(Part 2) Best camera lenses according to redditors
We found 6,102 Reddit comments discussing the best camera lenses. We ranked the 1,118 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
![Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens Bulk packaging (White box, New)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51TeYruERcL.jpg)
The kit lens is an 18-55mm. I used the 15-85mm lens.
Have you considered the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?
Yeah, photography as a hobby is up there with car collecting in how expensive it is. Bit off topic, but if you want to blow your mind, go look at some of the [telephoto lenses] (https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1499099933&sr=1-16&keywords=canon+EF+telephoto) or for stuff even photographers think is a bit much, basically any [Hasselblad] (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1260272-REG/hasselblad_h_3013901_x1d_50c_medium_format_mirrorless.html).
Sony A6000. Out performs everything in its price range. Hands down a great buy. I would also recommend the 50 1.8 a phenomenal lens for the money. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419806517&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+50+1.8
Don't just write Sony off, they are the king of mirrorless. I have been super impressed with my A6000. It does things no other camera can do for the price. Steller value.
Panasonic GX85 and Panasonic Lumix 20mm 1.7 lens, this is actually a crop photo from this one: https://imgur.com/a/DTJK8v5
Got a macro lens on the way to properly shoot some close ups hehe.
Photography can be quite expensive.
Thankfully though, the "normal" stuff is still expensive enough that you really need to be sure you need it before buying, so I probably spend less than on fashion.
/u/BigOleBallsack - I would get neither. With a $5000 budget, unless you need to take still photos, I recommend an interchangeable lens Super 35 camcorder instead.
By the time you buy ND filters, an XLR audio solution with decent preamps and rigging (e.g., a top handle) to compensate for the GH5's or the A7s II's still camera ergonomics - you might as well buy a real video camera.
In your price range, I recommend a [$2595 Super 35 4K JVC LS300] (https://www.amazon.com/JVC-GY-LS300CHU-Ultra-Camcorder-Handle/dp/B00USBVISE/ref=as_li_ss_tl?m=A17MC6HOH9AVE6&s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1487897950&linkCode=ll1&tag=battleforthew-20) with a [$399 Metabones Canon to micro 4/3 autofocusing adapter] (https://www.amazon.com/Metabones-Smart-Adapter-Thirds-Camera/dp/B014C1BF7O//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=battleforthew-20) and something like a [$799 Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens] (https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-35mm-F1-8-Lens-Canon/dp/B00DBL0NLQ//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=battleforthew-20).
The LS300 has these features that still cameras lack:
I have shot with this camera, it is a solid pro camcorder with the ability to produce high quality 4K video at a reasonable price.
Here are a few examples of the image quality this camera can produce:
Narrative
Music Video
Corporate/Commercial/Interview
Live Event
Wedding
J-LOG on Vimeo (please watch at 4K and your monitor's highest resolution)
1080p on Vimeo
J-LOG on YouTube (please watch at 2160p and your monitor's highest resolution)
Non-LOG Gammas on YouTube (2160p)
This camera is not perfect. It has a tiny viewfinder and LCD, so you'll probably need to buy an EVF - and, although it has 4:2:2 chroma subsampling, it is still an 8-bit camera.
But for less than $3000, the LS300 is the most flexible large sensor, interchangeable lens 4K Super 35 camcorder on the market.
Hope this is helpful and good luck with finding the right camera for your needs!
Tokina 11-16 2.8 I or II. Version II new for $499 or v I for cheaper.
Here's the camera shiite if anyone's curious:
Camera: Nikon D5100
Lens: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Edited in Adobe Lightroom
Budget Rig
I mainly shoot internet video for my daughter and events.
Sigma 18-35 1.8. One of my favorite zooms ever for a crop sensor camera. It's heavy, but a phenomenal lens and great focal length range on a crop sensor. Only drawback is no IS, but the image quality and versatility make up for it and more.
