Lenses - Please explain!

[Ex-biker]

What do all the abbreviations mean on the lens specs? Can someone please explain what they mean, what exactly they do and if they are worth the extra money?

Looking at Canon lenses I found these:

EF, EF-S, USM, IS, L, DO, U and Macro


Sigma (with by far the most):

HSM, HSZ, EX, FX, IF, RF, HF, DF, DG, DC, DL, UL, OS, APO and Macro


Tamron:

IF, DI, XR, LD and Macro

I know IS is Image Stabilisation and is a good idea for longer zoom lenses, but is there an equivalent in the Sigma and Tamron ranges?

[docevi1]

and whilst your there explaining that lot, what does the 18-55 mean? Is it aperture settings, what about zoom?

[Paul.B]

docevi1 said:

and whilst your there explaining that lot, what does the 18-55 mean? Is it aperture settings, what about zoom?

I can do this one


18-55 is the focal length range. 18mm - 55mm! This is the zoom range of the lens. The higher the number the closer the subject appears. The lower the number the wider the angle of the shot.

For close in shots of motorsport for example you want the highest focal length you can afford. 200 - 400. For landscapes or buildings you may want a wider angle? Therefore a lower focal length.

The other important number is the F stop range F4-5.6 for example. On a zoom lens this would mean at the shortest focal length the widest aperture available would be F4. At the longest focal length it would be F5.6. This is the ring that controls how much light the lens allows through on a given shutter speed. It also effect the depth-of-field. What part of the shot is in focus. Wide (low number) aperture setting will bring the focus in short to the middle of the shot. A narrow (high number) will bring more into focus. It also can make object appear deeper in the picture, or closer to the foreground. Confussed? The faster (lower F stop number) a lens is the better/more expensive they tend to be. A 70 - 200 F2.8 will be more expensive than a 70 - 300 F4-5.6 for example. The F2.8 will make the lens more usefull in low light situations because the aperture ring can allow more light in at any given shutter speed. It will also give a deeper depth of field!


Paul.B

[GetCarter]

... well done that man!

Or put REALLY simply - generally speaking, you gets what you pays for.

[Paul.B]

GetCarter said:

... well done that man! Or put REALLY simply - generally speaking, you gets what you pays for.

Thanks Steve! I typed that without drawing breath.

Paul.B

[GetCarter]

You are a better man than I - If I typed even this without drawing breath, I'd probab l y //////rflkgk9obop]bopkrbap...................

[Ex-biker]

OK, can someone at least answer this bit?

Ex-biker said:

I know IS is Image Stabilisation and is a good idea for longer zoom lenses, but is there an equivalent in the Sigma and Tamron ranges?

Do I need IS (or equiv) for sports pics?

And am I going to regret buying something like this?:
www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=295&ManufacturerID=51&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38

Compacts are so simple . . .

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

EF - Extended focus. Bit meaningless really and now just used to signify the mount.
EF-S - The new mount for some digital bodies (20D/300D/350D). These can't be used on older bodies.
USM - Ultra Sonic Motor. The focusing motor.
IS - Image Stabilisation. Says it all really.
L - Better quality (mostly) than non L lenses.
DO - Odd diffraction based lenses. Work almost as well as normal lenses but much lighter.
U - ?
Macro - Stop being lazy now

[fatsteve]

Ex-biker said:

OK, can someone at least answer this bit? Ex-biker said: I know IS is Image Stabilisation and is a good idea for longer zoom lenses, but is there an equivalent in the Sigma and Tamron ranges? Do I need IS (or equiv) for sports pics? And am I going to regret buying something like this?: www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=295&ManufacturerID=51&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38 Compacts are so simple . . .

Possibly, cheap lenses (as I'm finding out) can be a false ecconomy. However, I looked at that one when I bought my Tamron 28-300, the 28-300 is a much better lenses IMOH, although it's a bit more expensive (£215).

