 | Home > Off Topic > DSLR lenses......... What you got? |
 
|
|
|
| SteveG Member Since: 29 Nov 2011 Location: Norfolk Posts: 670  
|
As per my earlier post, I know which one I would pick to have as a main go for lense, 18-200. Has wide angle, which 28-300 doesn't and is smaller, lighter and less expensive. 
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/DX-super-zooms/index.htm Cheers Steve |
||
4th Mar 2013 11:27am |
|
| x-isle Member Since: 26 May 2011 Location: Midlands Posts: 1327  
|
...and that's typically why you don't have a do it all lens.
As I said, if you want an SLR but only one lens, there's not much point having an SLR. Go for a bridge. The 18-200 is a pretty good lens, but you'll come up short for wildlife or anything that you need the extra reach. Personally, I wouldn't have any of those lenses as you loose too much at either end of their capability. Craig Rogers 2007 Puma 110 XS 2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux www.craigrogers.photography |
||
|
4th Mar 2013 11:34am |
|
| a13x Member Since: 25 Sep 2011 Location: Burton on Trent Posts: 555 
|
I've had to cut my gear right down in order to fund this car with maybe the rest going soon as is hardly used. Won't be getting shut of the Billingham bag though, best bag around.
Canon 1Dmk3 24-105L 135L |
||
|
4th Mar 2013 11:48am |
|
| dnorrishill Member Since: 15 Jul 2011 Location: Hampshire Posts: 625  
|
I don't want to start a war here, but I would argue for an slr over a bridge/compact camera for the following reasons:
- Autofocus speed, nothing will touch an slr, not a compact to any of these new mirrorless things. - Manual control (if required) - Flexibility, I can stick on a kit lens for a reasonably compact setup or I can use my primes if I want portraits, etc. - Available light, few if any compact cameras have the aperture or sensor size that I can achieve with an slr, and when I win the lottery I may well upgrade to the Canon 6D which will have even more light as it has a larger sensor. - Use of external flash via the hotshoe. Don't get me wrong I do actually have a little Canon Ixus, but I only take it to places where I absolutely cannot take an slr, e.g. football grounds, etc. |
||
|
4th Mar 2013 11:49am |
|
| x-isle Member Since: 26 May 2011 Location: Midlands Posts: 1327
|
All good points, but you'd be suprised at how good some of the Nikon and Canon Bridges are. Some of the lenses listed in this thread as equally as slow as a bridge Most good bridges have full manual controls - Also if you are going to shoot in Auto mode on an SLR, don't buy an SLR. Flexibility, you're right, but only if you are going to have more than the single lens Available light. Not so right with that one, but you are correct in the size of the sensor, doesn't make it any lighter though, but yes SLR's are generally better in low light. Most decent bridges will have a shoe mount. In theory, you are right, and I'd never choose a Bridge over an SLR, but then I would never choose a "do it all lens" for an SLR either. Craig Rogers 2007 Puma 110 XS 2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux www.craigrogers.photography |
||
|
4th Mar 2013 11:59am |
|
| SteveG Member Since: 29 Nov 2011 Location: Norfolk Posts: 670
|
Sorry, on page one of this thread, didn't you say that one of the lenses in this test is awesome?? You make a good point about 300 for long distance wildlife though.
There's nothing wrong with using an SLR like a point and shoot when the need or desire arises to do so. That's the benefit of their flexibility that dnorrishill was eluding to. |
||
|
4th Mar 2013 12:43pm |
|
| x-isle Member Since: 26 May 2011 Location: Midlands Posts: 1327
|
Correct, it is a good lens if you are after a wide lens that has a long reach, but I still wouldn't buy one. It's a good compromise if you don't want to carry more than one lens. As for Auto mode, I give you half a point, if you do need to point and shoot then you should be in P or Program mode and not Auto mode. Funny lecture a long time ago when a techy explained why Auto is bad......... Auto mode is designed to make holiday snaps look great (even on the Pro cameras), now you might think thats a good idea. However, there's a caveat to that......... ......It's designed to make yellow tone look good on holiday.  That be the truth. Craig Rogers
2007 Puma 110 XS 2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux www.craigrogers.photography |
||
|
4th Mar 2013 12:48pm |
|
| x-isle Member Since: 26 May 2011 Location: Midlands Posts: 1327
|
.....AND IF BY MAGIC!!!!!!