Sigma's 30mm 1.4 sounds like a good choice for what you're doing.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM
Yeah they are
To get us started take a look at the Sigma 200-500 f2.8
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU#
Particularly this bit: 28.6 x 9.3 x 9.3 inches; 34.6 pounds
Now if you want to go down to f1.4 we could consider a similar lens in two different aperture sizes. Canons 70-200 f4 is 3" diameter and the f2.8 is 3.5" in diameter so you could essentially estimate a 15% increase in diameter for each f-stop. From our Sigma example we're going two full stops larger from f2.8 to f1.4 which gives us a rough diameter of 12.3"
Determining length is not quite as direct. Let's look at the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500 at 11.2" long and 9.9" long, respectively. That's a 12% increase in length to add the 50-150 focal range to effectivly the same lens. So I don't think 20% is too far to far out of the range of possibility for adding 15-200mm: ~35 inches.
The original lens has an average density of .018 lb/cubic inch. So at 12" in diameter and 35" long our imaginary lens would be about 71 lbs.
Keep in mind I'm ignoring all actual optical physics, and most other physics as well. Mostly because it's late and typing this much on my phone is frustrating.
Hope that was fun!
It's pretty expensive: Canon 5d Mark ii with 100mm macro lens.
As someone who moved from a 5DMk2 to a Sony A7rii (ducks!), perhaps I can shine some light (so to speak).
The lens adapters that you can buy which'll allow you use Canon lenses on a Sony body work within limitations. e.g. My Canon 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 focuses well up to 135mm focal lengths, but was confused with the metabones adapter I got for longer focal lengths. The Canon 24-70 f2.8 focused throughout the zoom range.
That said, native Sony lenses always were always more snappier and responsive than going through an adapter. That's no surprise, however, what did surprise me is how f'ing expensive Sony glass was compared to the equivalent Canon glass. You'll be paying a pretty high premium.
Sony Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens is $2,598 US
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is $1,899 US
In hindsight, I still love the Sony sensor that came with the a7rii (incredible dynamic range and color) and the compact body, but I do miss the choice of Canon lenses.
Just my 2 cents.
When it comes to video I'd say the Sigma 18-35. The image quality of this lens is ridiculous, it lets in a lot of light, it has a fixed aperture, excellent build quality and you have actual zooming ability which I think is much more useful for video than using a prime. It is used by many as their video lens. I would normally not recommend this one to a stills shooter that uses the viewfinder but for those taking video and using Live View, it is damn good!
The lens is canon 70-200mm F/2.8L (can't tell if it's 2nd gen or first). First generation is a little cheaper (1.5k) but the latest one is close to $2.5K. It's one of my dream lens but I already got similar one with F/4.
I own the Sigma 18-35 and it lives up to all the hype it gets.
The kit lens is good because it can zoom across a wide range of perspectives but bad because it's "slow" in light gathering terms. This means that you'll be less able to get non-blurry shots as the lights get dimmer (sun set, indoors, dinner time lighting, etc).
So my suggestion would be to, assuming you want to take photos at dusk/night, get a fixed focal length prime lens. These lenses are bad because they can't zoom at all and so you have to use your feet to zoom but good because they can shoot in significantly dimmer light.
But which prime lens to get? You can get them at a reasonable price in the zoom levels of: 15mm, 17mm, 20mm, 25mm, and 42.5mm. I'd say the way to go would be to buy the G85 with the kit lens, use it, and see which focal length you take the most photos at or your favorite photos at. Some people suggest taping the zoom lens to be fixed at a focal length of whatever prime lens you might buy and shooting with that for a week or so to see if you can handle being stuck at that range.
A lot of people are also of the opinion that using a prime lens as a beginning photographer will help you get better quicker by limiting the range of things you can do (no more zooming) and forcing you to think more outside the box.
Personally, I like the 15mm range for all around shooting (it's similar to the perspective a phone camera would give you). And I like the 42.5mm for specifically taking portraits, which I do a lot of when hanging out with friends. The Olympus lenses are worth considering if you can save some money by going with them. Theoretically they won't autofocus as quickly, but the difference should be negligible (we're talking milliseconds here).
