 Stephanie M. Stevens |
Tell me I'm Not Crazy I told my friend the other day that I was going to try and convince my dad that he needed to buy me a $1600 telephoto lens for graduation, and she immediately said that he would be an idiot to buy it for me and it was totally ridiculous to pay that much for one lens, and I could use that much money to put a down payment on a car. I guess I need friends who get that I don't want a car, I want a lens. Anybody else as crazy as me? :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
You're not crazy. If I had the cash, I could blow $20,000 at B&H in about 30 minutes. It's too easy with photography equipment.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I guess there are two of you [crazies, I mean] - so far. Years ago, lenses by the major camera manufacturers were significantly better in quality than those of after market companies. Today, with so many lenses being manufactured in many different countries, the majors are having some problems controlling quality. When you read the reviews, often it's the after market camera or lens that's best. I think it was the Canon 28-200 mm zoom that was destroyed by both Tamron and Sigma versions. There was a time that key publications [like National Geographic] required the image quality one could only get with a Nikon or Canon lens. Today, with digital and photo editing, who really knows? If you think you'll be able to tell the difference between an after market and a major's lens, go for it. If you're going to be able to have a reasonable payout by selling your images in the near term, go for it. [I know, you want someone else to pay for it!] But, in fairness to Dear Old Dad [who is approaching the end of the college tuition payments (10K to 50K per year) and possibly facing a wedding in the next several years (10K to 100K,) have a heart. No one NEEDS a $1,600 lens! And, you haven't even told us what SLR you're going to use it with [your Gallery shows a point and shooot!] I have to repeat my old saw - It ain't the camera [or lens] that makes the picture. Ansel Adams would have burned and dodged the prints he made from a negative shot with a Baby Brownie and gotten GREAT results.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
John, I noticed you use Canon equipment, I intend to buy the Digital Rebel XT with my own money in the very near future. I want a nice Canon telephoto lens to shoot animals mostly, and I picked a few so I can start with the most expensive one and work my way down :) P.S. I'm just graduating from high school, so my dad hasn't been spending thousands of dollars on me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Oh yeah Stephanie. You're crazy. Crazy about photography. I purchased a $1,000.00 Sigma lense a year ago and plan on doing it again around Christmas this year to get a good macro lense. I think I would shop around though. As John said, there are some very good lenses out there that are not Nikon and Canon that do an excellent job. Read some reviews on comparable lenses and you may be surprised. Todd
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nobu Nagase |
...hey, Steph, if your dad was thinking about getting you a Jaguar for your graduation, then "wow!", a $1600 lens would be bargain!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Terry R. Hatfield |
Everyone Likes New Equipment, Sometimes Its Necessary And Sometimes It Isn't, If I Were You IMHO, I Would Ask For A Photo Course And Learn To Use The Pentax That You Have First. Composition, Lighting, Learning To Use The Rule Of Thirds And Many Other Aspects Of Photography Is What Makes A Great Image, And Then From There New Equipment Comes As Needed Because My Little Pentax Just Cant Achieve The Desired Results That I'm After...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
I know how to use my pentax. I want an SLR because I feel like ive outgrown the P&S.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Well, Stephanie - I checked the Adorama web site and I found a 70-200 mm or, maybe a 70-300 mm Canon IS lens for a film SLR at $1695 but nothing in that price range for a digital, telephoto lens by any manufacturer [for a Canon mount.] Hmmm! Tell us what lkens you've ifdentified. I think I have to agree with Terry. A good photo course might be just the ticket at this point. And, you know what - when I graduated from high school I got a Times watch [[less than $25.] Of course, that was in the Dark Ages.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Nobu Nagase |
If you were like me, I know it’s hard to change your mind nor get your mind off the idea of getting a lens. I love nature photography and I always wanted to do wildlife photography. But the reason I have no wildlife photos is that I do not have the lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
Nobi - What's nature? Under PSA and NJFCC guidelines a Nature shot is one which shows nothing involving man. So, if you were photographing a bird at a birdbath, it would be disqualified from competition because the birdbath was made by man. If you're shooting flowers, I'd think you'd want a macro lens, so you'd be able to fill the frame. If you're shooting natural vistas, I think you'd want a wide angle lens, not a tellphoto - even though I use my 28-200 mm zoom at tele settings because I often find it gives me a better effect. When I think about a telephoto lens in $1500 plus range, I think a fixed focal length in the range of 300 mm and up. These have a very limited use, in my opinion, because of the relative narrow angle of view and the very short depth of field. Sure they're great if you bird-watching or shooting an athletic event - but . . . For $1600 you could get a Tamron 28-300 mm zoom, a Canon 15 mm wide angle and maybe even a Canon 50, f/1.0 or 2.8 macro lens. Stephanie said she's planning on buying a Rebel XT [do it now, Stephanie - it's on a $300 rebate suggesting it'll be discontinued very soon.] A $1600 zoom, if that's what she's described seems to me to be impractical as a first lens. And, Stephanie, if you're thinking of the XT Kit, with 18-55 mm basic lens - I think you'll be dissatisfied with it very quickly. You'd be better off spending $500 of those dollars [of the $1600] for the 17-75 mm zoom. And, another $300 for a 580EX flash.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
John- ritz camera has a 100-400mm Canon for $1599. I love shooting animals, but obviously I can't always get close to them, thats why I want it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
P.S. I saw a $100 mail in rebate for it, where did you hear $300?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I just read this and was wondering which lens this could be as well. I though that I remembered the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM to be about that much. I would love that lens and I will have the money to get it this summer hopefully but instead of dropping that much on one lens, I might get it's little sibling, the 70-200mm f/4.0L USM. It doesn't let in quite as much light at a given shutter speed and doesn't have image stabilization but it's a great price for the quality of image that it will give. Also, last spring I bought a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM lens that is a great telephoto lens. It's just over $600 I think. If you get your Rebel XT it will be more like a 320mm lens and then if you really want to go further, you can spend just a few hundred dollars (or your dad can spend) extra and get a telephoto lens which will cut down light a little bit but it can give you a HUGE reach for under $1000. hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
