| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2003 06:38:29 PM · #1 |
I would go with the used d60 over a new 300d all day.
buy the best glass you can afford. I almost never use auto focus anyway so focus speed is not an issue(i use it more in the dep mode to set hyperfocus than anything). You can count on any of the L lenses.
I also hate lenses that the front turns during focusing because it makes tweaking the focus after you set a Polorizer a hassle.
Tim |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 05:58:49 PM · #2 |
Thanks to you all!
I think I now have some more insight on the lense area too. And the helpfull links will add any information I might need (if not found here) to make my decision! :)
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 05:47:16 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Another random thought - a second hand D60 costs almost exactly the same as a new 300D.
I wonder which would be better value. |
Another aspect to look at... But I think I´ll stick with 300D. I dont like second hand items that much really, especially when its about more expensive stuff. Mostly because of any hidden malfunctions there might be. |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 05:39:04 PM · #4 |
my suggestions, for what they're worth, for good quality, minimum $.
Originally posted by Mikael:
What about these?
Canon EF 28-105/3,5-4,5 II USM
|
That one is decent, rated as good optically as the 28-135, and reasonably priced ($219). Don't confuse this one with the 28-105/4-5.6 lens. That one is a bit cheaper but is poorer optically, made of lightweight flimsy plastic, and doesn't work as well in low light.
IMHO, the 28-135 , while a great lens, charges a premium price for the Image Stabilizer, which, again, IMO, at that focal length range is not needed.
Then, for longer zoom range, EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM for $179.00. This is a lens you would wish for the IS on more than the other, I would say. I have the IS version, which was $400, and it's worth it.
And then, the surprisingly high-rated Vivitar Telephoto 100mm f/3.5 Macro Autofocus Lens for $149.00 .. it's not built like a tank nor does it focus at a million miles per hour, but every review i've read has praised the optical quality. And it's a small enough amount of money that if you do upgrade some day you won't feel as bad about it.
Another suggestion for you: use fredmiranda.com, photographyreview.com and epinions.com to look up previous users' opinions on lenses you are considering. these are valuable research tools :).
No, I don't mind sharing what little knowledge I have :)...
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 05:13:04 PM · #5 |
Another random thought - a second hand D60 costs almost exactly the same as a new 300D.
I wonder which would be better value. |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 05:10:29 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 05:01:05 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The 28-135 IS is a very good, flexible lens. I'd consider that one, as well as the 50 1.8. You'd have two lenses you're not going to want to replace for a while.
|
Thought about this lens very much.. it eats up my lens buget though. But maybe I should bite the dust and invest in this one to begin with?
hmm.. certainly worth thinking about! |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 04:54:19 PM · #8 |
What about these?
Canon EF 28-105/3,5-4,5 II USM
Canon EF 90-300/4,5-5,6 USM
$750
Or maybe Sigma Af 70-300/4,0-5,6 Dl Macro instead for the long range and macro shooting? would save me only $50 but then I´ll get a macro lens too.
As you might have noticed my knoledge is slim. Question: Is the only special function on a macro lens to put focus on the closest objekt and have the possibility to easily blur the background?
FYI: I´m planning to take photo lessons ;)
Sorry for all my questions!
I´ve bored my slightly photo interested friend already with all my questions, but I hope I haven´t bored you people yet! :)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 04:34:12 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
The aper you use is dependent on the effect you want and the distance to the subject, among other things. |
Yup, I've been looking at a lot of photo's lately. There are some great possibilities and pic enhancing effects. I just wanted to know if that .4 stop advantage is useful or if the features of the lens itself make the difference.
I'll come over to your place for a portraiture workshop. ;) |
The big differences between the 50mm f1.4 and the 50mm f1.8 are in terms of focus speed and general build quality, at least from what I've read.
The 1.8 is kinda slow, with a slow focus motor. The build quality is cheap and plasticy (but the image quality is great in both)
There are some other subtlties, like the number of blades in the shutter, which changes how the out of focus regions look. I think the 1.4 also has continuous manual override for the autofocus. (you can do that with the 1.8 but I'm sure it doesn't do the motor much good)
In general, you don't want to shoot a lens wide open , if you don't have to - they tend to be at their best a couple of stops away from wide open - but that means the 1.4 is sharper at a larger aperture than the 1.8 is. |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 04:22:49 PM · #10 |
The 28-135 IS is a very good, flexible lens. I'd consider that one, as well as the 50 1.8. You'd have two lenses you're not going to want to replace for a while.