http://www.cardinalphoto.com/content/long-...ed-vr-lens About time Nikon!  Craig Rogers
2007 Puma 110 XS 2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux www.craigrogers.photography |
||
|
5th Mar 2013 9:06am |
|
| BigMike Member Since: 13 Jul 2010 Location: Lancashire Posts: 2253
|
Glynn, take it from me (a pro commercial photographer), you'll be fine with an 18/70. If you really want to buy something, get the 24-120 VR. It's only F4 max but it's a cracking lens and will do most things. You just don't need anymore than that to document a trip. Too many amateur photographers think their shooting will improve if they spend thousands on lenses. It won't. Granted, if you want to take close ups of flowers and frogs then you need other bits of kit, but for the intended purpose, one lens is all you need. Match it to a camera with a decent ISO range and bobs your uncle.
|
||
|
5th Mar 2013 2:18pm |
|
| BigMike Member Since: 13 Jul 2010 Location: Lancashire Posts: 2253
|
by the way, I use a point and shoot compact for everything outside of work. never any need really for anything else. try getting sand out of a zoom lens, impossible. Also try getting a discreet portrait of a tuareg etc with a dslr a nd a 300 mil lens. not going to happen. plus in many places wielding a dslr with a large lens hanging off the end is asking for trouble.
|
||
|
5th Mar 2013 2:20pm |
|
| x-isle Member Since: 26 May 2011 Location: Midlands Posts: 1327
|
I agree with half of what BigMike is saying, it's horses for courses.
I am not a pro, but a very keen amatuer (although I have sold a few equestrian event photos in the past). For me, my camera equipment is not there for holiday snaps, family events etc..... Generally, I either use a Bridge or even just my Galaxy S3 phone as phone cameras are pretty good these days. Sometimes, I'll use an SLR, but usually just bung a 35mm on my older D70s which is fine. This is where a lot of Pros are mis-understood. For me, there's 2 differences between a pro and keen amateur 1) Pros use photography as a tool to make money 2) The passion is different (unless the pro is also a keen amateur too!) A pro isn't nessecarilly a better photographer than an amatuer. However, as I said, BigMike is right, but also wrong. A keen amateur (one that plans a photography outing for a particular reason) would benefit from spending £££££ on equipment on the same way a pro would, but I also get the point that a lot of "all the gear, no idea" folk do waste money on not understanding the technical side of things. Craig Rogers
2007 Puma 110 XS 2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux www.craigrogers.photography |
||
|
6th Mar 2013 9:14am |
|
| tatra805 Member Since: 16 Aug 2011 Location: Dolany Posts: 436  
|
Being an amateur on a budget with a pro background i'll throw in my 2 cents
Fast objectives are good,(and kinky  ), but not everyone has the stretch to throw in a couple of thousands to get kitted out. And to me the whole DSLR experience is a long term thing and a learning curve. For point and shoot things I wonder how many of us will run into the limitations of less pro-material. But if the bug bites you'll know when to step up.
As already said it's not the equipment that makes the picture. Overall DSLR is a big step up in quality and experience to a bridge camera (if you leave out the top level bridges which are not that much cheaper anyway) and enough to satisfy most for long time. So i throw in 2 not high end objectives but happy with them for all round use and certainly better than most of the kit-lenses. Nikkor 18-105 AF-S VR ED 4.5-5.6 Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR ED 3.5-5.6 Throw in a dedicated macro if you are in to that type of stuff and a fast 35 or 50mm objective and you should be good for a long time. I agree with others that the do-it-all lenses are not all that fantastic and more a compromise in-all than the sum of all good things. The only reason i would go for one is if i absolutely can only take one body and lens. (eg alpinism) But (been there done that etc) you will see the difference if you are used to multiple objectives and might feel your pictures are not as good as they could be. 2 cents only  |
||
|
6th Mar 2013 10:30am |
|
| x-isle Member Since: 26 May 2011 Location: Midlands Posts: 1327
|
I agree with you there, particulary if you are looking to "get into photography" rather than wanting "great photos from a trip". There's a big difference. Craig Rogers 2007 Puma 110 XS 2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux www.craigrogers.photography |
||
|
6th Mar 2013 10:33am |
|
| WarPig Member Since: 05 Dec 2009 Location: Sheffield Posts: 1748 
|
Ive been looking at a Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG 1.4X Conversion lens. Does it simply magnify your existing lens even further, so a 70-300 will zoom to 600mm? Is there any reduction in image quality by adding another lens like this?
|
||
|
6th Mar 2013 10:48am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
