|
Post by andycole on Mar 31, 2005 13:34:56 GMT 2
Further to Lio/Mike's re-posts.
If you spend enough money you'll get a bloody good lens, whatever make it is. I don't know what make is the best but only a real expert would be able to tell the difference between a 1000 euro lens from different makers. Get the camera that you want and then pick a lens that suits it, just remembering that you get what you pay for.
Andy.
|
|
|
Post by lio on Mar 31, 2005 14:30:24 GMT 2
Andy's remarks about quality and price of lenses are very true. Mike, I think there's something you can read about the focal lengths of lens before you made your purchase. www.dpreview.com is the best internet resource on digital photography and here are some relevant articles: www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_01.htmwww.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_Multiplier_01.htmAlso, if you do not already know, digital SLR differs from compact digital camera in that the LCD could not be used for framing during shooting (at least at the present stage of development). Many people seem to have omitted this fact. Also the aspect ratio for SLR is 3:2 (ie like film camera) rather than 4:3 as in compact cameras. Make sure that these are OK with you. lio
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Mar 31, 2005 17:56:15 GMT 2
Lol ... i like this website... i knew it but never thought of looking for the lens there... It's indeed a great resource for digital pictures... what is a digital slr??? i have take a look on the site and i can't easily find the info. Mike
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Apr 1, 2005 9:20:19 GMT 2
Hello, This is getting a bloody fantastic post! Another GREAT sites: www.the-digital-picture.com/www.photo.net/DSLR = Digital Single Lens Reflex camera. www.regent.qc.ca/products/Scanopy/WinSCANOPYMoreFeatures.html Andy is totally right ... if you buy a good (and thus expensive lens) the make doesn't really matter; only true experts will see the (tiny) differences. For example; everyone knows the L-series of Canon are top of the bill (they start at 1500 dollars and go way up to 4000 dollars) but the Sigma lens I bought is about as good or even better. I would also advice you to shop around on the internet if you are going to buy lenses which are over 500 dollars. You WILL get them WAY cheaper that way. The Sigma lens I bought costs EUR 1.456,-- everywhere I looked. I litteraly called every retailer in my surrounding AND some major retailers in the bigger cities in NL and that's the price it goes for. On the i-net I found a Dutch i-net shop which sold me that exact same brand new lens for EUR 799,- postage was 19,50 (the lens weighs 1.2 kilo's). I-net shops just buy directly from the factory and don't charge retail prices. You DO get warranty and it's exactly the same as in the shop; even better ---> I got a free bag and sunfilter to go with it! Andy was the one who made me aware of the fact that there are extreme price differences! Thanks again man! If you like nature photos the best site to look at (or even attend) is: www.treknature.com/Here you can see loads of GREAT pictures and the best thing is: you can see what camera and lens (and even what filters) the photographer used! You can even select a certain brand of lens or camera and the you will get all photos on the site taken with that specific lens or camera. On TN there's also a forum. People are very nice and Andy and I learned a lot there. Didn't we Andy??? Andy was right on his warning on shop-advice too. I went to a lot of shops in the past few weeks and was absolutely stunned by the lack of knowledge these people have ...! And yes ... I also went to expensive pro-shops. They just claim telelenses which costs 145 euros make VERY decent photos. Anyway, my advice is ... read, read, read, read before you buy. Ask Andy, ask me, ask Brendan, ask Lio, surf the net, read reviews, ask people at TN, etc. before you buy! Know what to buy or regret it. Don't think too light about your choice. What are your answers to these questions: 1. What do you expect from a lens? If you're easily satisfied you don't need a 1000 dollar lens. 2. What do you want to photograph with a lens? If you don't want to shoot birds, you don't need 300mm or more. 3. How big a hobby is photography for you? Are you prepared to spend 800-1000 dollars on a camera and 500-1000 dollars per lens? ---> dont forget you will need a macro lens, a standard walk around lens (18-55mm), a telelens (100-300mm), a wideangle lens or fisheye, etc. 4. Is SLR really what you want? Maybe a DSLR-like camera is what you need. Best regards, Pieter
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Apr 1, 2005 16:00:13 GMT 2