I think the lens I like is so expensive partly because it has IS, which I heard was really nice to have. I don't have to have the big expensive one, but something that costs a little less will sound a whole lot better AFTER he hears $1600! :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I do know where you're coming from though. I'm a junior in college so I don't really have that much money to spend on myself without going further into debt hahaha! I would agree that IS is probably very nice to have but I think there's a line where "really nice to have" kinda needs to be, well, a need. I would really like it too but I can't throw my who wad of cash into that one lens since I haven't used my camera for too much as of yet where I need to have a short exposure in a very dimly lit place. If you're pretty steady and can spring for the money to buy a monopod, you can probably make it with the non-IS version that's about $600 less, if it WAS the 70-200mm like I was thinking.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I can remember years ago...when I mentioned how much I'd spent on a new Nikkor lens, my fishing buddy commenting, "Wow,...You should have gotten a new boat instead!" The fact is that true lens quality DOES cost money and how much you can afford to spend on your glass will be a factor in what you can produce. It's the lens (and of course, the one using it) which takes the picture. Everything else is secondary.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
hey stephanie, i read a bio on a nature and wildlife photographer last year.his most used lens went up to 600mm.but he said it took him 2 years to learn the habits of the wildlife he was trying to shoot.setting up blinds with camo,being perched in trees for hours and backing with the equipment to where he needed to shoot. birds of prey have very keen eyesight and could spot you a long ways off.if you're upwind an animal will smell you a mile away. have you checked the weight of the lens and camera together?might want to start hitting the weight room so you can carry it around for a few hours or maybe even days.i have spent all day roaming the local reservior and state park with nothing to show.and make sure you have comfy shoes. didn't want to throw a wrench in the works but did want to give you some more info. good luck,sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lauren R. Yackuboskey |
Hi Stephanie, Honestly if I had the money I would buy the lens... as long as you've done a lot of research on it and you know that it will top a less expensive lens for what you need it for. The lens is what MAKES the camera. I've seen a $600 camera take much sharper images with a great lens than a $2000 camera takes with a cheaper lens. Of course it depends on the photographer also...many factors involved... but if you're crazy, then so am I :) -Lauren
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
Okay, I'll put in my two cents worth seeing how this post isn't three years old. LOL! private joke! I think if Dad doesn't have a problem with buying you a $1600.00 lens, then by all means, go for it. I still think it would be a good idea to take some courses, if not through NYIP, then through BP. As it is, it was my graduation present that got me started in photography to begin with. The year was 1978. Don't laugh! And my present was a Yashica 35mm rangefinder with auxillary wide-angle and telephoto lenses. Within a few short years I had amassed equipment which included two rangefinders, four SLR's, two medium format cameras and a 4x5 field camera and enough accessory equipment, lenses, tripods etc.. that I needed a pack mule whenever I went out. Today I shoot with a Canon 20D and two lenses. The 17-85mm and 100-400mm lenses. My wife has no complaints about the money I've spent on the past year on my equipment because she knows it's something I love doing and she knows I'm good at it. I love her for that as it has been quite an investment which my never be returned in a monetary sense but will give me great satisfaction for years to come. And besides, it keeps me out of trouble. LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
Bob,the 100-400mm is the one im talking about, how do you like it? I also want a macro lens, but its much cheaper than the long one.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Chance |
I love the lens, but I will forewarn you, it's a beast to handle. The IS helps, sometimes. You have to remember, at 400mm, you are not only magnifying the image, you are also magnifying camera movement. It can be very hard to control while hand holding, even in just the slightest breeze. Most all of the bird pictures on my gallery were taken with this lens. The fact that it is an aspherical lens adds to the cost. It's expensive to make those types of glass elements, but neccessary to correct for spherical abberations at varying focal lengths. The lens also offers an auto focus limit switch, changeable from 1.8 - 6.5 meters. So if most of what you are shooting is at a distance, it limits the lens so it won't keep focusing all the way down to it's minimum while trying to acquire focus. Saves time and wear and tear on the focusing system. The IS tracks both horizontal/vertical or just vertical for when you are panning a shot. And there is a lock collar on the zoom, which also serves to adjust the friction. It is an awesome lens, but like I said, at three pounds just for the lens, it can be unwieldy at times. If you go for a macro lens, do not get the 50mm. It won't give you life size without the additional life size converter. The EF-S 60mm macro, the 100 and 180mm lenses will give you life size without adapters. The EF-S will only work on cameras using an APS-C sensor (Rebel XT, 20D etc..) The 100 & 180 are both EF lenses and will work on the entire Canon line of cameras designed for EF lenses. However, the 180 is quite pricey. The advantage is being able to achieve lifesize images from a longer distance. There are some subjects that won't let you get close enough for a short shot and some subjects you may not want to get that close to. If the camera you plan to purchase is the XT, then the EF-S lens will work on it. However, if in the future you upgrade to a camera with a larger sensor, you won't be able to use that lens on it. So, if you feel you may upgrade the camera in a couple of years, you may want to go with the 100mm macro, or as others have suggested, check out some of the third party vendors. I hear Sigma makes and excellent macro also. Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||