Jump to content


Photo

First Lens For A D-slr?


2 replies to this topic

#1 Fish-Face

Fish-Face

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 22 July 2006 - 08:48 PM

First off, I hope this is the right forum. There doesn't seem to be a category for lenses in non-traditional photography.

Second off, I'd like to plug my camera-decision thread in the digital section!

With that over, if I decide for a dSLR, I need (obviously) a lens. The absolute very top no-more-than-at-all maximum is 300, and I'd prefer it if I could keep it quite a bit less than that. Unless of course you can woo me into buying something that will last me for ever - I expect this lens will, as a general lens, have to sacrifice somewhat on the general quality, so I don't want to spend loads. Plus, I don't have enough money to spend 500 on a lens right now smile.gif
It needs to go from normal to low/medium telephoto - although if it goes wider and longer than that, I obviously don't mind. The one problem I see is that I'd like to be able to take closeups, so the focusing distance needs to be low, and general magnification good. However, the general plan is to buy this as "good enough" for closeups, and then in a year or so, have accumulated some wealth enough to go for a decent actual-macro, 1:1 or better lens.
Quality is important, but less important than getting normal-telephoto + closeup ability. I've been looking mainly at sigma for the price, and the 18-200, 18-125, 24-135, 28-200 and 28-300 are the main ones I'm looking at.

#2 hiyall

hiyall

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 28 November 2007 - 07:23 PM

QUOTE (Fish-Face @ Jul 22 2006, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
First off, I hope this is the right forum. There doesn't seem to be a category for lenses in non-traditional photography.

Second off, I'd like to plug my camera-decision thread in the digital section!

With that over, if I decide for a dSLR, I need (obviously) a lens. The absolute very top no-more-than-at-all maximum is 300, and I'd prefer it if I could keep it quite a bit less than that. Unless of course you can woo me into buying something that will last me for ever - I expect this lens will, as a general lens, have to sacrifice somewhat on the general quality, so I don't want to spend loads. Plus, I don't have enough money to spend 500 on a lens right now smile.gif
It needs to go from normal to low/medium telephoto - although if it goes wider and longer than that, I obviously don't mind. The one problem I see is that I'd like to be able to take closeups, so the focusing distance needs to be low, and general magnification good. However, the general plan is to buy this as "good enough" for closeups, and then in a year or so, have accumulated some wealth enough to go for a decent actual-macro, 1:1 or better lens.
Quality is important, but less important than getting normal-telephoto + closeup ability. I've been looking mainly at sigma for the price, and the 18-200, 18-125, 24-135, 28-200 and 28-300 are the main ones I'm looking at.


You didn't mention a brand but I find the canon 28-135 consumer lens to be acceptable in terms of convenience and image quality.

Here is a sample taken with the lens - of course it will only be applicable to canon bodies.

http://www.flickr.co...57594520950088/

Cheers,

Mike

#3 kenp

kenp

    Super Member

  • Advanced Members 100
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My intrests are my camera,,fishing ,and extracting Jack Russel hairs from my sensor!,,,,

Posted 01 December 2007 - 03:46 PM

For a one off lens you cant do any better than a Tamron 28/300......................superb lens!.............Ken
If I see something I "SHOOT!"



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users