Hi Guys,

Haven't been in this part of teh forum before, but I'm going to pick up my Canon EOS 500D on Wednesday as my first foray into the world of SLR's and serious photography. I've been using my phone up until now, but I'm craving some decent effects like motion blur and depth of field.

Wondered if any of you wisened ones had any hints and tips for me.

Joe

Read the manual from front to back so you understand what your camera can do.

Experiment - now you have digital you can take hundreds of pictures without worrying about wasting film. Make a (mental) note of what works for you and what doesn't.

Be bold; try new stuff all the time; new angles on familiar subjects, 'camera toss' (at own risk! - search flickr for more info)

Have fun!

at night in a built up city centre use a long exposure on a pod to get some brill motion blur.

Quite importantly what lens do you think I need in my collection, I know it depends on what I'll be shooting, but I intend to do all sorts from portraits to landscapes.

My friend in the know has suggested that on top of the standard 18-55mm EF-S lens, I need:

50mm static lens,
70-300mm lens,
tripod,
flash,
remote.

I'm also weighing up a nice 24-105mm lens to fill the gap between the 55 and the 70.

I'm not buying it all at once, so I have some time to chop and change pieces.

I'm getting the camera on Wednesday this week, then I'm split the rest into 2 expansions.
Those being Ex1: 50mm lens, flash.
and Ex2: 70-300mm lens, tripod, remote.

What do people think, too much?

Joe

I'd get the tripod and remote before the flash; you'll use them far more often. Flash photography can be quite specialised. With the 50mm lens, I'd recommend the Sigma 50mm EX/DG Macro - it's a bit slow to focus, but it's very sharp, and has a fantastic 1:1 macro mode for close-up shots.

There's a school of thought that reckons you should avoid any zoom that's got more than a 3x factor on it (i.e. the 70-300. A 70-210 yes, or a 100-300.).
I'd personally rather carry 3 lens rather than a zoom. Depends on what you're into shooting of course, but I tend to stick to either my 28 or 50mm. The 135mm is a nice change now and then. I do take out a 28-200 from time to time, but it's rarely used.

Either way, I suggest that for landscapes a good wide lens like a 24mm, and for portraits something like a fast 50mm. As Nick says, if you can find one with a Macro so much the better.

I'd agree that the flashes can come later, a good tripod and a remote release will be more useful.

Canon 100-400mm L IS USM if you can stretch to it Seriously, look at the Canon 70-200 F4 and a 1.4x convertor. The 70-200 is one of the sharpest L series lenses on the market

I understand what you're saying Prof but I'm getting more used to locking my big zoom off and treating it like a prime instead of zooming in and out all the time. Of course you'll never beat a prime but the cost can be out of reach for many (me).

Al

Another small joy of obsolete equipment. The most expensive lens I lust after is under £100!

I have read that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a must have replacement for rubbish kit lenses. Its certainly the next thing on my list.

You'll want to get rid of the kit lens fairly sharpish, I'd imagine. I'd get the 50mm f/1.8II first, and not worry about what to get after that until the time comes. From there see what you want from your next lens. Is 18mm wide enough for you? Do you want to go full frame at some point? Only look at what your next purchase will be to start with, and fill gaps until you have a decent set.

Barclays have foiled my evil plan of Camera ownership.

My Debit card got declined about 6 times. Have to start thinking about getting a credit card to avoid theses embarrassing situations.

Joe

Edited for accuracy. Trust me, easier that way.

Got it now, had to transfer some money from my ISA.

Seems the ATM was lying to me that morning by about £50.

Really like it, good fun this professional photography lark.

Joe

Taken by the mrs

That's a great shot!