This is getting a bloody fantastic post! I agree What are your answers to these questions: 1. What do you expect from a lens? If you're easily satisfied you don't need a 1000 dollar lens. 2. What do you want to photograph with a lens? If you don't want to shoot birds, you don't need 300mm or more. 3. How big a hobby is photography for you? Are you prepared to spend 800-1000 dollars on a camera and 500-1000 dollars per lens? ---> dont forget you will need a macro lens, a standard walk around lens (18-55mm), a telelens (100-300mm), a wideangle lens or fisheye, etc. 4. Is SLR really what you want? Maybe a DSLR-like camera is what you need. First of all, i have to remember you that i'm a complete beginner in photography... 1.- what i expect from a lens is the best picture as it could be but i'll start with a standard lens (my wallet tell me that i can't afford another lens for now ) 2.- i want to shoot Game&Watch, and do macro pictures into the nature such as insects (do not ask me why... you won't understand ;D ... ) or landscape. 3.- hmmm photography is not a hobby for now, as i do not have a camera but it will become one in a near future. anyway, i'll begin with standard lens and buy the correct one upon my needs. 4.- it will be a eos350 or a nikon D70... . no more no less... and due to some of your experience sharing and some of my web surfing, i'll keep the canon as final choice (well i won't buy the camera before june... thus it could change... I also think that i'll buy the camera in germany, it's less expensive there : www.guenstiger.de/gt/main.asp?produkt=356475i also have found some interesting links for astrophotography. i'll just share one with you as it's exactly what i will do (one day) : www.johnrcrilly.com/LX200-14/and click on the link called "Rooftop observatory" then gallery... you'll see a astro photography fan... i wonder how much his telescope is worth... [glow=purple,2,300]AstroMike[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Apr 5, 2005 1:28:45 GMT 2
Yer, I tend to agree, unless you have a collection of lenses allready for a canon or nikon you should not allow lense quality to influence you one way for the other. There are so may 3rd parties that make good lenses, Tamron in particullar is one of my faves..
Since I had no lenses the canon was the smart choice... but man do I need to ditch that crappy lense that it came with. I've actually been using my 75-300 because I'm sick of the crap from the 18-55. I really must invest in a good lense, working with a 75mm min is quite interesting, requires onesself to be removed from the subject a lot, and thus general captures shots with a less intrusive nature.
-B
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Apr 6, 2005 11:52:52 GMT 2
I've heard that the 75-300 is not much better.
Andy.
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Apr 6, 2005 12:03:07 GMT 2
on first, i'll do macro photo ...
which type of lens should i use?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Apr 7, 2005 1:10:34 GMT 2
I've heard that the 75-300 is not much better. Andy. Sorry, I ment the USM version, trust me it's better.... ;-) I've looked at all the reviews and I think the 28-135 USM IS is the way to go. Macro lenses...... you need to go for the smallest as possible with a good "minimum focal distance"... the 18-55 is not to bad at close ups. and zoomed in the min focal length is good. but there are better. You could also look into adapter rings to increase or reduce the lenses focal length. -B -B
|
|
|
Post by lio on Apr 7, 2005 7:19:55 GMT 2
dpreview just released a full review of 350D. Got the "Highly Recommended" rating, as expected. www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/Mike, Just read the conclusion if you don't have time. I recommend that you try the kit lens first for macro whatever model you finally decide upon. They most likely can do some macro (but check with the specs to confirm) and they are inexpensive. You may consider the more expensive lenses if you are really not satisfied with the results. lio
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Apr 7, 2005 9:15:24 GMT 2
Well i have decided to buy the 350D, but now i need to find the best and inexpensive store Mike
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Apr 7, 2005 9:42:40 GMT 2
Sorry, I ment the USM version, trust me it's better.... ;-) I've looked at all the reviews and I think the 28-135 USM IS is the way to go. I have bought the Canon 28-135 USM IS lens and already took some photos. I think it's a very good lens. The IS works unbelievably well and although you don't really need a stabilizer at a focal length of 135mm the image is remarkable sharper. I have already send Andy some examples of photos taken with the 28-135 USM IS. If anyone wants to see them, just say so. Regards, Pieter
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Apr 7, 2005 10:25:04 GMT 2
on first, i'll do macro photo ... which type of lens should i use? Mike Try the lens that comes with it, as this will do macro shots. If you're planning to do REALLY tiny things like insects, you might want to get a dedicated macro lens. This sort of thingAndy.
|
|
|
Post by MikeDotBe on Apr 7, 2005 10:56:44 GMT 2
in a first step, the macro pictures i'll do will be "GW" dedicated... i'll try do do the best pictures i could with the camera. when i'll be used to that new camera, i'll try to go further and do more tiny macro shot like insect or other tiny wild life thinks... and when i'll be used to all this (and that i would be able to afford a telescope) i'll try to take pictures of the universe I have already send Andy some examples of photos taken with the 28-135 USM IS. If anyone wants to seen them, just say so. hmmm... SO you could send them on my mail address : my nick { at }gmail.com Mike
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Apr 7, 2005 12:21:25 GMT 2
|
|