The XMEN Clan Forums

You know I have the Digital Rebel XT... I've got a 55mm it came with and a "cheap" 300mm lense... Mr. Porsche recomends something at least 400mm, but I still know next to nothing about photography.

You guys are probably getting tired of me asking for n00b infos... but I enjoy pestering so much! I'll be doing some research on my own (as well as some learning), but will most likely have given up by the time you read this.

Also, a polarizing filter...... and stuff...

For polarizing make sure you get a "circular" polarizar. It'll probably cost $50 or more.

The 300 is about as long as you're going to get at a reasonable price point. You might think about a teleconverter (1.4x, for example) that fits between lens and body and will give you some length at the cost of your infinity focus and an f-stop or two.

yeah, I just found that out... Canon's 100-400mm lense is $1700, and that's a sale price. Maybe I should dust off ye ol' physics book and figure out the difference between 300mm and 400mm.

and Canon's extenders aren't compatible with my lenses

maybe if I sold off a car or two I could afford a 400mm lense

(btw, finally found the manual and am learning how to set shutter speed and aperature manually... yay for me!)

You should be able to find extenders that will work for you. For example:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5 ... Canon.html

It'd be best to find one that's the same brand as the camera or lens, of course.

Is that the 8.1 MP Rebel?

yeppers, but my dad might upgrade to the 12.8 MP EOS-5D... but I'm drooling over the 16.7 MP 1Ds mk2 (except for the $7000 price tag...)

but when he upgrades... I get the Digi Rebel XT
(though I was debating between buying a Rebel XTi or a similarly priced Nikon 10.2 MP camera early next year... I might settle for a free Rebel XT)

I think I might just get what I can get out of my cheapo 300mm lense and save for an über camera down the road.

Most photogs will tell you to put the money in the lens, not the body. True, to a point. Gotta have decent "film" to put the images on, after all.

True Gambit but remember back in the day of Film photography some people liked the graininess (sp?) of 400-800 Film.

But there was also film that wouldn't ever get the color right, or that deteriorated quickly, or when you bought it was half-exposed already and you didn't know it until you'd shot that special event and ended up with crap.

Decent != not grainy.

what's film?

You guys are so old!

My son has a Kodak Advantix Camera, (My ex bought it for him) and I have to say, it sucks beyond belief. Even with perfect light, you still wind up with crappy images. it may be because most of the film isn't as "new" as you'd expect, or Kodak and Fujifilm film is crap.. either way, I'll stick with my Sony 5Mp for now until i can get a nicer camera....

Dude - I don't remember recommending a 400mm lens. Not sure that I've ever recommended that length to anyone because I know how expensive they can be. Oh, well...

Understand that you can also mount non-Canon lenses to your body. Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron are among the most popular generics. Do your research, though. You'll get more lens for your money, but the optics aren't always as good as what you find in a Canon lens. Each of the manufacturers that I listed make some very good lenses, and they also make some very bad ones, too. For example, Sigma makes an awesome 10-20mm wide angle zoom, but they also make some lenses that aren't worth the cost of the materials used to make it.

Be careful with teleconverters (TC), also. Like Gambino said you'll lose an f-stop or two. If your 300mm lens is consumer grade then it at it's widest your probably only able to achieve f4-f5.6. Take those widest f-stops away with a TC and you're left with a lens that is really only usable in very bright lighting. Also, a TC could soften your images, too. Remember - you're adding a few more pieces of glass between your subject and your sensor. Nikon makes 3 TC's (1.4x, 1.7x, and 2.0x). From what I've heard from many of the pros that I know, the 1.7x and 2.0x are nowhere near as sharp as the 1.4x. Since extending my zoom by .4x isn't really worth what I would spend I'll hold off on buying a 1.4x TC. However, I've heard that Kenko's pro line is worth looking into. I also noticed that you said that you might look at a Nikon next year. Before I invested another penny into a lens I would give that some long, hard thought. Anything that you buy that is compatible with a Canon mount will not work on a Nikon and vice versa.

As for your filter, why a polarizer? Are you looking for a filter simply to protect the end of your lens, or are you going for a specific effect?

With regards to the Canon pro bodies, personally I wouldn't drool over the 1Ds mk2. The Mark III is where it's at. The results that I've seen from this camera shooting at ISO6400 are simply unreal. Plus, it cost somewhere in the mid $4k range. Actually, the standard Mark IIn is still an awesome body. With the advent of the Mark III you're going to start seeing some steals on good, used Mark IIn's.

One final word of advice: Don't buy into the megapixel myth that says that more is better. You will see no difference between an 8.1mp camera and one that has a 10.2mp sensor. Follow this link to see why I say this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Hope that helps.

Don't know how close you'll be to the track but something that will reach out to about 400mm would probably work well.

Maybe I mistook the meaning of that ↑

But I've already decided to just try and get what I can w/ what I've got. (ala ~7 posts up) Then I can spend less time worrying about pictures and more time enjoying the races.

-d00d

Ah! Forgot about that one. Good catch. Without remember all of the details, if you were looking for a lens for a one-time event (such as a race) you can usually rent one for a reasonable amount.

What's the crop factor on an XT? On a Nikon it's 1.5, which makes a 300mm lens the equivalent of a 400.