| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/27/2004 01:06:34 PM · #1 |
Okay, if you're a canon user, specifically 300D, then maybe yu could answer a few little questions.
1. If you could get one other lens, reasonably priced, for you cam, what would it be?
2. If you could get a resonable priced telephot lens for wildlife/outdoor/lanscape fotog, what would it be?
3. If you could get a resonably priced flash, which one would it be?
&
4. What is the differnce, other than price, between a low & how apeture lens?
Thanks in advance good people!
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 01:17:50 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
Okay, if you're a canon user, specifically 300D, then maybe yu could answer a few little questions.
1. If you could get one other lens, reasonably priced, for you cam, what would it be? |
Possibly a 28-70, but mine is a 2.8, meaning it's fairly large/heavy.. I think I'd be tempted by a non-IS 28-135.
Originally posted by Rooster:
2. If you could get a resonable priced telephot lens for wildlife/outdoor/lanscape fotog, what would it be? |
My 75-300 is a bit soft at the top end, but it's got nice range, and the non-IS version is fairly cheap. If you want a higher quality lens you won't replace, possibly a 70-200L would be better, but you WILL miss the extra zoom for nature photography..[/quote]
Originally posted by Rooster:
3. If you could get a resonably priced flash, which one would it be? |
I don't have one, but people seem to rate the Sigma.. Similar price to the Canon 420EX, but with features similar to the 550EX.
Originally posted by Rooster:
4. What is the differnce, other than price, between a low & how apeture lens? |
Generally you can use high aperture (so low f-stop number) lenses is darker situations.. Or, in bright situations, but with very fast shutters. Ideal for sports, etc. Also, you'll get a nice shallow DOF, even at relatively short zooms. |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 01:29:51 PM · #3 |
1. I would probably buy the Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5. Great lens for the price. Very good quality, but not as fast as some.
2. I bought the Sigma 70-300 F4.0-5.6 APO. Great lens for the price. Good reach for nature.
3. Canon 420 EX.
4. The lower the aperature (ie. 2.8) the less light you need to properly expose your shot.
PS. Get the Canon 50mm F1.8. It's cheap, really fast, and has great optics. Definitely worth the $70.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 01:33:41 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by mariomel:
2. I bought the Sigma 70-300 F4.0-5.6 APO. Great lens for the price. Good reach for nature.
|
how sharp is this lens? at the wide end, and how sharp at the far end and midrange? do you have samples?
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 01:46:23 PM · #5 |
I have the 28-105mm F3.5-4.5...very nice all purpose lens
I have the 420ex flash...nice, easy to use, less $ than the 550ex
Also have the 50mm 1.8 and the Sigma 105macro...both good
I will be getting either the Canon 75-300mm USM or the Sigma 70-300mm
I was going to get the 70-200 F4 but decided for wildlife it wasnt enough reach. That with the teleconverter is $900. Thats more than I wanna spend right now. |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 01:49:56 PM · #6 |
PS. Get the Canon 50mm F1.8. It's cheap, really fast, and has great optics. Definitely worth the $70.
What kind of fotog does this lens serve? What is it best for?
Plus, everyone else, sorry for not putting htis int he originaly post, but is the price range for these lenses? Cost is difintely atop consideration for me. Thanks!
Message edited by author 2004-03-27 13:51:14.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2004 01:57:17 PM · #7 |
haven't used Sigma's 70-300mm, but this is with their 28-300 F3.5-6.3, taken at about 260mm. Pretty sharp considering it's at ISO 400 and only 1/125 shutter.
P-Ness |
|
|
|
03/27/2004 05:21:24 PM · #8 |
These are with Sigma`s 70-300 at 300mm and cropped to boot!
Please look at ellamay`s lovely lady shot if you want a great example of the 70 range.
To me this picture is absolutely amazing!
;-)
Message edited by author 2004-03-27 17:49:36. |
|
|
|
03/28/2004 08:31:21 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
PS. Get the Canon 50mm F1.8. It's cheap, really fast, and has great optics. Definitely worth the $70.
What kind of fotog does this lens serve? What is it best for?
Plus, everyone else, sorry for not putting htis int he originaly post, but is the price range for these lenses? Cost is difintely atop consideration for me. Thanks! |
I personally am using this lens for portraits. It's a great lens and I also highly recommend it for the money.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2004 09:54:20 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
What kind of fotog does this lens serve? What is it best for?
|
It's great portrait lens, and a GREAT low light lens, for those situations where you can't (or don't want to) use the flash. I use it at diner parties and stuff, where I don't want to bother the guests with a flash. I just bring up the ISO a little, and you get nice natural light shots.
In my opinion, this is the best $70 you can spend for your camera.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 01:30:07 PM EDT.