Originally posted by Mikael:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
if u dont want to swap lenses, then why get an interchangeable lens camera? :) why not get the sony 828 or one of the minolta dimage series?
btw, those lenses you listed arent that good. if you have pretty low standards, they'll be ok, but then one would ask, why pony up for a dSLR and not get good lenses (and I'm not even talking top of the line) when you could get so much more for so much less with an attached lens digicam?
just some things to think about... |
Sure worht thinking about! And thats what I´ve been doing the past week.
I decided that I do want to have the flexibility and option to have other lenses. Also most compact cameras doesnt get more zoom than 200mm on a 35mm camera, and I want to get closer! animals and "far away" objects etc. Then theres also the overall capabilities in this camera that I want, ie focus speed.
I want to enhance my photo skills and I dont what the tool to limit me. Though anything even more expensive/better I feel is not an option for me at this time.
So what lens setup would you recommend? I dont want to spend more than $500-600 right now... thats something that I will upgrade in the future if I´m going to get "real deep" into shooting.
Does it seem reasonable? |
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 04:17:52 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
The aper you use is dependent on the effect you want and the distance to the subject, among other things. |
Yup, I've been looking at a lot of photo's lately. There are some great possibilities and pic enhancing effects. I just wanted to know if that .4 aperture (edit: was 'stop') advantage is useful or if the features of the lens itself make the difference.
I'll come over to your place for a portraiture workshop. ;)
Message edited by author 2003-09-09 17:11:11.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 03:53:23 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
if u dont want to swap lenses, then why get an interchangeable lens camera? :) why not get the sony 828 or one of the minolta dimage series?
btw, those lenses you listed arent that good. if you have pretty low standards, they'll be ok, but then one would ask, why pony up for a dSLR and not get good lenses (and I'm not even talking top of the line) when you could get so much more for so much less with an attached lens digicam?
just some things to think about... |
Sure worht thinking about! And thats what I´ve been doing the past week.
I decided that I do want to have the flexibility and option to have other lenses. Also most compact cameras doesnt get more zoom than 200mm on a 35mm camera, and I want to get closer! animals and "far away" objects etc. Then theres also the overall capabilities in this camera that I want, ie focus speed.
I want to enhance my photo skills and I dont what the tool to limit me. Though anything even more expensive/better I feel is not an option for me at this time.
So what lens setup would you recommend? I dont want to spend more than $500-600 right now... thats something that I will upgrade in the future if I´m going to get "real deep" into shooting.
Does it seem reasonable? |
|
|
|
09/09/2003 03:43:52 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Mikael:
Or setup 2:
Canon EF 28-90/4-5.6 II USM
Tamron AF 70-300/4-5,6 LD Macro
All for about $430
A little cheaper but have to swap lenses. Getting the USM focus speed though... |
I'd go with this choice. I haven't shot any of these lenses but I'm pretty sure you want to stay away from a 28-300 lens as the elements can't possibly be optimized for working at both the widest and narrowest ends. That means either you'll get decent closeups and soft teles or decent teles and soft closeups or, more likely, just average shots all across the lens' range. Since you got yourself an SLR, take advantage of the ability to outfit it with different lenses at differing qualities. I think the EF lens with USM would be a useful all around lens and the 70-300 will get you excited about reaching out and getting distant picture (or maybe just a macro). I think you'll probably get better quality at the extremes than if you go with one lens that is supposed to "do it all." And since you're already thinking about spending $500 for the 1st setup and the 2nd setup costs you $430, I'd suggest you go ahead and add the 50mm f/1.8 prime (about $65 from B&H Photo). You can get some razor thin DOF shots as well as low-light shots with that lens.
Just my $0.02.
Kev
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 03:27:20 PM · #14 |
if u dont want to swap lenses, then why get an interchangeable lens camera? :) why not get the sony 828 or one of the minolta dimage series?
btw, those lenses you listed arent that good. if you have pretty low standards, they'll be ok, but then one would ask, why pony up for a dSLR and not get good lenses (and I'm not even talking top of the line) when you could get so much more for so much less with an attached lens digicam?
just some things to think about...
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 02:37:31 PM · #15 |
I´ve ordered the 300D today!
I will prolly get it in the beginning of october. Boy this is going to be a long month!
So now I gotta choose which lens(es) I should have, and need your advice once again.
Setup 1 plain and simple:
Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 XR Aspherical Macro
About $500.
Seems nice to not have to swap lenses all the time!
Or setup 2:
Canon EF 28-90/4-5.6 II USM
Tamron AF 70-300/4-5,6 LD Macro
All for about $430
A little cheaper but have to swap lenses. Getting the USM focus speed though...
OR setup 3:
Sigma Af 28-80/3,5-5,6 II Macro ($140! closest focus point; macro at 0.25meter)
Tamron AF 70-300/4-5,6 LD Macro ($190!)
Mega cheap solution! =)
Maybe throw in the cheap EF 50 1,8 if I´m not satisfied with the sharpness, or something.
