I am intersted in buying two new (or maybe even used) camera lenses for my nikon D50. Camera currently just has one 18-55mm lense, but i am interested in a telephoto (somthing up to 200mm) and a wide angle or maybe fish eye (non zoom). Auto focus isnt important and i want somthing that isnt going to break my bank yet that will give good image results, any suggestions?
SLR camera lenses
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
check out toshi's thread...i've been mining the photog-heads there for a while, as i'm in the same position. i bought the 70-200mm f/4 lens which is due in on wed. still wondering what wide angle lens i am gonna get.mack said:
Yeah, toshi always has good info. If you are buying used check out www.keh.com
15mm fishes are cheap, good zoom lens is 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8
Don't know what your price range is but I also use Nikon digital cameras (D70 and D100). With the 18-70 that came w/ the D70, I got the 80-200 f/2.8. Good lens for low light situations. For a fish-eye I picked up a 10.5mm f/2.8. The fish-eye is made specifically for Nikon DSLR's. Both are really nice.
I have a 70-300 f/4.5, but found that it wasn't so good. Optics aren't the greatest and in the 300mm mode, it looked kinda soft.
Spend the extra on auto-focus lenses - it's worth it. I have non-af lenses that I've used w/ the cameras and it's not the same.
I have a 70-300 f/4.5, but found that it wasn't so good. Optics aren't the greatest and in the 300mm mode, it looked kinda soft.
Spend the extra on auto-focus lenses - it's worth it. I have non-af lenses that I've used w/ the cameras and it's not the same.
f2.8 lens is big, heavy and expensive!
What is considered expensive? More than $1000?
for me it is! but not for others i am sure. it's about twice the cost for the f/4 lens, and since i am trying to build my glass collection, i figured an extra stop wasn't worth the $ i could spend on another lens.Five said:
The lens is less than $1000 so yeah in some people's book - expensive. For me it was worth the extra. Glass is better too.
I can't deal with anything slower than that if I want to take pics of any of the cool parts of our trails with someone riding. I have a 50mm f2.0 that is too slow at times...narlus said:
Yes it is but the AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF is worth it IMO. A great lens.narlus said:
i don't have a boat i can snap photos from; how about the city bus?
btw, if a f/2 lens isn't fast enough, then i guess high ISO and/or flash is yr only hope?
btw, if a f/2 lens isn't fast enough, then i guess high ISO and/or flash is yr only hope?
For a wide angle on a budget, you can check out the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I recently picked one up, and love it. great lens with a good build quality, better than a Tamron or Sigma, thats for sure!
There are faster lenses out there. Used 50mm f1.7 are decently common for the cameras that I have so I could get one of those. The thing that sucks is that I'm already carrying enough weight (I rock early 80's film jobbies - the ones you can pound a nail with) with just my camera and lense - a flash is heavy and I kind of dislike the pics that they create.narlus said:
More of my problem is that I kinda suck at action pics...I just dont care to take the time to do it well enough and my equipment cant pick up the slack.
I'd like to get a 20D or something similar for action type stuff and keep the film equipment for the artsy type stuff that I like to do.
f1.0:
http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/canon/PRD_83381_3111crx.aspx
I've heard of a f0.8, but I'm not sure if it was just intraweb-speculation or not.
