alot of photography tecnical stuff has not sunk in just yet.