Which setup is best? quality vs price. Very thankful for any comments!
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 01:56:31 PM · #16 |
The aper you use is dependent on the effect you want and the distance to the subject, among other things.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 01:40:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
So far I've got the 50 F1.4 and the 70-200 F4L. One of the selling points of the 50 1.4 over the 1.8 was the 58mm filters, of which I had several. The metal mount and the USM (with full-time manual, meaning focus lock, then re-focus manually if necessary and shoot, which is good for crowd situations) sealed the deal. I'd think about it if you are really into portraiture and/or low light and will use a 50 a lot. |
I would like to get into portraiture, but I am too shy for that at the moment. At what aperture do you use it when you do portraits? I could imagine that 1.4 gives an extremely narrow dof. Or does the out of dof area gradually & smoothly soften? How's the 50mm 1.8 in that respect?
The 70-200 F4L arrived yesterday,
Thanks for the photo. Not really knowing lenses you think of the big white tele's the pro's lug around at sport games. :) Sized like a beer bottle it must be very comfortable to use. ;)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2003 01:28:44 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by lionelm:
WA zoom
=======
Personnally, I bought the canon 17-40 after having the 2 in my hands. Some additional $, but I decided to invest 'for the long run' even if I had to wait a little more.
The sigma... ...bucks though.
I would have like the additional 2mm but once I had the 17-40 in my hands without the hood, I had no question about it.
Other than that, people are happy with the quality of the 15-30 (except lens flare). |
Thanks, now I am sure that I will try both out before I buy. I'll see if I can live with the Sigma. I actually hope that the 1.3x sensor size of the 1D sees a consumer body soon. That makes the difference at wideangle less noticeable and the 17-40 might be a bit better in the corners.
28-135IS is a very nice all around lens.
How would you rate its output quality? Say, compared to the 17-40?
Azrifel, what I would say miss in your selection is something 'in the middle', you have one fixed lens between 30 and 70 and it's not a lot. I think you are going to miss something there.
Well, I am not using that region on the 602 at this moment. So my thinking was like: When I miss it I can always fill it up later. I have been thinking about it, the other option was the 70-200 F4L, something like the IS lens you mentioned, the 50 prime and a Tamron 17mm prime -correction: make that a Tokina 17mm prime (17/3.5 AT-X Pro)-.
my 0.02
Thanks! :)
Message edited by author 2003-09-09 13:49:59.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2003 12:18:35 PM · #19 |
Didn't read through all the posts but here is what I do when buying lenses
I take my d60 to the camera store, with memory card, take pics with different lenses that I am interested in and take them home to see which is best
I did this with the 17-35 2.8 L and the 28-135 IS and love both of them
I buy IS when I can because i feel they give sharper images on digital cameras
I also have the 100-400 IS and love it to pieces for the 600 actual zoom i get.
i don't use my old lenses anymore due to lack of IS
questions or sample requests let me know thanks
|
|
|
|
09/08/2003 11:57:44 AM · #20 |
*bump*
Thanks for the input so far. I don't have time to reply right now.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2003 10:13:41 PM · #21 |
| kirbic, those are fantastic... Now that I've seen just how close you can get with the 100/2.8 macro, I might have to consider it... I already have a 1.4 converter sitting here, in a drawer... just need the D-SLR! There's always film (I guess) |
|
|
|
09/06/2003 10:00:39 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm becoming another great fan of the 100/2.8 macro lens. I've also been using it in conjunction with a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter, giving of course 1.4x max magnification. I've posted three outtakes from my shooting for the insect challenge, all done with the 100mm macro + Tamron combination.
Wasp
Grasshopper
Moth |
The moth's ears are awesome! Some really good macros in there. |
|
|
|
09/06/2003 10:00:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The 70-200 F4L arrived yesterday .... |
Jimmy, you could have use a picture that's in focus ! the 70-200f4 is a nice piece, it would deserve it ;-) |
|
|
|
09/06/2003 09:33:29 PM · #24 |
I'm becoming another great fan of the 100/2.8 macro lens. I've also been using it in conjunction with a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter, giving of course 1.4x max magnification. I've posted three outtakes from my shooting for the insect challenge, all done with the 100mm macro + Tamron combination.
Wasp
Grasshopper
Moth
|
|
|
|
09/06/2003 08:54:58 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
W O W.
Good lord. What's all this nonsense talk about Jacko running away with the blue? If you're entering one like or better than this, remind me to sit out! I can't .. wow....
That first image is good, the second image blows me away. |
Thanks - I had a good day today. Thing is, the one I've entered will probably do terribly badly but I entered the one I liked the most for aesthetics, rather than technical quality - so it'll probably get panned :) |
|
