Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 134
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by aparmley
    The telephoto lenses that were recommended are a little pricey... ... I was thinking it may be an important element to the article to add a telephoto lens for the tight budgeted amateur photographer, like....ME

    I have had others suggest the Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro II [priced approx. $219.00] ... lots of good quality images over at pbase.com and a lot of people using it? What do you think??
    If you read carefully, I recommended getting a far reaching convenience lens instead of opting for a cheaper telephoto zoom. That's my rationale behind dropping any recommendations for those lenses.

    I'm up to debate about this. I'm in the bandwagon of "less is more." Buy less but do it well and grow your collection slowly.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    4
    Sigma 18-50 f/2.8? Seems to have gotten good reviews as a decent entry wide angle? Paired with a 70-200 f/4 for a 1100?

    Khyron

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    It's gotten some very, very mixed reviews, so I left it off. This list isn't meant to be comprehensive in any way. It's just what a lot of people buy when they start out. This should leave off the need for "What lens should I buy for my XT/D70?" threads.

    If you can get me several (substantial) reviews of the 18-50, I'll be happy to consider.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    One problem - you're quoting prices which keep changing.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    I will continue updating the prices as they drop. Prices are there just to give people a very rough idea of what they'll be spending.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    I completely understand your recommendation of getting a solid walk around lens instead of a mediocre telephoto, but when the walk around lens won't cut it and $600.00 - $[insert price] is a slap in the face and will most likely never be a realistic possibility unless I save for a long long time... then what? I might as well throw rocks at the birds, squirrels, chipmunks, etc... than to walk up to them and find that perfect distance for my 125mm limit to be useful, that is assuming I follow the advice and purchase the Sigma 18-125mm 3.5-5.6, Which Blue has already convenced me to purchase with his results! My parents have a hug population of finches, wood peckers, squirrels, chipmunks, humming birds, you name it... all feeding in peace together in their backyard, only problem is that I have been unable to get close enough with my 114mm range on my A95 and clearly my 50mm on my xt no where near long enough... I am not sure about the 200mm lenght.. I do not know if that will be long enough... I would love to be able to borrow one for a day and find out but, lets face it, theres no "lens-buster" out there where I can.. wait a minute.. Can you rent equipment? lenses and such??? but wait... 100/day rental fee is just the kinda thing that wouldn't make sense to me, thats a lot of damn money... maybe it would be worth it?? IDK... flingerflemminflammer..
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    I've been gathering data on which cheap telephotos are good, but it's taking some time. Telephotos either lie in the $200 range or jump straight up to the $550 Canon 70-200 f/4 L (can be had as low as $500 after rebate). The ones at $200 suffice, but most tend to have the usual suspects tied to them. I'll see what I can do in a few days...

    But going back to the deal with the 18-125. Would it be better to have that for $250 and have to pay $200 more for a dedicated telephoto or pay $400 total for an 18-200? Of course, if you do use 300mm, that's a whole different story and that will require a different strategy...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Near St. Louis
    Posts
    3,528
    Well Hey don't go blind researching things on my behalf... I just thought it may be a good area to cover as I would think there may be a lot of people out there interested in it. There was a guy who just recently posted "My first rebel xt gallery" He was using the Sigma 70-300mm super macro lens and was talking about the softness of it in low light... I looked at his duck pictures and I didn't find them to be soft and they are completely exceptable to me so realizing this I now know what kinda ball of wax we are dealing with here as there is no universal yard stick to measure these things with... everyone has their own view on what is sharp was isn't... so... ?? IDK..
    Nikon D90 | Sigma 10-20 HSM | DX 18-105 f3.5-5.6 VR | DX 55-200 VR | 35 f/2.0 D | 50 f/1.4 D | 85mm F/1.8 D | SB-800 x 3 | SU-800
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Flickr | Twitter

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    IMO, to a point, sharpness is pretty clear cut. It's just definining what that point is. It's the other things like saturation and contrast that are a lot more subjective.

    I took a look at the photos. If you view the originals, they are a bit soft, especially considering that this was shot at f/8, but once you compress the image down, it's hardly noticeable.

    I'm going to sit and wait and see if I get any more recommendations for 75-300mm lenses (or really anything that reaches 300mm). So far, I've only seen 1 and that's yours. The other recommended one was 55-200, and that's not exactly super telephoto.
    Last edited by Rex914; 05-12-2005 at 09:10 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex914
    IMO, to a point, sharpness is pretty clear cut. It's just definining what that point is. It's the other things like saturation and contrast that are a lot more subjective.

    I took a look at the photos. If you view the originals, they are a bit soft, especially considering that this was shot at f/8, but once you compress the image down, it's hardly noticeable.

    I'm going to sit and wait and see if I get any more recommendations for 75-300mm lenses (or really anything that reaches 300mm). So far, I've only seen 1 and that's yours. The other recommended one was 55-200, and that's not exactly super telephoto.

    Speaking of 75-300mm lenses, I have the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS (USM). I use it for outdoor sports shots. It's great IMO. It only costs about $400.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •