| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2005 12:19:36 PM · #1 |
| I'm looking into the dslr market, and buying lenses will be a new thing for me. How many lenses does the average person have or (need).... Would it be useful to buy a telephoto, wide angle, macro....for different shooting situations, and how many would i need? |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:24:55 PM · #2 |
Its personal preference, choose the lens for what you shoot regularly first. Then see if you need any others from there. If you never shoot macro, why get one when you can put it into other things such as tripods, lights, reflectors, etc
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:40:07 PM · #3 |
This is a bit like asking how many pairs of shoes a person needs. Some say one, some three, some need many, many more. I would say you need a telephoto to get out to at least 300mm, A wide angle walk-around, and a low light prime. After that, it is a question of filling in whatever seems most needed. You may be happy with what you have, you may discover that you love only primes, and will never be happy shooting with a zoom again. Welcome to the new obsession, faster, longer, cleaner, crisper,lighter; it never ends.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:42:16 PM · #4 |
These are the two lenses I bought with my D70 one of them being the kit lens. This pretty much covers every base outside of Macro or any other major extremes.
18-70mm DX Zoom
70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:46:52 PM · #5 |
When I bought my first digital camera (a Sony DSCP32) I thought it would be plenty of camera for me. Then when I got the Kodak DX-6490, I thought for CERTAIN that I wouldn't need anything else ever. When I got my rebel with the kit lens, I thought OMG this is more camera than I will ever get used to! Then I bought a 50mm 1.8, so I could take pictures of the kids in the house in lower light. Then I just HAD to have a 75-300mm IS USM, so I could have some reach and stability when taking nature shots. Now I really could use something along the lines of the 17-40mm or a 24-70, just to cover some gaps and have a great walk-around lens. But then I could always use a 1.4x teleconverter for more reach on the 300... or a nice macro lens would be nice...or a (well, you get my drift) ;)
There is no end, no magic number of what you "need." I promise. :o)
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:53:37 PM · #6 |
Right now I have two lenses (EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM and Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro EX). Those two lenses do well for the things I like to shoot. I am planning on buying the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 when it comes out and considering a long prime to go with my 100-400.
I think the best thing to do is to only buy lenses you really need. Lens buying can get very expensive very fast.
Tom
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 01:04:02 PM · #7 |
I have 3:
Sigma 15-30mm (very good)
Canon 50mm f/1,8 (very good too)
Canon 24-85mm USM (fast focusing but not very sharp)
I need some long lens but the good ones are very expensive. Been considering selling my 24-85 but that´s the only lens which my polarizer and ND fits on so I´m kind of stuck with it.
The 24-85mm was the fist one, then later the 15-30mm and now recently the 50mm. A telephoto is next on the list. For us the underbudgeds it´s a slow process. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 01:24:28 PM · #8 |
you only need 2 lenses for a Canon EOS camera the 17-40L f4 and the 50-500 EX sigma, with those 2 you´re pretty well covered, you might want a macro filter with the 50-500 to cover that area.
I went the expencive way..
17-40L f4
70-200L f2.8 IS
50mm f1.4
MP-E 65mm macro
and saving up for the 400mm DO :) |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 01:31:20 PM · #9 |
I have two lenses at the moment.
Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 50mm f1.8
the 50 is cheap and sharp and good indoors because of the f1.8
The other is good for almost all situations.
I think this is a good starting point if you dont want to spend too much. That is if you have Canon.
The first thing I would add to this is a wider lens and then a bigger zoom lens.
Message edited by author 2005-03-10 13:32:54.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 01:40:42 PM · #10 |
For my D70 I've got:
Nikkor 18-70mm f3.5-4.5
Nikkor 50mm f1.4
Nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6
Nikkor 60mm Macro f2.8
And I'm looking into a fisheye or a wide angle lens. |
|
|
|
03/12/2005 08:10:36 AM · #11 |
I'm using the 70-200 f4 L, the sigma 105 macro and the 18-55 kit lens. With the tamron 1.4 converter they seem to cover what I shoot.
Mark
|
|
|
|
03/12/2005 08:47:45 AM · #12 |
I have 3 in my bag at the moment,
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XRdi
Canon 50mm F1.8 II
Canon 70-200mm F4L USM
All are superbly sharp, I am thinking of getting a convertor as well. I don't take my Kit Lens (EF-S 18-55mm) with me but it does cover the 18-28mm range.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2005 08:49:32 AM · #13 |
I've got the kit lens for the rebel and I bought a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro. That gives me a good amount of range and a long zoom for outside shooting such as birds. That lens also covers macro very well. The only other lens I am thinking I would need is somethinf like a 24-70 f/2.8 for walking around and low lighting.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2005 09:01:55 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by hailstorm86:
I'm looking into the dslr market, and buying lenses will be a new thing for me. How many lenses does the average person have or (need).... Would it be useful to buy a telephoto, wide angle, macro....for different shooting situations, and how many would i need? |
average is dependant on how deep your pockets are
if your pockets are empty you will have less ...
if you have full pockets
if you like zooms you can do with less
if you like fast primes you will have more
i went the fast prime route ... now i have empty pockets ....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 06:01:28 PM EDT.
