Need advice 2 photo shoots...kinda

[RadioNate]

My primary job is as a webmaster for several radio stations. Of course they found out that I like to take photos and now I have been roped into doing 2 'photo shoots' this week. Problem is that I don't really have the proper equipment.

I have an XTi, 18-55 kit lens and 50mm lens. That is it.

I think I'll be ok for the 1st shoot which is DJs in the studio. I don't have a seperate flash but we are doing the shoot in the studio that is set up for TV hits so there is a lot of available light. I think with the 50mm and the built in for fill I should be ok. I'm going to shoot raw just incase. The shots are just for the websites and anything is better than what they have.

The 2nd event is a golf tournament that one of the stations is hosting. I think I'm going to need more of a zoom for this one...

I was planning on getting the 28-135IS when I got paid on the 15th anyway but will that be enough reach? Next on my list is the 70-300IS but it is $1100 and I really don't want to spend that yet. The older IS model is $600 ish but I feel like that is settling.

Is there a Sigma or Tameron lens that is decent but cheap (say less than $300) I should be considering?

Any other 'must' haves? The shots are just for the website...so they don't have to be super professional!

ETA: I also have an S2IS that I will take to the golf thing...so I might be able to get away with just using that for zoom.

 

[JR6ooo4]

I assume you are looking at the DO lens that costs $1100.

The longer barrel 70-300IS price is only $560

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=397663&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

I have no recolection of what the DO features is....
They appear to be the same speed.
Mikeeee

 

[RadioNate]

I was looking at the DO. Truth be told, I'm not sure what the difference is either. lol I just liked that at least from the photos it is much more compact.

The non-DO actually seems a little faster (4 v 4.5). I guess I shouldn't really be worried much about the size since it isn't a lens that I'll be using all the time.

Maybe I'll just get the non-DO version for friday and then wait until Nov for the 28-135.

Does any one have any opinions on the super cheap 75-300s? I can't imagine at $150 they are that good of a lens but how bad are they?

 

[Master Mason]

I was looking at the DO. Truth be told, I'm not sure what the difference is either. lol I just liked that at least from the photos it is much more compact.

The non-DO actually seems a little faster (4 v 4.5). I guess I shouldn't really be worried much about the size since it isn't a lens that I'll be using all the time.

Maybe I'll just get the non-DO version for friday and then wait until Nov for the 28-135.

Does any one have any opinions on the super cheap 75-300s? I can't imagine at $150 they are that good of a lens but how bad are they?

I have one.... it takes decent pictures.... The f5.6 at full zoom means that you don't get much background blur when you are at max on the focus...

This picture was taken Saturday I was on the oppisite 40yard line accross the track and up 15 rows in the stands to give you an idea of distance So I was 60 yards down field and all the way accross....

 

[RadioNate]

Thanks for the photo MM...#37 is pretty sharp and the colors look great.

I'm actually not terrible concerned about them being professional quality. I'm not selling them to SI. They need to be good enough for the website and if you saw any of the current pictures anything is an improvement.

I'm still tossing around just using the S2IS for when I need more than 135 (x1.6). This isn't a professional tournament and while there are a few local celebrities no one is going to object to me taking a few steps out onto the green.

Thanks for everyone's advice. I really wish they could have told me about this before yesterday, lol! I need to order today if I want to get something by Friday! The closest 1/2way decent camera store has both lenses but they are about $100 more. There is a good store about 1.5 hours away but I can't get up there in time.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

"DO" stands for something like "Diffractive Optics". It's basically a way of building short lenses with long reach. There have been numerous complaints about the image quality, although most of them seem to come from people doing extremely detailed comparisons rather than field use.

So the extra money for the DO 70-300 doesn't get you better pictures, it just gets you a lens that is much shorter and lighter. Oh, and it also gets you a natty little green circle around the outside of the lens similar to the red circle on L lenses so that your gearhead friends know that you spent a lot of money.

 

[RadioNate]

"DO" stands for something like "Diffractive Optics". It's basically a way of building short lenses with long reach. There have been numerous complaints about the image quality, although most of them seem to come from people doing extremely detailed comparisons rather than field use.

So the extra money for the DO 70-300 doesn't get you better pictures, it just gets you a lens that is much shorter and lighter. Oh, and it also gets you a natty little green circle around the outside of the lens similar to the red circle on L lenses so that your gearhead friends know that you spent a lot of money.

So not worth the extra $500, lol. I like shorter and lighter but not for $500. Now...the race is on to see if someone can get it her by Friday!!!

 

[boBQuincy]

Since you are taking the golf photos for a website it is doubtful you will end up using anything larger than 900 x 600, at the most. 600 x 400 may be more like it.
Your XTi has a resolution of about 3900 x 2600, so you can use the central portion of the image for an effective zoom of about 4:1, making your 135 equivalent to a 500+!

I won't go into crop factors here, I misplaced my flameproof suit!

Anyway, if you only want web images and are not concerned about prints, I would say go for the 28-135 and have fun!

 

[RadioNate]

Since you are taking the golf photos for a website it is doubtful you will end up using anything larger than 900 x 600, at the most. 600 x 400 may be more like it.
Your XTi has a resolution of about 3900 x 2600, so you can use the central portion of the image for an effective zoom of about 4:1, making your 135 equivalent to a 500+!

I won't go into crop factors here, I misplaced my flameproof suit!

Anyway, if you only want web images and are not concerned about prints, I would say go for the 28-135 and have fun!

You have a very valid point. I really don't want to rush into a purchase just for this either. The 70-300 was in the log term plan but this sorta got thrown at me last night.

 

[JR6ooo4]

I won't go into crop factors here, I misplaced my flameproof suit!

Heheheee


alll I have is the 28-135 IS, 70-300 IS

and

but of course

the 50mm f1.8 (that thing is cheaper than a dinner for two, plus beer)

Mikeeee