Another thing - if you get an expensive lens - get a UV filter for it and keep it on. If you bang it on something and bust the filter, no big deal. Bust the front element though and there goes that lens. A hood can help protect too.
That was going to be my first "accessory" along with a camera bag
$25 filter broken=ah crap
$600+ lens broken=cry myself to sleep for a month
Question though. With lenses and filters will damage occur to the lens if I say am shooting the sun without a filter? I plan on always using a filter but I am curious if I *have* to have one when I shoot certain things because without it could damage the lens.
The sun won't damage a lens for the most part. It will heat up though over time and that can be bad for internal electronics, so you don't want to point it at the sun a lot.
Also - if you left it pointing at the sun for a long time you are likely to damage your camera body before the lens. You're focusing all of that back into the camera and could easily damage the sensor / mirror assembly, etc. It's like using a magnifying glass to burn a leaf. Typical shooting you should have no problem. But if you are pointed at or near the sun for an extended period of time, it could damage something. I wouldn't worry about it too much - just keep the lens cap on if you are carrying it, etc.
Also - if you left it pointing at the sun for a long time you are likely to damage your camera body before the lens. You're focusing all of that back into the camera and could easily damage the sensor / mirror assembly, etc. It's like using a magnifying glass to burn a leaf. Typical shooting you should have no problem. But if you are pointed at or near the sun for an extended period of time, it could damage something. I wouldn't worry about it too much - just keep the lens cap on if you are carrying it, etc.
Unforunately this is true everywhere I think.
As cameras became more like electronics/commodities the big chains & etailers got more interested (high value in very small & easily handled bulk) & the smaller shops don't have the purchasing power to compete on buying price or stockholding.
Also, because you are dealing with a human who (hopefully) has a clue staff wage costs can be higher.
Unfortunately most people will opt to save a few $$s rather than pay for a superior service.
So, camera sales drop & of course film & processing income dropped through the floor too.
What happens in a few years though when there may be no good camera shops locally that you can go, look & handle competing models (& we all know that handling is different from camera to camera & oerson to person)?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
rather than dropping big bucks on a lens that you're not sure you'll use, i'd get something with a pretty large range to begin with, or a couple of inexpensive lenses with a large combined range. then you get step up to better glass once you see what your style requires.
That was one of the other options I was considering. Getting 3-4 lenses in the $300 range and going from there. Especially after looking at some of the prices for the good glass lenses (L series for example). This is more likely the route I will go as I can get a body like the D60, XSi, or that price range (maybe a good body on clearance like the D80 hopefully will be soon). Then from there get one maybe two lenses in the $300 range to get started with. Learn the camera, and more about what I am looking to do with it and start saving some for a good high quality glass lens that suits what I shoot most.
So $600 body
At least two lenses (about $300 each)
accessories (bag, filters, etc)
Any thoughts on that idea?
Edit: For the wider angles the Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, or Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens are two I am going to do some research on. Then for the more telephoto pictures get Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Any thoughts on those lenses?
20mm isn't really that wide on a 1.6X crop body. It's about 32mm equivalent on a 35mm camera.
70-300 is a decent lens. It's not going to be like the 70-200L, but it's much cheaper.
Check out this page for reviews on a lot of lenses:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
70-300 is a decent lens. It's not going to be like the 70-200L, but it's much cheaper.
Check out this page for reviews on a lot of lenses:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
As Odin suggested in his second post, my choice would be the Nikon D80 + 18-200mm VR lens. This would cover 90% of the range you would be using for most photos, and should fit your budget nicely. Plus you would never have to swap lenses out and potentially miss a shot.
The problem though with the 18-200mm, as tfinch2 kindly pointed out, is the glass is pretty slow, with an aperture of 3.5 to 5.6. Not ideal for sports or low-light (indoors). But, by the time you figure out your limitations with this lens, you'll know what you want to buy next. A prime 50mm and maybe a wide-angle would be a nice compliment.
As others have mentioned, the D80 is on its way out, so you could either wait for the newer version (D90?), or save a few bucks and go with a D50.
As for the Canon side of things, I'm like Odin, I'll stick with what I know so I have no suggestions when it comes to lenses.
The problem though with the 18-200mm, as tfinch2 kindly pointed out, is the glass is pretty slow, with an aperture of 3.5 to 5.6. Not ideal for sports or low-light (indoors). But, by the time you figure out your limitations with this lens, you'll know what you want to buy next. A prime 50mm and maybe a wide-angle would be a nice compliment.
As others have mentioned, the D80 is on its way out, so you could either wait for the newer version (D90?), or save a few bucks and go with a D50.
