Rangerfan

So, I really want the Canon 24-70 L. Bad. But I dont have the money because I already bought the 70-200 2.8. I need something for shooting subjects that are close. I have my handy little kit lens 18-55.

I know I can count on ya'll to give hints and pointers on making the most out of your kit lens. As I will be using for awhile. When I first got my camera I thought this lens was the bomb. Now of course, Im spoiled with my primes and L series lens.

So offer your best advice... We novices can really use it.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

What's your budget?

For many Canon shooters, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-L version) is a heck of a unit for ~$600.

For "subjects that are close", it can't be beaten for < $1000.

Rangerfan

I have the 50mm prime. I really need a wider angle. Budget is 0. Haha. Thats why Im trying to make the most out of my kit lens.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Not sure I understand - in your original post, you stated a need for shooting 'subjects that are close'. Now, you say you want a 'wider angle' At the moment, your 18-55 gives you a fairly wide angle. Dropping lower would require something like the 10-22 or thereabouts, Canon/Sigma/Tamron style, again in the $400-600 range.

I guess I'm misunderstanding. Are you looking for a lens recommendation, or hints on using what you already have?

Rangerfan

Sorry. I see your point. I WANT a new lens but cant afford it right now. So I want pointers on making the most out of what I have, which is my kit lens. I also know many beginners only have this lens, so I thought this might make a great discussion thread.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Ok, I think I understand now. Here's what I'd suggest as a good way to get to know the capabilities of your lenses.

Use the 50mm for a few days. Don't take it off your camera. Take a variety of pictures of subjects close in, mid-range, and 'far'. See what it does with a flower at 1 foot, f/1.8, and your house from across the street at f/22. In other words, take it for a real test drive. Don't worry so much about 'art' or composition or the silly 'rule of thirds' at this point.

Then take the 18-55, and stick it at 18. Do the same as you did with the 50 - close, far, wide, narrow, etc etc.

Then set it at 35, and do the same again. Take a flower up close, a portrait, and maybe a landscape type shot. Take the flower at f/2.8 and at f/11 and at f/16, and so on.

Do you see what you're doing? You're learning what the camera/lens 'sees' at various focal lengths and apertures. You're not worried about the art of the photo at this point, you're discovering what the given lens settings produce. The idea here is to be able to look at a scene in a few weeks or so, and think, 'OK, my subject here would be best served at XXmm, f/N.N, at about 1/250th or so, because I know what this amount of light, and this kind of subject will look like under those conditions, since I took what Jim suggested and paid attention to what happened.".

The 18-55IS lens is a perfectly good lens with which to learn about light and shadow and all that stuff. But you have to THINK about what you're doing.

Rangerfan

Ahhhh, THANK YOU. Exactly what I was looking for. Getting tired of having to "fix" everything in photoshop and losing quality. As a side note, I do know how to shoot in manual and understand all about iso, aperature, exposure, exposure comp, shutter speed, how they all relate, etc. Just need to practice shooting more combinations and maybe print them out to look at them. Thanks. Any advice on calibrating? When I look at my photos in lightroom and when I open them in Windows photo viewer, they are gorgeous. But when I email them or on this site they are so desaturated everyone looks dead. Same monitor. Don't get it.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Hmmm..Not sure what might cause the difference in what you perceive. Are you looking at the same photo? What I mean is, are you looking at a RAW guy in L/R but then sending a JPG here? You're not corrupting them by doing a 'save for web' or something, are you? That process basically ruins a picture by knocking it's pixel density way down, from 300 to 72. I never 'save for web' anymore, its a holdover from the dialup days when you wanted all your JPGs to be 35K in size so they wouldn't take forever to transfer. In these days of cable modems and 1TB drives, it's a waste of perfectly good pixels.

Rangerfan

Yes, RAW in Lightroom, but jpeg in Windows photo viewer. Both look the same. But email and this forum, a different story.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Not sure why your email program would see such a difference, but I'm fairly certain the software for UHH takes you upload and mashes it down to fit, probably also does some compression. Do you "store original" when you upload? And if so, does THAT image look different from your upload? Have you tried looking at the forum with different browsers? They all have different jpg rendering algorithms sometimes.

Assuming you are on a Windows platform, you've got IE 7/8/9, Opera, Firefox, Chrome, and possibly half a dozen or so more to test out.

dundeelad Loc: Originally UK. Current West Dundee, Illinois

[quote=JimH]Ok, I think I understand now. Here's what I'd suggest as a good way to get to know the capabilities of your lenses.

Use the 50mm for a few days. Don't take it off your camera. Take a variety of pictures of subjects close in, mid-range, and 'far'. See what it does with a flower at 1 foot, f/1.8, and your house from across the street at f/22. In other words, take it for a real test drive. Don't worry so much about 'art' or composition or the silly 'rule of thirds' at this point.

I have never seen such a clear sensible set of instructions for us newbies as this. I know a lot of us flounder around taking pictures in all sorts of ways trying to learn but not doing it in a disciplined way. This was great info.

John.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Thanks - it's not rocket science, but unfortunately, some times people get so tied up in the arcane mumbo jumbo they forget what the object of the exercise is. I taught computer science for 20+ years, so I'm used to translating witch-doctor jargon into normal-person-speak. Anybody can toss around the technical crap - it's being able to communicate what it really means that helps people who do not yet know.

Dria Loc: Ohio

JimH- terrific instructions.

jhubbs Loc: Torrance, CA

Thanks Jim,
I'm was watching the forum. I also just bought a new Canon T3i. I've been a DSLR owner for three weeks now. I'll take your advice and learn what my lenses can do.

glasskey Loc: Rockwood, Ontario, Canada

Thank you. A very sensible, methodical way of going about understanding my new camera and kit lense.