IS is certainly great to have on a zoom lens, but this racks the price up no-end. Treat yourself to a monopod, that will certainly help. I took a lot of shots at the British grand prix with a relatively cheap zoom; Sigma 170-500 (about £450 these days) with a mono-pod, and got some fairly decent results



Steve

[docevi1]

thanks for that Paul

[Ex-biker]

fatsteve said:

Possibly, cheap lenses (as I'm finding out) can be a false ecconomy. However, I looked at that one when I bought my Tamron 28-300, the 28-300 is a much better lenses IMOH, although it's a bit more expensive (£215). IS is certainly great to have on a zoom lens, but this racks the price up no-end. Treat yourself to a monopod, that will certainly help. I took a lot of shots at the British grand prix with a relatively cheap zoom; Sigma 170-500 (about £450 these days) with a mono-pod, and got some fairly decent results Steve

Steve has the Tamron got some form of IS?

I take it is this one?:
www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=1762&ManufacturerID=51&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38

How does it compare to this one?:
www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=489&ManufacturerID=50&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38

[fatsteve]

Ex-biker said:

fatsteve said: Possibly, cheap lenses (as I'm finding out) can be a false ecconomy. However, I looked at that one when I bought my Tamron 28-300, the 28-300 is a much better lenses IMOH, although it's a bit more expensive (£215). IS is certainly great to have on a zoom lens, but this racks the price up no-end. Treat yourself to a monopod, that will certainly help. I took a lot of shots at the British grand prix with a relatively cheap zoom; Sigma 170-500 (about £450 these days) with a mono-pod, and got some fairly decent results Steve Steve has the Tamron got some form of IS? I take it is this one?: <a href="http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=1762&ManufacturerID=51&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38">www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=1762&ManufacturerID=51&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38</a> How does it compare to this one?: <a href="http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=489&ManufacturerID=50&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38">www.cameraworld.co.uk/displayProduct1.asp?ProductIDs=489&ManufacturerID=50&PriceRangeID=&Ty_Typeproduct=2&TypeId=38</a>

No IS on the Tamron, but it's quite a nice light lens which helps reduce the wobble!. Mine's actually the non-Di model (about £15 cheaper, however the Di one wasn't launched when I bough mine)

www.warehouseexpress.com/index.cfm?photo/lenses/tamron.html

Not sure about the Sigma, didn't look at it. Certainly worth doing a back to back in a shop if you can. The "scores on the doors" are the same so the diference is going to be glass and build quality. Hmm, tough call.

One thing to look for on Tamron lens is the SP designation and EX on the Sigma range. Loosely means better glass generally in the same way as Canon's L range.

If you're going to push the boat out the 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX APO (86mm) is a good lens. Though it is quite bulky and you'll HAVE to use it with a mono-pod / tri-pod (unless your Geoff Capes!)

Steve

>> Edited by fatsteve on Sunday 27th March 15:19

[Ex-biker]

Well I thought £500+ on a camera was a lot of cash, but by going for Dslr I still need to look for a long lens.

The best value is certainly what I'm looking for. It's just flippin' confusing

[Bacardi]

ThatPhilBrettGuy said:

L - Better quality (mostly) than non L lenses.

Actually, 'L' stands for 'Loadsa money'

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

Bacardi said:

ThatPhilBrettGuy said: L - Better quality (mostly) than non L lenses. Actually, 'L' stands for 'Loadsa money'

You're not wrong there. Usually as in "Bloody L how much?".

[dcw@pr]

you don't need IS for taking sports photos. IS only allows for slower shutter speeds, it doesn't stop the subject moving, so it won't reduce blur (unless you are photographing chess). You need larger apertures instead

[sjn2004]

For your Canon queries , you'll find all your answers here;

www.canoneos.com

[Ex-biker]

I found the Sigma answers here:
www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/abbriviations2.htm

and here:
www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/lens-tech.htm