As for the Canon side of things, I'm like Odin, I'll stick with what I know so I have no suggestions when it comes to lenses.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
the 70-300 is a pretty decent lens. i kinda like the DO version a little more for the compactness and non-rotating front element (and it offers real USM, which i don't think the conventional one does), but not for 2x the cost.
don't confuse the 70-300 lenses with the 75-300s. the 75-300s are poop. the 55-250 is probably better.
the new 18-55 IS is a much better lens than the old non-IS version.
I used to always think that was the way to go, but then I compared that advice to the adage that lenses rarely lose value or lose only a small portion of their value, particularly high end lenses. It doesn't add up entirely.
What I mean is that someone could buy a $650 lens, for me perhaps the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm DT. I use it for awhile and decide that I want a telephoto instead so I resell for $500-550. Or, I get the $150 Sony 18-70mm DT (that's retail price, sadly) and decide the same thing, reselling for $50. I'm out nearly the same amount of money because of the increased depreciation of the cheap lens; however, the experience between the two lenses will be lightyears in difference. Someone could draw the wrong conclusions by picking a garbage lens to explore a certain focal length or range.
I'm not sure there's a right answer, but I'm not convinced that the "cheap first" method is far superior anymore. For newer lenses, I don't have anything that was originally priced less than $300-350 (even considering older lenses, I only have two that are less expensive, and I'm about to replace one with a more expensive model). Everything else that was lower priced has been sold because I just wasn't happy with the quality. I'm not saying that to be snobbish -- I am just saying that I would have saved time and some money by acquiring high quality glass to begin with, rather going through a few lower priced lenses first. Did I get some keepers with the cheaper glass? Yes, I have one fantastic picture of the inside of a hot air balloon that I love -- taken with a $30 lens. Could I have had more keepers? Probably.
Put it this way: I almost rethought my DSLR purchase (my first, KM Maxxum 7D) when I bought a used Sigma 75-300 from the film days. It was so soft that I couldn't believe that I gave up my Sony F717 in favor of the DSLR with its "crappy lenses". :laugh:
It would have been cheaper if I had kept the F717, though. :frown:
The "cheap first" method was never superior, except for the very few exceptions where you get good value with very cheap lenses. E.g. the standard 50, and in context, some of the better kit lenses.
Spending say $200-300 on a so-so lens is a bad idea IMO. You're likely to ultimately regret the purchase and redo it with something more expensive, thereby losing some money. When it comes time to sell it, you might not get much value for it because other people are also looking for the better lenses, not the cheap lenses even cheaper.
That's what I'm saying too.
That said, some people do get by with relatively cheap super zooms and enjoy the process. You should be able to figure out which type of person you are -- whether you'll be pulled towards quality improvements, or whether you might concentrate more so on the diminishing returns for more money and hence value the savings more.
There is however something of a middle ground -- high value quality lenses such as the f/4 L lenses and a handful of others.
Well just got back from the closest camera store. Played with the Canon 40D, and XSi mainly but also looked at a used Canon D40 (wasn't that impressed with it however, but will look at the pictures and go from there). Looked at the Nikon D60 (not the 80), and they were very pro-Canon unless I went up to the D300. Since I am not, they recommended basically only Canon because of the glass.
I used 3 different lenses. Started with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM on all 3 bodies, then looked at the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, and finally the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.
I liked the 40D a lot, but to get that I would have to drop the glass down (as in just get one of the telephoto's and body which I think limits me too much on glass). The XSi was a good body as well, and I have begun to figure out how to use both bodies controls without looking at it. The Canon D40 I looked at was okay, but I think it's limiting my body too much (OTOH it is only $300 which leaves a lot for glass and accessories).
I am going to open up photoshop and mess around with the images a bit and once I take a look at the pictures will post more (also will throw up some pictures comparing them all).
As of now what I am looking to do (if I buy from that shop and buy Canon) is the XSi kit with the 18-55 IS lens, the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, and accessories for $1800ish OTD. I think that gives me a great base, and I like the Sigma lens a bit more then the Canon 70-200 (the 2.8 vs 4 is a big factor, but once again will look at pictures first).
One thing is for sure. I <3 photography and am hooked. The second thing that's for sure after quickly breezing through the pics is I need to remember what I am doing, I haven't done real photography in years and forget 1/2 the stuff so a lot of pics are over/under exposed or just look like crap lol.
I used 3 different lenses. Started with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM on all 3 bodies, then looked at the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, and finally the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.
I liked the 40D a lot, but to get that I would have to drop the glass down (as in just get one of the telephoto's and body which I think limits me too much on glass). The XSi was a good body as well, and I have begun to figure out how to use both bodies controls without looking at it. The Canon D40 I looked at was okay, but I think it's limiting my body too much (OTOH it is only $300 which leaves a lot for glass and accessories).
I am going to open up photoshop and mess around with the images a bit and once I take a look at the pictures will post more (also will throw up some pictures comparing them all).
