Wow! I just read the thread started by Ken … how he has an old film SLR and he is debating going with a new digital or spending money on another lens, etc. for his model railroad photography.
So many responses to that post, all with valid points and personal experiences. I came away with much food for thought. You guys have a great little forum, here.
I also have a Canon EOS 10s film camera, though mine was purchased around 1990. I took lots of photos when the kids were small, then for some reason, I just stopped using it. Now I really want to get back into taking some quality photos.
A digital Canon SLR is in the future for me … way in the future. Right now I need to make a lens purchase, two actually.
My EOS 10s has a Canon EF 50mm lens on it … my only lens. I want to take photos of my model railroading equipment that I am painting, etc. Can someone recommend a lens I should buy for such close ups?
And, while off topic, … I now have two sons that play high school football. Can someone recommend a lens to buy so I can get shots of them on the playing field, while I am behind the bench? How much zoom is too much? Or is there no such thing as too much? Some static shots, some action shots.
Finally, are there any great places to buy photographic supplies. I moved since I bought the 10s, and the local photography place here in town … I don’t like the guy and don’t want to go there. Is there a “Tony’s Train Exchange” of cameras and equipment …friendly , honest, good people?
The easiest and cheapest way to get in closer than your 50mm will focus would be to add closeup lenses to the front of it. Sets with +1, +2 and +4 diopter lenses can be had for $35.00 or so. They screw on the front of your lens just like a filter. They can be added together to get even closer. Always shoot at f/22 to get the best depth of field; of course this means the camera has to be on a tripod.
The 50mm lens by itself is pretty useful for HO scale model shots.
I’ve used my Canon EF 28mm wide angle lens for many of my model railroad shots in the past. The close up lenses can be added to this one, but it focuses pretty close so I never added them very much. Both the 28mm and 50mm Canon lenses take the same sized filters, 52mm, so they can be used for both.
As for sports photos, I’ve used my Canon 100-300mm zoom shooting my grandson’s football games. Sometimes it was long enough, but sometimes it wasn’t. A lot depends upon where you can place yourself during the game - I was at the sidelines. If you are in the stands, a longer one migh tbe required.
I agree with Bob (Fundy Northern). I have a Canon EOS 630 film camera and use my 28-70mm lens with 64 ISO(slides) or 100 ISO(print) most of the time for close-up shots (at 28mm). Seems to do well without the close-up lenses (they tend to distort the subject slightly when used at 28mm).
As for sports shots, I use my 70-210mm or 100-300mm depending on where I get to sit and try to use 400 or 800 ISO film for the faster action. Hope this helps a little.
You might be able to do both with one lens. When I purchased my Digital Rebel I was not certian I would be satisfied with the quality so I didn’t buy canon prime lenses right away. I bought a set of sigma’s for $250 or so. In the set is a 70-300 macro zoom. I used it for photos of my daughters baseball and also trains.
Please forgive the “snapshot” quality of the following. All are hand held with available light. I was trying to choose some that showed the size variation with the tele vs macro.
Left - Standard lens that came with camera about 35mm. Right - Same position focusing on closest locomotive with Sigma 70-300 zoom in Macro mode. I didn’t notice the cobwebs until I viewed the photo. The nice thing about a telephoto macro is that one doesn’t have to get so close to the model and block the light.
left - From stands with the Sigma set at 70mm. Camera had a really hard time deciding whether to focus on the fence or what was behind it. Right - From same position but the lens is zoomed about to about 250mm not macro. Also note that 300mm on a Rebel is more like a 400mm would be on a normal film camera.
[img]http://www.
those sigma lenses are great for starting out…you get your basic wide/medium lens and a nice long 70-300 with a decent 4 max aperture for zooms, both with macro. And theyre fairly sharp. if you are looking for something like that to use indoors the 70-300 in macro mode will work fine, but you may need a flash or a tripod because of the lack of light and the relativey small 4 aperture on the lens tends to give u a blurry picture when hand held. if u want to go big, the canon macro lenses are great, but so is the price. great big price.
From my experience and from what I’ve seen and read, zoom lenses aren’t the best choice for model railroad photography. Sure they may be able to focus in close, but with less than great results. My Canon Digital Rebel came with an inexpensive 18-55mm zoom (35mm film camera equivalent of a 28-85mm lens), and I am pleasantly surprised with the results. As I mentioned previously, best results/best depth of focus can be achieved with wide angle lenses closed down to f/22. Zoom lenses when used in their closeup mode even at f/22 will not give you anywhere near the sharpness or depth of focus.
In the world of cameras, Sigma lenses are not held in great regard. For Canon cameras, they do not license the electronic technology from Canon as other makers do. As a result, they reverse engineer their lenses to work with Canon cameras. They may work with your current camera, but there is no guarantee they will work with any future ones. Canon lenses will work with all cameras. So you get what you pay for.
Here’s a shot taken with my Digital Rebel and 18-55mm zoom at the 18mm length (28mm equivalent with a film camera) and f/22:
(Click to enlarge)
Model is an HO scale dummy steam engine once offered by Monogram, and is about 12 inches long.
Yes that is true. A zoom lens is never the best choice for anything but convienence. A simlar quality fixed focus will always be cleaner. I was trying to illustrate the difference between a MACRO close focusing vs a standard lens. The fact that it was also a ZOOM variable focus lense is coincedence and irrelevant to my point. There are many wonderful fixed-focus macro lens out there eg. http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=47&sort=7&thecat=2
Also true, but neither is the 18-55 that came with the Rebel. There is always the “good enough” factor. Will the two Sigmas and the Canon be “good enough” for $275 rather than one of the cheaper Canon L class for $1300? Only the individual photographer can answer that.
I have been disapointed with the 18-55 that came with the Rebel, but I am super picky too. It seems to be about the same (consumer) quality as the Sigmas. As soon as I decided I liked the Rebel camera itself I began a lens upgrade program. So if anyone really wants my recomendation on true high quality (and expensive) lenses I can recommend the following upgrades from the “good enough stuff”:
Sigma 50-90 mm to → Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (my new prime lens)
Sigma 90-300mm to → EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS
Canon EF-S 18-55mm to → Canon EF-S 17-85mm (for day to day stuff)
But note, instead of being out $275, I’ve spent many times that much. AND I still don’t have a single MACR
