| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2007 08:52:42 PM · #26 |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 08:58:44 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by annpatt:
Congrats! Enjoy it. |
Thanks. I'm pretty nervous right now. I sure hope I've done the right thing and that I'm going to cope with a camera so much bigger than I'm used to. And I'm going to feel very restricted until I get that lens.
On the positive side, I discovered that a clip in macro filter I've been using on my P&S cameras seems to work okay on the dSLR. I haven't actually taken any photos yet but I tried focusing with it and I couldn't see any vignetting through the viewfinder, so there shouldn't be too much. It will give me a little bit extra that I can do with the camera before I get the longer zoom. I imagine I'll have to get a proper macro lens sooner or later, but I haven't got the money to buy everything I want at the same time.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2007 09:00:07 PM · #28 |
| You need to get stuck with 50mm prime for 5 to 10 years of your life, you'll never complain about a zoom lenses limits again.... sorry i was deprived as a kid. |
|
|
|
05/18/2007 09:21:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
You need to get stuck with 50mm prime for 5 to 10 years of your life, you'll never complain about a zoom lenses limits again.... sorry i was deprived as a kid. |
Okay, so my Panasonic FZ5 (and before that Olympus 2100) have spoilt me when it comes to zoom range (at the expense of picture quality), but I can't seem myself getting too much done with the kit lens at the zoo, for example. Nor shooting too many candids either.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2007 11:25:57 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Note that Tamron's 18-250 that I mentioned earlier is based on (and outperforms) their older 18-200. |
Sounds good, but it's more expensive than the 18-200 and I've not been able to find any evidence that it's available in South Africa. I will certainly ask when I'm at the shop though.
The Tamrons do seem to be more expensive than the comparable Sigmas - is this a sign of better quality or doesn't it mean anything? |
I personally hold Tamrons, especially the SP series lenses, in higher esteem than the Sigmas, but the Sigma EX series has some good stuff.
Another review of the Tammy, I think that would be a quality buy for you, whether or not it is more expensive. Personally I think the 28-300's are not up to even par, and the 18-200 range is just not quite enough zoom for me. |
|
|
|
05/19/2007 07:59:56 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Note that Tamron's 18-250 that I mentioned earlier is based on (and outperforms) their older 18-200. |
Sounds good, but it's more expensive than the 18-200 and I've not been able to find any evidence that it's available in South Africa. I will certainly ask when I'm at the shop though.
The Tamrons do seem to be more expensive than the comparable Sigmas - is this a sign of better quality or doesn't it mean anything? |
I personally hold Tamrons, especially the SP series lenses, in higher esteem than the Sigmas, but the Sigma EX series has some good stuff.
Another review of the Tammy, I think that would be a quality buy for you, whether or not it is more expensive. Personally I think the 28-300's are not up to even par, and the 18-200 range is just not quite enough zoom for me. |
The shop I bought the camera at doesn't even keep Tamron. And somehow I think the stabilisation is going to be of more value to me than the extra zoom range. If I want more range I can always get something like 70-300 stabilised for special use (when I can afford it). Thanks for confirming my doubts about the 28-300.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2007 11:07:26 AM · #32 |
Whatever you do, do yourself a favor and get the inexpensive Canon 50/1.8 as well. This lens, stopped down to 2.8 or so, will really show you what the camera is capable of. I say this as one who once bought a "mega-zoom" and later sold it after realizing how limiting it was. Specifically, I'm talking about the relatively slow aperture, and having to stop down even from that to get good sharpness. I needed to shoot at f/8 or smaller aperture at 200mm, and that was just not doing the job; it was a "good light only" solution. The lens was the Canon 28-200. It's not that it was really a *bad* lens, it was just very limiting. Although the newer mega-zoom designs are probably better, they will undoubtedly be much softer than primes or standard zooms.
Also, don't totally dismiss the kit lens. It has the same limitations as far as aperture and sharpness, but at those focal lengths it's a little less of an issue, since slower shutter speeds are more workable. The kit lens and a decent 70-300 lens might be an optically better solution for you, if you're not opposed to carrying two lenses. Only you can determine how important a one-lens-does-all situation is to you.
Another thought: Sigma is the only third party manufacturer that reverse-engineers the Canon communications protocol. As a result their lenses eventually need to be rechipped for newer bodies. And eventually they stop supporting this as parts become unavailable. A Sigma may well be the best bet, but keep this in mind. |
|
|
|
05/19/2007 11:18:10 AM · #33 |
The kit lens will let you get to grips with the 400D, as a cheaper second lens, I would buy the Sigma 70-300mm APO, it is a good performer and will let you get that extra reach. Buying the 18-250 duplicates the kits lens, which is not a junker.
I used the Sigma on my 300D and 30D, it is a pretty sharp bit of kit for the price. |
|
|
|
05/19/2007 07:03:10 PM · #34 |
I appreciate the advice about the 70-300, however I'm really not keen on the idea of carrying two lenses. And it is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 18-200. It is a lens I may eventually get for using when I really have to, but for everyday use, I'm keen to have a one lens setup.
 kirbic thanks for that info about Sigma. It is something I will have to bear in mind for future purposes, but in this case I think I'll have to stick with them. That lens just seems perfect for my current requirements. The Canon 50/1.8 is certainly one I will think about in the near future.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2007 08:44:49 PM · #35 |
I have the Tamron 28-80 (f3.5-5.6) and the 70-300 (f4-5.6). These were cheap lenses that I got with my original Rebel 35mm. After buying a 30D I am frustrated with the 1.6 multiplyer on the sensor size only for the fact that 28mm isn't 28mm anymore.
I've used the macro on the 300mm sometimes and it can be nice.
Anyway, I thought it was a good set and it has served me well, but here is what I don't like about them:
Slow- I would rather have a prime lens at f2.8 than my 28-70. The lens on the top of my wish list is the 17-55 Canon f2.8 with IS and USM. Only problem is that it's $1000 or so. I even work at a camera store now and even with my discount I can't afford it. But with the 1.6 multiplier, it would behave like my old 28-70 but at a faster speed. The other lens I'd like to get into is either prime lens at like f1.4 or the 10-22 canon.
They have also been soft in the focus and loud and slow with the AF
Basically, the cheap lenses will carry you for a while but them you'll wish you had something better. When I was going to purchase, a photographer friend said "spend the money on lenses" which I didn't do.
Work with the kit lens and save up for a really nice lens. Or find some friends with different lenses and try them out. My friend works at a video production house that also shoot stills. I got to use some of their canon lenses and realized what I was missing...
Scott
Message edited by author 2007-05-19 20:45:34. |
|
|
|
05/19/2007 09:21:44 PM · #36 |
Quality lenses is something I will think about later. For now I really want to work with one lens. I've hardly used the camera so far, but I've already missed shots because I didn't have the extra zoom available.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 01:47:29 PM EST.