As of now what I am looking to do (if I buy from that shop and buy Canon) is the XSi kit with the 18-55 IS lens, the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, and accessories for $1800ish OTD. I think that gives me a great base, and I like the Sigma lens a bit more then the Canon 70-200 (the 2.8 vs 4 is a big factor, but once again will look at pictures first).
One thing is for sure. I <3 photography and am hooked
. The second thing that's for sure after quickly breezing through the pics is I need to remember what I am doing, I haven't done real photography in years and forget 1/2 the stuff so a lot of pics are over/under exposed or just look like crap lol.They did but they said at the Nikon version of the Canon lens I will have to spend more (i.e. $900 Nikon, vs $700 for the L glass Canon)
Well I just got back from going to 3 other stores and here is what I have come to the conclusion of.
I looked at the Pentax K10D, Canon 40D and XSi, and the Nikon D80. All the stores recommended the Canon bodies, except one in which the person I was talking to owned a Nikon D200. The reps basically steered me to whatever they personally use, which is what I expected. That being said I think I am going to go with either the XSi or 40D. The Nikon had decent pictures, but I do not like the menu and how you change setting on it (it's too cumbersome of an interface IMO). The Pentax is also good, but limited lens/accessories which means the lenses will end up costing more (since not as many 3rd party lens options). As an added bonus I found out today my mom has her old film Rebel lenses, which should work on the XSi or 40D and I could get them because she cant use them on her current camera (its a Sony).
So from the quick look through the pictures (I snapped a few hundred and will spend most of the night comparing them), I like the 40D better when all else is the same (lens, ISO, etc) by far for a few reasons. 1st is the frame/grip is much better and feels better in my hand, 2nd I like the LCD on the top of it for the ISO and such much more then the 3 inch LCD on back, 3rd pictures had less noise and looked a tad sharper, and finally 4th most of the accessories will work with a higher up cannons (same batteries, etc).
Now all that being said I still am thinking I will go with the XSi so I can spend more on lenses and other accessories (maybe add a tripod/monopod, etc that I wouldn't with the 40D).
Since I have the bodies down to one brand I can start narrowing down the lens choices. Here is what I am looking at in that department. Buying the XSi kit and using the kit lens for wide angle to start (for $100 getting an IS lens, that is fairly well rated is worth it IMO), then buy the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM for a telephoto starting point. This puts me right around $2k+accessories. I would kind of like to drop that price down, but can't unless I change the L glass lens for a 3rd party lens or non L glass lens. I don't like that option, as I would rather have a top of the line lens then 2 mediocre lenses (either way would be in addition to the kit lens so add that lens to both options). The pros of the L glass is obivously going to be a better lens, and is also a 35 mm sensor capable lens which is what I want to upgrade to eventually so this is an important feature. I am heavily leaning towards getting the L glass lens, because the Sigma 50-150 mm has focusing issues from the reviews I've read but the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP AF Di LD IF Macro Lens is too new to find many reviews on. Hopefully I can find a shop in the area that has the Tamron and Canon that I can test out on the same body and such (XSi or 40D, preferably the XSi as it is what I will most likely get). For the price difference I would go with the Tamron, but the L glass has the Canon name and will hold its value better (although I don't plan on selling it).
Edit: I have 3 lenses in the telephoto range I am looking at. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L glass. The 3rd party lenses of course are cheaper (~$400 or so). The Tamron and Canon are both lenses that support 35 mm sensors (not cropped), and are f/2.8 (which is what I need for sports/action). I hope the shop that has the L glass and the Sigma has the Tamron also, because I need to compare all 3 with the same camera/settings/shots. Anybody have any of these 3 lenses or tried them?
I looked at the Pentax K10D, Canon 40D and XSi, and the Nikon D80. All the stores recommended the Canon bodies, except one in which the person I was talking to owned a Nikon D200. The reps basically steered me to whatever they personally use, which is what I expected. That being said I think I am going to go with either the XSi or 40D. The Nikon had decent pictures, but I do not like the menu and how you change setting on it (it's too cumbersome of an interface IMO). The Pentax is also good, but limited lens/accessories which means the lenses will end up costing more (since not as many 3rd party lens options). As an added bonus I found out today my mom has her old film Rebel lenses, which should work on the XSi or 40D and I could get them because she cant use them on her current camera (its a Sony).
So from the quick look through the pictures (I snapped a few hundred and will spend most of the night comparing them), I like the 40D better when all else is the same (lens, ISO, etc) by far for a few reasons. 1st is the frame/grip is much better and feels better in my hand, 2nd I like the LCD on the top of it for the ISO and such much more then the 3 inch LCD on back, 3rd pictures had less noise and looked a tad sharper, and finally 4th most of the accessories will work with a higher up cannons (same batteries, etc).
Now all that being said I still am thinking I will go with the XSi so I can spend more on lenses and other accessories (maybe add a tripod/monopod, etc that I wouldn't with the 40D).
