Wayne Oliver |
|
Lens-Buying Advice Sought
Need some advice on buying a Lens for my Canon 300D. I already
have18-55(28-80),55-200(90-320). Will the 75-300 make a big difference in focal length or should I get something else?
June 19, 2004
|
|
|
John Wright |
|
Wayne, It sounds like you have the basics covered already. Are you not getting the results that you want? For better recommendations on lenses, it always helps to know what you want to photograph, including as much detail as you can (stop action, night shots, portraits, landscapes, etc., etc., etc.). Regards.
June 20, 2004
|
|
|
Wayne Oliver |
|
John, Thanks for helping. I was thinking about a lens for sports, a lens that would get me in closer like in those sports magazines. Example: Some sports magazines shoot a baseball pitcher as if they were on the mound about 4 feet in front of them.
June 20, 2004
|
|
|
John Wright |
|
I guess there are a couple of other considerations then ...
1. Wanting to shoot professional sports or local (high school/college)? This goes to how close you can physically get to the action. If it's professional, the opportunity to get physically closer is usually limited, and you may need to get a longer lens (I'd think the Canon 100-400 IS would be the one to go with). If it's local sports, then the 200 may work.
2. Budget? How much do you want to spend? Obviously, the 100-400 IS isn't cheap ($1300 +/-). However, if one of your current lenses will work with the 1.4 or 2x teleconverter, that may open further flexibility (and will be a little cheaper - $350 +/-). The good thing about the teleconverter is that if you get it and need more reach, I know for sure it will work with the 100 - 400. If that combo won't do it for you, I don't know what will ... :-) Hope that helps...
June 20, 2004
|
|
|
Wayne Oliver |
|
Thanks for the help John.
June 20, 2004
|
|
|
Michael E. Johnson |
|
I like Sigma 50 to 500 for baseball. It is a bit heavy for hand use. If you use a mono pod it works great. The cost is lower (800) and it takes great pictures.
I have also used Sigma's 120-300 f2.8 It takes great pictures, but is expensive $1800. Shutterbug magazine ran an article on the 120-300 a few months back.
June 22, 2004
|
|
|
Peggy Wolff |
|
Mike, I would love to hear more of your oppinion on the sigma 50-500. I am planning on ordering this soon but it bothers me that I have never had a chance to see it or use it first. It seems like a good for everything type of a lens. I do not use a tripod, would I still be able to get the sharpness for portraits and weddings? Or is camera shake a problem with 160 film? Thanks for your help and Wayne I am sorry to hord in on your question.
June 22, 2004
|
|
|
Kelly S. Dickinson |
|
Wayne, I bought the 75mm-300mm for my canon 300D. I will have to be honest and say I wish I would have saved my money and got the Canon 100mm-400mm instead. I just haven't got the results I was looking for with the 75mm-300mm lens.
June 22, 2004
|
|
|
Wayne Oliver |
|
Thanks Mike and Kelly.
Peggy no need to be sorry this is Q&A.
June 23, 2004
|
|
|
Michael E. Johnson |
|
Peggy,
Check out this sight http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_84817_3128crx.phpx
read the review section. The lens needs a mono pod for sure it is on the heavy side. I can hold it at higher shutter speeds but in low light you need at least a mono pod to hold. It works great for baseball and football. Now compared to 6000 dollar Cannon 300mm f2.8 well ya it is better. For the money you can not beat it.
June 23, 2004
|
|
|
Jim |
|
Wayne, I would buy the Canon 70 to 200 IS 2.8, a great all around lens and add a 1.4 tele, but be prepared to shell out some real cash. The reasons: 1 lens, its fast,you will be able to use slower better films,
Its not a super large lens. Also go to a camera store if possible and bring your 300d and try out all makes and models that they have avalible to get a feel for what you like and can afford. best
Jim
June 24, 2004
|
|
|
Wayne Oliver |
|
Thanks Jim!
June 26, 2004
|
|
|
|
Log in to respond or ask your own question.
|
