I would rather spend that $100 on an EF 50mm ƒ/1.8.
why I don't do garden hybrids and aquarium strains: natural species is a history of Nature, while hybrids are just the whims of Man.
hexazona · crumenatum · Galleria Botanica
Jeffrey,
Nope, I wish I can get the D3 but can't even afford D300. That's why I bought a second hand D200. *Sigh!*. Don't think I'll be getting any more lenses yet. I may want to save up for a 70 - 200 f2.8 (not new) but then still KIV.
- Luenny
hmmm... i never liked the 70-200. It's too huge for me (not that I am small). But I cannot imagine bringing that monster overseas. I do not even dare to take it lest everyone stares at me...
I stick to 18-200 when I need that focal range. Recently, my friend travelled to Spain with 17-35, 50mm, 70-200 and a tripod. He almost died carrying the equipment. And he's big and tall by the way.
I am into Plecos now...
L46, L173, L134 & L236
~~Jeffrey~~
Yeah, it's big. You're right about that. But I've seen what it can do and it's very tempting. Especially with a fix f2.8 at 200mm. Hmm .... tempting. Hahaha!!
By the way, you know why I only posted so few pictures of my zoo trip? I almost died carrying the equipments too. Most of the time I'm seating on the floor resting ... hahaha!!
- Luenny
Awww, it's not that bad. I walked large part of London carrying an 80-200 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8 and a 20mm f2.8 + cheapo tripod. It was heavy but having a good pair of walking sneakers is a good idea. Forget about those flat soled fancy sneakers. I threw mine away after one day there because i got cramps walking. I'm not a big sized guy. Used to be lanky.[now paunchy]
Nice to have fancy cameras and lenses. Makes it cool to bring it out to snap pictures but the pressure is also on to perform and bring out the best the equipment can offer.
You can if you dare to fail - Stan Chung
Stan,
You're in better shape than I am. Maybe someday I'll pick up the stamina again. I used to lug 3 SLR around in the film days. Now, sigh! Getting old.
Robert,
Basically macro lens allow you to go nearer to the subject and still able to focus on them. Non-macro, you can't go too near. So macro lens is good for taking small things. But not only that, it can also perform like normal lens and take bigger things too. Besides that, the other difference is the price.
- Luenny
so what make macro lense allow you to go nearer? I though it is because of the focal length, that what confuse me because both of them is 50mm only the other one have "macro" on it. I guess my understanding on the whole idea is wrong.
the ability to focus closely has nothing to do with the focal length, but rather the internal construction of the lens element groups. it is more complex to design a lens that can focus closely without distortion, hence the price differential amongst the lenses.
here is an excellent place to read about the lenses http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
canon has four 50mm lenses: EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L, EF 50mm ƒ/1.4, EF 50mm ƒ/1.8, and EF 50mm ƒ/2.5 macro.
the focal length of a lens (whether zoom or prime) governs the field of view, and also the magnification AT A GIVEN FOCUSING DISTANCE. this is an optical property of the lens.
the reason a macro lens can present very small object is its ability to focus at a very short distance, which is a design property.
why I don't do garden hybrids and aquarium strains: natural species is a history of Nature, while hybrids are just the whims of Man.
hexazona · crumenatum · Galleria Botanica
Whether a purchase is stupid or smart depends on your usage of the equipment and what you want to shoot.
Just like buying plants for the tank, lenses can sometimes be hit by collectivitis. So they just buy and buy and upgrade and upgrade. But in the end those lenses just stayed in the dry-box after a couple of uses. Kind of waste of money imo.
So sit down, think about it, and if need be, borrow from fellow photographers to try out the equipment before plunging in for the buy. Quite a number of Canon and Nikon users here, so should have no problem trying out things from both camps. Money difficult to earn... So think and try before buy.
I second Vincent on that... I know exactly what he means...no, not me.. thank goodness all my purchases of lenses are wise choices...for now at least
I am into Plecos now...
L46, L173, L134 & L236
~~Jeffrey~~
That is the problem, I never even hold DSLR before (except at the shop ). I'm totaly lost just by looking at the list of lens available One think certail is the 18-55mm is bad according to the review.
I think $100 for a 18-55mm lens is pretty reasonable. You can use it as a start. If you later find that it is not good, you can sell it away. Or if budget is not a concern, then jump straight to those high quality expensive lens.
- Luenny
As Vincent said "Money difficult to earn..." so I want to get the right think from the start Which doesn't seem to be possible due the fact that I'm new to this whole DSLR thing.
Then recommend you get non-marque lenses-cheaper if price is a problem. Consider a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp
That would get you a all purpose work camera. It's an apsc lens so it's compatible with most Digital cameras now incl. the Canon 40D.
You can if you dare to fail - Stan Chung
One thing I learn is there is no such thing as "The right lens". One lens can be good for something but bad for something else. It all depends on what you want to take. The 18-55mm lens is good because it fits most normal usage with some degree of flexibility and it is cheap but downside is quality and it may not be able to take certain photos that you want like macro. And that is the main reason I got a DSLR (because of the ability to change lens). So, yeah, I'll say that lens is pretty reasonable if you're just starting off. If you already have in mind what you want to take, go buy the lens(es) you need but then they are most likely to be more expensive than this one. Alternatively, you can get the one that Stan recommends. I have one of those. Pretty good for conventional shooting and quality is better too (and you get f2. but the price is about 6 times the price of the $100.
Oh, one more reason to start off with cheaper lens first is that in case you loose interest, it is less of a waste.
- Luenny
on hindsight (after 2 years of making do), i would have ditched the kit lens and gotten this pair: 17-40mm f4.0 L USM (which is now my walk-about lens as it is superb for landscape and street photography even at low light) + 24-105mm f4.0 L IS USM, which would cover virtually every purpose except for macro and long range telephoto (birds etc). Or the alternate duo of 24-70mm f2.8L USM + the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM....
Bookmarks