Hello, canon lovers. Glad to join your community) I`m completely new to photography, however very eager to start my journey with Canon. My old tool for photos was Nik.. eh, does not really matter)) Now I`m here and I`d like to ask my first question. My goal is to start with the portraits and astro photos. So, what model will you suggest to start with? And what kind of lenses do I need for portraits and for astro in particular? Thanks in advance!
Welcome to the forum and merry Christmas, Yurii. May I suggest you start out with the Nifty Fifty. 50mm F1.8 lens, Advantages are the 1.8 aperture for lots of light and good out of focus back ground for portrait photography. Cost compared to other lenses can be cheaper. This is a personal choice and there are other lenses such as the 85mm F1.8, cost wise more expensive but more communally used by serious photographers. Astro photography, not something I am into myself but there are other on the forum who are, check out GDN and Caladina, both do nice images. my personal advice is to check out YouTube as there is a lot on the subject there.
Hello and welcome to the forum. No worries. There are others with more than one camera brand. This is not really my thing, but I would suggest something in the 85 to 135 focal length range. Go and grab a coffee. Astro covers a pretty wide subject matter. It depends how fussy you are with the results you want, and what you want to shoot. How deep are your pockets is another question you have to have a think about. I can suggest lots of things, but this is not my money I am spending. Camera wise, I am using a RP. I like to shot the Milky Way. One thing I would suggest if you haven't brought a camera, is to get one with a flippy screen. This really helps. With lenses, I use prime lenses. When looking for a lens to do astro, look for a lens with low coma. You can use anything from a ultra wide angle lens, to a telescope. Once you have an idea of what you want to do, lets us know, and we will be able to give you some more detailed advice. Gary
Thank you, Craig. Merry Christmas to you! Thanks for the suggestion, will definitely try this one or maybe even 85mm F1.8. I will see if I fit the budget
Coffee is ready and I`m all my ears. First of all, thank you for your time and passion for helping others. I am ready to invest about 1.5k$ in my very basic set of Body + lenses. Considering to buy used body 1k$ or less and 500$ or less the lens. The intention of Astro is to start with Milky Way just to understand how astrophotography works. Therefore go step by step into the deep sky.
Hello Yurii, Welcome to the forums! I have a suggestion you may find a bit crazy at first, flip your plan with your budget on its head, and see if you can grab an inexpensive used digital rebel a generation or two old (maybe under $100, or 60d for example for $200) This will give you time to familiarize yourself with the camera and any other gear you grab. Keep in mind the prices are US based so your conversion may vary a bit, but the idea is that something like a gen old rebel, or 60 are still very capable cameras and can get you photographing with very little up front investing. In the long run you upgrade the camera body much more frequently then the lens so its best to invest on lenses upfront and trade up the body as you outgrow it. Lens wise, I personally like the 50mm 1.4 followed by the 85mm 1.8 for portraits depending on size/number of subjects. Both are great lenses in the 300-400 range and well worth the cost verses performance. There is a 50mm 1.8 quite cheap at $140 and it performs very well for the money, but it feels very plasticy and is a bit soft wide open for my taste, I felt in hindsight its best to get the 50mm 1.4 right away instead of the 1.8, as i wanted to upgrade my 1.8 pretty quickly, and that lens has minimal resale value as people generally at that price will just buy it brand new. For astro, there are options but you will want a wide angle, something in the 14-24mm range, and something preferably pretty fast. I opted for the rokinon, it is manual focus, which you likely will want to do at night anyway, it has a focus chip in mine. It is a fraction of the cost of the canon version, and it is actually pretty sharp. But my recommendation is to get a fixed length and 2.8 or 4.0. Some google search will compare different options for you.
With those suggestions you can get a few lenses and a used body and have money left over for a flash or something if you like, and you can upgrade the used body in a year or so if you want something nicer, the lenses will last you decades. And if you go mirror-less, a full frame ef lens will mount to an RF body easily.
Excellent. No worries, all good. This is just going to be my opinion. I am still learning myself, and I have a way to go yet. The advice that Johnsey has given about a camera body is really good. You don't really need the newest and best body to get started with. What I would look out for in a body is one that has a flippy screen. I think it is a must have. Trying to focus or compose when your camera is pointing straight up is not that easy. Also, get a body that has a wired remote port. This is so you don't have to touch the camera to open and close the shutter. If you can, buy a spare battery or two. It will be the camera body that you change over time. If you buy good lenses, you will keep on using them for a long time. I wouldn't be that worried about buying used either. Of course you are going to want live view to focus with. If you buy a camera with a viewfinder, focusing on stars via a viewfinder accurately is going to be next to impossible. With a lens. Faster the better. More than likely, you will stop the lens down a little bit to cover come the faults with the lens. One of the easiest to see faults is coma. This is where in the corner of your image, the stars will look like seagulls, and not round points of light. If will be less of a problem with an asp-c camera than a full frame camera. But if you move up to a full frame camera in time, you are still going to run into this problem. This is why I feel that spending money on a decent preforming lens is worth while. By all means, grab yourself a 50mm and play with it to find your feet by all means. But you will run into coma issues. Have a look at some of the lenses that you could be interested in on Lenstip......... Lenses reviews - LensTip.com Focal length, only you can answer that one. This is what 40mm will give you on a full frame camera. Antares | Canon Forums I am not 100% happy with this image, and I am looking forward to the winter Milky Way season here so I can have another go at it. Remember the same lens on an aps-c camera will give you a different view. One of problems that I ran into last winter was dew forming on the front element of the lens. I don't know how cold it gets where you are, but we were out in -12 degree's, and the dew would freeze straight away on the front element. This year, I will be grabbing a dew zapper for my lens. Depending on how you are going to take your images, that is, are you going down the equatorial mount or tracker mount path. Or if you are going to put your camera on a static tripod, and take pictures. There is a rough rule of thumb formula. Focal length/300 for aps-c, and focal length/500 for full frame camera. This will give you points of light for your stars. If you go longer than this, you start to get egg shaped stars. If you are going to go down this path, buy a solid tripod. Also, if you can, get to where there is less light pollution. This will help you out no end. With your camera settings. Take everything off auto. The lens, focus it manually. Put the camera in manual or bulb mode. Try ISO 1600 for starters. Ask away with other questions, and let us know what you decide on. Hope this helps. Gary
Hello Shrey you seemed to have submitted a post only quoting a post above. You want to put your text outside the quote brackets.