Since I have the bodies down to one brand I can start narrowing down the lens choices. Here is what I am looking at in that department. Buying the XSi kit and using the kit lens for wide angle to start (for $100 getting an IS lens, that is fairly well rated is worth it IMO), then buy the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM for a telephoto starting point. This puts me right around $2k+accessories. I would kind of like to drop that price down, but can't unless I change the L glass lens for a 3rd party lens or non L glass lens. I don't like that option, as I would rather have a top of the line lens then 2 mediocre lenses (either way would be in addition to the kit lens so add that lens to both options). The pros of the L glass is obivously going to be a better lens, and is also a 35 mm sensor capable lens which is what I want to upgrade to eventually so this is an important feature. I am heavily leaning towards getting the L glass lens, because the Sigma 50-150 mm has focusing issues from the reviews I've read but the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP AF Di LD IF Macro Lens is too new to find many reviews on. Hopefully I can find a shop in the area that has the Tamron and Canon that I can test out on the same body and such (XSi or 40D, preferably the XSi as it is what I will most likely get). For the price difference I would go with the Tamron, but the L glass has the Canon name and will hold its value better (although I don't plan on selling it).
Edit: I have 3 lenses in the telephoto range I am looking at. The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L glass. The 3rd party lenses of course are cheaper (~$400 or so). The Tamron and Canon are both lenses that support 35 mm sensors (not cropped), and are f/2.8 (which is what I need for sports/action). I hope the shop that has the L glass and the Sigma has the Tamron also, because I need to compare all 3 with the same camera/settings/shots. Anybody have any of these 3 lenses or tried them?
i did some basic research on that matter, it's hardly universal truth, but the two brands are not much different in price.
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/andylawcc/lenprice.jpg
in most case, the Nikon are only a tad bit more expensive.
but, the used market seems to be larger for Canon, meaning you can usually find the lenses you want in the second hand market AND sell your lenses easier too.
soydios
Platinum Member
- Mar 12, 2006
- 2,708
- 0
- 0
I just expanded my Nikon Lens Guide a bit. The first post in the thread now has a "Recommend Lens Outfits" section. Those are my recommendations for new lenses.
If you want used lenses on Nikon, you've got fifty years of F-mount Nikkors to choose from. Canon changed from FD to EOS mounts in 1987.
The body that you really want is a D90. If you can bear waiting, then I would buy a used D50 (I'm a proud owner myself) to get started, then pick up a D90 when that comes out, keeping your D50 for backup (that's my plan at least).
If you want used lenses on Nikon, you've got fifty years of F-mount Nikkors to choose from. Canon changed from FD to EOS mounts in 1987.
The body that you really want is a D90. If you can bear waiting, then I would buy a used D50 (I'm a proud owner myself) to get started, then pick up a D90 when that comes out, keeping your D50 for backup (that's my plan at least).
I didnt ask about all of them, but I know she has a 300 mm prime for sure (it was the only one she mentioned). She would have bought them in the mid 90's so the mount should work on the XSi or 40D AFAIK. I plan to find out more about them most likely next time I talk to her, but she lives 1/2 way across the country so I can't exactly just stop by easily lol. IIRC she has 4 lenses she had bought for her Canon, but something had broke (either the body, lenses, or both) which is why she doesn't use them. I would imagine it was just the body, but depending on what it is that "broke" on the lens it would be worth looking into to repair it. I do know she spent a few thousand on everything, so I could get a great basis to build my equipment on if the lenses are good (like I think they are).
I gues what I should do is have my mom ship me her lenses so I can see if they are broke, or if it was the body. If it is the body, and the lenses are fine then I need to take those with to the stores to shoot with different bodies on those lenses. I could then go shooting with those lenses until I figure out what I want to buy and get some L glass of whatever lenses I use most.
I would suggest that you look at the Canon 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6. Yes, its not "L glass," but its far more compact, goes to 300mm, and has in-lens IS. I got the XTi and the 70-300 just about a year ago and its a great combination. I've been able to be more discreet without having a huge white lens on my camera. When I have been shooting with a friend who has the 70-200 f/4 IS, he gets more comments of "look at that lens." Its not weather-sealed, and the front element rotates to focus, but I very much enjoyed using the lens.
I will look at that lens as well. I am going to call around and see if I can find any stores in 50 miles or so that have all the lenses I am looking at in stock. It might be a bit difficult with 4 lenses, one being L glass, another being the Tamron that is a newer lens but would be worth it. As a side note, I don't have an issue with my gear drawing attention.
The lenses I have on my list are:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM and the f/4 IS (but the 2.8 is most likely the choice I will go with)
Canon 70-300 IS USM f/4-5.6
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 <--edited to correct the size from 100 to 150mm
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
Any others anybody knows of?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter