Does anyone have a DSLR camera? - Page 5

MiCkEy · #41 06-15-2005, 09:56 AM

Great lens and good value for the money. I usually stay away from the 28-300mm lenses as they are usually sharp at F5.6 or so only.

Also remember at 300mm you will need a tripod unless the lens is a IS but even then you will get a lot of shots with shake in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Xwen

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=351548&is=USA

What about this as an "everyday all-around lens" with the addition of the 70-200 when you need the reach.

Sponsored Links

rangerfan · #42 06-15-2005, 10:04 AM

Why shouldn't I buy this? Sigma 18-125

Or this? Sigma 18-200

Or this? Sigma 24-135

Or this? Canon 28-135

Or this? Canon 24-85

I am a big believer in 'you et what you pay for' but I am not a pro. My wife and I just want some good pictures of the kids.

Thunder22 · #43 06-15-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUINNESS

Talking about cameras and lenses can get so confusing for the beginner. I've been asking for the D70 for some time now and started wondering if I should go Canon instead, or the D70s. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't the Canon D20 8.1 MP and the D70/D70s 6.1, so you really can't compare that much anymore

Anyway, I just want a nice DSLR eventually with 19-50mm, 28-80mm, 70-300mm, 500/1000mm lenses. I borrowed a friend's Canon to go to the track and I still felt with the 70-300mm, I was too far away. The purpose of the camera would be for standard picture taking, travel (if we ever travel again), landscapes, scenary, track events, auto-x, still car pics (big fan of the shots in Rennsport magazine - I think that's the mag, and this one asian dude know for his car photography but I can't remember his name). That's the kinda stuff I want to get into. I want to be able to take the kind of pics where someone will look at a picture of my X5 which is just like every other from the outside and say to themself, holy sh1t that's nice.

you must be made of money if you're looking for a 1000mm lens!

you're looking at somewhere in the $30k range for that lens

and there are probably only about a dozen in existence. A 600mm prime is ~ $8k

Thunder22 · #44 06-15-2005, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5Xwen

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=351548&is=USA

What about this as an "everyday all-around lens" with the addition of the 70-200 when you need the reach.

here ya go:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12522459

quack · #45 06-15-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUINNESS

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but isn't the Canon D20 8.1 MP and the D70/D70s 6.1, so you really can't compare that much anymore

the MP's won't really matter unless you enlarge the photo's really large, or if you crop you photo's alot (poor composition).

Thunder22 · #46 06-15-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rangerfan

Why shouldn't I buy this? Sigma 18-125

Or this? Sigma 18-200

Or this? Sigma 24-135

Or this? Canon 28-135

Or this? Canon 24-85

I am a big believer in 'you et what you pay for' but I am not a pro. My wife and I just want some good pictures of the kids.

of those 4, i would get the 28-135IS. It gives you the versatility of some wide angle, some reach, IS for low light stills and the price is right. You could see how that lens works for you distance wise and the go from there without dropping a bundle to find out. If you want to test drive a lens, you can call Adorama and rent what you're interested in for a weekend, it's dirt cheap and might save you from buying the wrong lens.

Thunder22 · #47 06-15-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiCkEy

Great lens and good value for the money. I usually stay away from the 28-300mm lenses as they are usually sharp at F5.6 or so only.

Also remember at 300mm you will need a tripod unless the lens is a IS but even then you will get a lot of shots with shake in them.

i don't agree about the tripod requirement, I use a 100-400 without a tripod all the time without shake... it's all in the technique... elbows in, feet staggered and about shoulder width apart, exhale click!

(ok ok, i still get SOME shake pics, but I haven't used a monopod or tripod with that lens unless it was for fireworks pics)

quack · #48 06-15-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gresch

it's all in the technique... elbows in, feet staggered and about shoulder width apart, exhale click!

sounds like shooting a gun/rifle :lol:

5Xwen · #49 06-15-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gresch

here ya go:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12522459

Great post. Thanks.

MiCkEy · #50 06-15-2005, 10:46 AM

I would like to see that user take 1 pic out of 20 that is sharp using the technique you mentioned at 400mm. Remember this is a novice we are talking about here.

Also I find it hard to believe you constantly took pics at 400mm with NO shake (unless you had a real fast shutter speed all thtat time). I hope I am wrong and you are a pro at that now

Quote:

Originally Posted by gresch

i don't agree about the tripod requirement, I use a 100-400 without a tripod all the time without shake... it's all in the technique... elbows in, feet staggered and about shoulder width apart, exhale click!

(ok ok, i still get SOME shake pics, but I haven't used a monopod or tripod with that lens unless it was for fireworks pics)

Sponsored Links