Suggestions needed -- 1st DSLR

[MarkBarbieri]

It seems as though Canon and Nikon have the better line of lenses.

Run!!!!!

 

[MIDisFan]

Run!!!!!

Hope I didn't offend anyone with the lens comment. That's why I was careful to use the word "seems". I'm sure someone will be along to correct me soon enough

 

[Anewman]

Hope I didn't offend anyone with the lens comment. That's why I was careful to use the word "seems". I'm sure someone will be along to correct me soon enough

Only you know what type of lenses your shooting style requires and which brand suits that style better.

 

[MIDisFan]

Only you know what type of lenses your shooting style requires and which brand suits that style better.

For the record I meant a better variety of lenses. I don't have enough knowledge yet to make a comment on the quality of any particular brand of lens. Since this will be my first endeavor into the SLR world, I can't say that I have a particular style of shooting yet. I'm sure that my style will continue to change over time as I gain more experience.

 

[ukcatfan]

For the record I meant a better variety of lenses. I don't have enough knowledge yet to make a comment on the quality of any particular brand of lens. Since this will be my first endeavor into the SLR world, I can't say that I have a particular style of shooting yet. I'm sure that my style will continue to change over time as I gain more experience.

Canon and Nikon both have very complete lens lineups, but some of those can really cost you. I am not familiar with the Minolta(Sony) lens lineup, but I believe it is pretty decent. Pentax has concentrated more on the prime(no zoom) lenses but are starting to catch up in zoom offerings. Their prime lenses are not necessarily better than anyone else, but are generally considered to be cheaper for equiv focal lengths. They have a number of new lenses that will be out within the next year. Olympus(4/3 system) lenses are different than everyone else due to that system having a 2x crop factor compared to most everyone else having a 1.5-1.6x factor for their consumer level models.

Kevin

Kevin

 

[AndrewWG]

Someone posted (I think in the assignments: Color thread) a pic from a Canon 75-300 USM III lens. It looked great. In doing a search, I found that this lens costs just under $200? I didn't recognize any of the merchants selling the lens but some got good ratings. Either way, under $200? Is this lens junk? The pic looked quite nice for a school play. My current 75-300 sigma lens (from my old camera) is big and bulky and you have to pull it out to zoom so I thought this would be a nice addition (when I finally decide on which DSLR to get). Any thoughts on it? It isn't a very fast lens or anything, but for under $200, is it not worth it?

Andy

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Someone posted (I think in the assignments: Color thread) a pic from a Canon 75-300 USM III lens. It looked great. In doing a search, I found that this lens costs just under $200? I didn't recognize any of the merchants selling the lens but some got good ratings. Either way, under $200? Is this lens junk? The pic looked quite nice for a school play. My current 75-300 sigma lens (from my old camera) is big and bulky and you have to pull it out to zoom so I thought this would be a nice addition (when I finally decide on which DSLR to get). Any thoughts on it? It isn't a very fast lens or anything, but for under $200, is it not worth it?

Andy

It's not a well thought of lens. It's very soft beyond 200mm. It's slow (f/5.6). It extends itself when it points downward. It's not very sharp wide open. In short, you get what you pay for.

One thing to keep in mind when people talk about the quality of a lens is that even most mediocre lenses have ranges in which they do well. With a zoom, that is usually somewhere away from the extremes of the zoom. Most lenses are also a lot sharper around f/8 or f/11. Even with all of it's faults, the 75-300 can take really nice shots around 150mm at f/11 if there is sufficient light. Just don't expect much at 300mm and f/5.6.

 

[AndrewWG]

It's not a well thought of lens. It's very soft beyond 200mm. It's slow (f/5.6). It extends itself when it points downward. It's not very sharp wide open. In short, you get what you pay for.

One thing to keep in mind when people talk about the quality of a lens is that even most mediocre lenses have ranges in which they do well. With a zoom, that is usually somewhere away from the extremes of the zoom. Most lenses are also a lot sharper around f/8 or f/11. Even with all of it's faults, the 75-300 can take really nice shots around 150mm at f/11 if there is sufficient light. Just don't expect much at 300mm and f/5.6.

That is sort of what I thought. I suspect that I will find that true for my Sigma lens as well (when I finally can use it again). Oh well, I will have to upgrade at that point I guess. What is the "X" equivalent of a 300mm lens? By this I mean in p&s language, would it be 5x, 8x, etc.?

Andy

 

[MarkBarbieri]

That is sort of what I thought. I suspect that I will find that true for my Sigma lens as well (when I finally can use it again). Oh well, I will have to upgrade at that point I guess. What is the "X" equivalent of a 300mm lens? By this I mean in p&s language, would it be 5x, 8x, etc.?

Andy

There isn't an x equivalent of 300mm. The "x" refers to the relative amount of zooming that a lens can do. A 10x lens might go from extremely wide angle to a little telephoto or it might go from barely wide angle to very telephoto. In the case of the 75-300mm, it is a 4x zoom because 75 x 4 = 300.

If you want to compare 300mm to a particular p&s, you should compare what is called the 35mm equivalent focal lengths. The magnification of a lens depends on both the focal length (in this case 300mm) and the sensor size. The smaller the sensor, the greater the magnification.

If you look at the specifications of most point & shoot cameras, they will give both the real focal length and the 35mm equivalent. That equivalent tells you what lens on a 35mm film camera would give you the same magnification (or field-of-view depending upon how you choose to look at it). Most DSLR sensors are smaller than 35mm as well, so they usually give you a multiplification factor. In the case of entry level Canon DSLRs, that is 1.6x. For Nikon, that is 1.5x. So the 35mm equivalent of the 75-300mm lens on a Canon Rebel or Canon 30D is 120mm to 480mm.

I guess that sounds complicated, but it's really not once you understand it.

 

[jann1033]

i think i've seen ads that claim a 12x p&s would be about 400+ mm at the longest zoom if that is what you meant so 300mm would be slightly short of that

 

[AndrewWG]

i think i've seen ads that claim a 12x p&s would be about 400+ mm at the longest zoom if that is what you meant so 300mm would be slightly short of that

Yeah, that is more what I meant although I do understand Mark's point about 4x, etc.

Now, if my S2IS has a 12x optical zoom (equivalent of approx 400mm) and the 300mm lens is mounted on a 1.6x crop factor camera, would that make the image seem to be coming from a 480mm? I know it really isn't magnified like a 480mm lens. There was a long discussion about this a couple months ago, but ... ah, now I've confused myself.

Andy

 

[photo_chick]

Someone posted (I think in the assignments: Color thread) a pic from a Canon 75-300 USM III lens. It looked great. In doing a search, I found that this lens costs just under $200? I didn't recognize any of the merchants selling the lens but some got good ratings. Either way, under $200? Is this lens junk? The pic looked quite nice for a school play. My current 75-300 sigma lens (from my old camera) is big and bulky and you have to pull it out to zoom so I thought this would be a nice addition (when I finally decide on which DSLR to get). Any thoughts on it? It isn't a very fast lens or anything, but for under $200, is it not worth it?

Andy

I have this lens. It is great if you want reach and don't have a lot of money to spend. But you are getting an under $200 lens. It is slow, and it tends to be soft. I don't think it is junk, but you do get what you pay for. It is an entry level telephoto zoom. I have seen it for right at $150 new around here and around $80 used.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

i think i've seen ads that claim a 12x p&s would be about 400+ mm at the longest zoom if that is what you meant so 300mm would be slightly short of that

Ah, but if he put that 300mm on a Rebel or 30D, it would be equivalent to a 480mm. As a comparison, the Canon S3 has a lens that is the equivalent of a 36mm to 432mm zoom on a 35mm film camera. A Rebel/30D would need lenses that ranged from 22.5mm to 270mm to match that same coverage.

 

[Groucho]

Only you know what type of lenses your shooting style requires and which brand suits that style better.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Each line has their strengths, and no line is missing any "key" options.

 

[Groucho]

Canon and Nikon both have very complete lens lineups, but some of those can really cost you. I am not familiar with the Minolta(Sony) lens lineup, but I believe it is pretty decent. Pentax has concentrated more on the prime(no zoom) lenses but are starting to catch up in zoom offerings. Their prime lenses are not necessarily better than anyone else, but are generally considered to be cheaper for equiv focal lengths. They have a number of new lenses that will be out within the next year.

I've been doing more lens research lately (I will finally be ready to start expanding my collection here again soon!) and it looks like what Pentax did was start to phase out some of their full-frame zooms and is slowly replacing them with digital-specific ones. For example, they had an 80-200mm F2.8 lens that was supposedly fantastic (it actually still exists on their site here) but it wasn't made for very long, and fetches big bucks when you see one for sale now. (It wasn't cheap when new, either.) There was a 28-70mm F2.8 that was similar.

Currently, the best options for fast zooms in the Pentax line are probably the Sigmas, Tamrons, and Tokinas. (The Tamrom 28-75mm F2.8 is supposed to be very nice, though the build quality is apparently not quite as nice as the Tokina, but the optical quality is better... but I haven't done enough research yet to say for sure.) Things could definitely change within the next 6-12 months, though, as more Pentax-produced digital-specific fast zooms are released.

 

[Master Mason]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Each line has their strengths, and no line is missing any "key" options.

do you have one of these for the pentax?

 

[Cricket2]

do you have one of these for the pentax?

That bad boy is for shooting rebel scum from your Tie Fighter.

 

[ukcatfan]

do you have one of these for the pentax?

Does this count?

http://www.photodo.com/product_316.html

Kevin

 

[Master Mason]

Does this count?

http://www.photodo.com/product_316.html

Kevin

Hey and they even made it white so it would look like a canon lens.... how cool

and yes that does count...

 

[Groucho]

B&H shows the following Pentax 2000mm lens - only $8,800! It's even 8" shorter than their 1000mm lens.

It sounds like there are just as many Nikon users using it (with a converted mount) due to it being sharper than Nikon's 2000mm, and lighter - 15 lbs vs 45 lbs.

Their usual "big" lenses are often silver so they look a little different.

If you really want to shake 'em up at the airport, though, try carrying on a Novoflex 600mm...

Don't try this at home, kiddies! The local photo consignment shop has one on the wall... from a distance, it looks just like a big rifle. I don't think I'd be comfortable carrying it around, though I'm sure it does help with stability!

On the other extreme, only Pentax has the pancake lenses... this is their 40mm F2.8. 3.2 oz, 0.6" long, 9 blades, very nice optical quality, and mostly metal including a screw-in metal hood. It is kind of an oddball focal length, but it's the smallest of their pancake lenses so it's good for showing just what they're about.

But really, for lenses that your average person is going to use, every line has what you'll need one way or the other.