I'd also suggest looking at used lenses (ebay or Amazon's used marketplace give me the best results). Anything in good to excellent condition that says there's no mold or scratches on the glass will perform fine. You can usually expect to save about 20% of the new price by going used, sometimes more. The majority of my lenses are used and I've never had a single issue.
If you wan't to take photos without a flash, especially of action, you're going to want a larger aperture (smaller F number). Defiantly not a pro myself, but the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens for $100. The large aperture will allow you to capture more light allowing you to use a faster shutter speed (and freeze motion, reducing blur). For about the same price as the lens you have selected, you can get a 2.8 zoom, the [Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8] (http://www.amazon.ca/Tamron-28-75mm-Canon-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1395673544&sr=8-2&keywords=tamron+28-75mm+f28). That will give you some room to zoom, but will not be able to go as wide as the 18-55 kit lens I assume you use currently. Hope that helps!
If the 50 mm 1.8 is your go to 99% of the time for your family shots, check out the Sigma 30 mm 1.4. It will offer a much more versatile focal length on your crop sensor for indoor photos. 50mm is "normal" on a full frame, but more of a portrait lens on a crop. This combined with your kit lens may be all you need if most of your photos are of your family.
its one of the widest lenses you can get for DX thats not a fisheye,
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC
Thanks! I just sent my camera back to Nikon for refurbishing and sensor cleaning and I'm super happy with it. I believe the lens used was this bad boy which for the price is my absolute favorite lens and very versatile.
I have the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 Pro DX, which I absolutely love. I've also read fantastic things about the 11-16mm f/2.8. My choice for the former was due to the fact that I shoot mostly daytime landscape with it, and don't need the wider aperture (and higher price tag).
One thing, though: for your camera, you would need the DX II version of either lens, which have built-in AF motors.
124 f/4 Pro DX II
116 f/2.8 Pro DX II
I own a Canon 6D and mostly do astrophotography, portraits, and street photos. I have a ceremony coming up and thought that maybe it's about time to buy a good telephoto lens. My budget is up to $2000. I currently own the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. Every website I read suggests only Canon lens, but I was wondering if there were any other telephoto lens from other companies that you guys would suggest.
If not, I might just go with one of these two:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1497036583&sr=8-4&keywords=Canon+EF+70-200mm+f%2F2.8
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Lens-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000I1X3W8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1497036569&sr=8-4&keywords=Canon+EF+70-200mm+f%2F4L
Wondering how much of a problem the weight would be for the f/2.8 version.
> Also I can't buy secondhand stuff because .,., reasons.
Not really a reason.
The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is $1799. If you want that focal length so bad, that's the route you need to go with the very capable camera you already have. It will perform just fine; it definitely isn't "way worse" than the Sony equivalent.
Echoing /u/shipshaper88 - why split yourself between two different camera systems? If you're looking to jump ship, then by all means, jump ship. However, it'd be wiser in that case to just sell your Canon gear outright.
You're going to have to give a budget. Budget friendly means different things to a lot of different people.
I'd certainly recommend the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM II and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II.
If you're looking for more reach, I personally like the 200-400 f/4L IS USM with built-in 1.4x extender but you better hurry, there's only 5 left in stock.
My current equipment :
Using these, I manage to get these : Album
I want to further my astrophotography, but realize I would need better equipment to better these.
Which of these would be best bang for my buck for a step forward with astrophotography?
I know a good answer to this would be 'everything', but I can't get myself to spend a lot of $$ at this moment. I could spend a few hundred on one of these, and then at a later point re-evaluate.
Thanks for hooking me into this awesome hobby!
Alright, on my desktop now so I can fix this up a bit.
Tamaron 28-75 2.8 is an increddibly good lens. It has a good zoom range, constant aperture, is parfocal, and very sharp. The only downsides are that the front of the barrel extends quite a bit when zooming (makes it difficult to use with a mattebox, and the focus throw is like 10 degrees or something. It also has auto focus, if you want to use it for stills, or you like watching the lens refocus in the middle of your video. If it's in your price range, I strongly suggest this lens.
This olympus 50mm 1.8 is a great lens. It's sharper than the cannon 50mm, and has much better manual focusing. I own the 1.4 version, and it's likely the sharpest lens I've ever owned. The cannon 1.8 does have autofocus, and flares alot less, but it also costs over 2x the amount.
This Tokina 35-105 3.5-5.6 is an amazing lens, considering the price. It's not very sharp until f5.6, but it still looks amazing. The bokeh is amazingly creamy, especially when using the close focusing function, and it can start to go swirly. By 5.6 it is also incredibly sharp. This lens can definitely give a very "cinematic" look. The best thing about it is it can be found online for as little as 13 dollars. Beware however, it is a push zoom style lens, and it is not parfocal.
Nikon 3.5-70 3.5 is an incredible deal. I haven't owned one myself, but here is an incredibly detailed review by Ken Rockwell.
If you want wide or tele primes, especially fast ones, its gonna cost you quite a bit more. Even vintage ones rarely sell for under $100.
I have this lens, and it is good enough for what you need IMO.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370013360&sr=8-1&keywords=Nikon+55-200
> $9000
Chump change, real photographers use this
2.&3. These are both due to the same problem, low light. There is just no way around it, with a smaller aperture, you have less light, less light means the auto focus can't work as well. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU?th=1 is an example of what you would need for a "fast" zoom. You aren't taking that on any trip...
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B010RABJ5C/ is a more reasonable size, but still weighs like 20 lbs. Its just a matter of physics. You just can't get enough light without a flash or more sunlight. If you take your same setup to someplace bright and sunny you will get a lot better results.
4.) Don't buy a superzoom... They are mediocre at everything. All the flaws of each lens you have are multiplied in the superzooms. They are fine for soccer moms who just want a big camera to look special, but its like trying to go camping and only taking a 100 in one swiss army knife, yeah it can do it all, but not that well...
I've always had a soft spot for the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8. \^_^
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8268122124/sigma250500
And it's still in production! (I wonder if they'd answer, if I were to enquire how many are sold each year..)
The Amazon reviews are much as you'd expect. =:)
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/product-reviews/B0013DAPNU/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
It looks like the price has been reduced on amazon.ca to be on par.
Adorama: $289.99 + $43.44 + exchange +duty? = $450+CAD
Amazon.ca: $467.69 CAD with free prime shipping
If you're just starting out, learning to "zoom with your feet" while using a prime is some of the best advice I can give. You'll be a better photographer for it. You'll also appreciate the wide f1.8 aperture for low light.
I can't speak to the quality of the 55-210mm, but I've never been a big fan of the cheap telezooms with variable max apertures (f6.3 in this case when zoomed in at 210mm is disgusting). I can appreciate that it would be important if you want to get kid action shots, though. Just know that you'll need really bright conditions to be able to use a fast shutter speed at a reasonable ISO while zoomed all the way in.
Would also recommend comparing the Sony 35mm/1.8 to the Sigma 30mm/1.4 before you buy. I just got the Sigma a few weeks ago and have been floored by the sharpness. It's about $60 cheaper, too.
If I were in your situation, I'd go for your second option (16-50mm kit + a prime). I have the 16-50mm and very rarely reach for it, but understand that it's nice when you start out to have a range of focal lengths to play with.
Alternatively, just get the a6000 body only + a prime, and once you get a feel for what you type of shooting you do most, rent a wide prime or a better quality telephoto to help decide what to buy next. I wish someone had told me not to waste money on the low-end kit lenses early on. If you get serious about photography, these will just clutter your bag, and camera shops will only quote you insulting offers when you try to sell them.
Assuming by "wildlife" you mean animals/birds at a distance...
Bob Atkins' website has a section listing the best EOS lenses under $400, which includes the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS. He personally recommends the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC, and there's used examples of the latter on Amazon for $280.
You can also find used examples of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS for $300, the (discontinued) Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 for about $200, and the (discontinued) Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for $100.
Of all those, I'd recommend the Tamron 70-300 myself, although if money is really tight and you can do without image stabilization, the Canon 100-300 seems to be a bit of a bargain (both Bryan Carnathan and Ken Rockwell give it a decent review).
Note: I'm only using Amazon for price-consistency. Check Craigslist, your local classifieds, and other outlets at your leisure.
Unless you have a full frame to mount it to as well I'd just go with the Sony SEL50F18 for the a6500. It's still an excellent lens for less than half the price.
If you're just getting into it, I would consider a camera body that costs $500 USD or less. My own personal recommendation is the Sony A6000. The body and kit lens is small and compact compared to a traditional DSLR like the Canon T6i and performs just as well. It also has the option of being able to mount vintage lenses on it due to it's smaller form factor and the lens mount being closer to the sensor. This means you can get good but cheap manual lenses from back in the day for often times $100 USD or less plus a $18 USD converter mount.
If you have any questions about this camera system (i own the A6000) or in general, please feel free to ask either through comments or pm me. Shameless plug (https://instagram.com/snappedbyandy for example photos)
Also. It sounds like you want to take a lot of landscapes, and for that you want a lens with a low focal length. Now, the kit lens that comes with cameras is nice and all, but if you want some real stunning pictures, you'll get a better quality prime wide-angle lens. "Prime" meaning the lens can't zoom and "wide-angle" meaning you have a wider field of view. Since it doesn't need to move, there's less glass needed, and the quality of the picture is better. Something that's 12mm to 20mm should do the trick. I'll link a personal recommendation below should you choose to go with the A6000.
Again, i want to emphasize to buy used if possible. Especially on lenses. You'll get severe discounts compared to buying something brand new. Typically people take good care of their lenses, and if you can meet the person before buying, a little legwork can save you a bundle of money.
Camera with kit lens (i recommend buying used/refurb locally if possible)
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_5?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180473&sr=1-5&keywords=a6000&dpID=41AEqhgdLtL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Recommended wide angle lens for landscape with the A6000:
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539180938&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+12+e+mount
an example of a good vintage lens:
https://www.amazon.com/Minolta-MD-50mm-Japan-Mount/dp/B008QFXYYU/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180558&sr=1-16&keywords=minolta+rokkor
an example of a converter to convert the mount of a vintage lens to the Sony E-mount
https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-NEX-VG30-NEX-VG900-NEX-FS100-NEX-FS700/dp/B00E5T5BJW/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180630&sr=1-3&keywords=md+to+e+mount&dpID=41RFJ6J3P1L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
Guy with a dedicated blog to attaching vintage lenses to the Sony E mount system (he uses a Sony A7, which is more expensive, but the A6000 uses the same mount system, so it still all applies):
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/affordable-manual-lenses-for-the-sony-alpha-77r7ii7rii-and-7s/
70-200 F2.8L IS II - I can't afford it yet but every time I've used one or seen the images they've produced I've been amazed.
I wrote a huge thread about buying Nikon as I am studying photography and am one of the biggest Nikon fanboys on the planet. I'll paste it all here. The D3100 and the D5100 are EXCELLENT cameras, and will blow your mind as an entry level DSLR. Do not fall into the D7000 trap, it's not worth it due to it's AF problems. I own a D300, D80, and GF1. Here's everything I had to say... It's lengthy. All about which lenses you should go for with your D3100/D5100
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 35mm f1.8: The lens is fixed at 35mm, so no zooming. However, the fact that it is f1.8 means it has AWESOME low light capabilities. I always recommend wide angles to new DSLR owners because it really introduces you to what the camera is capable of. You'll get a grip of aperture values and creative bokeh use; it is wonderful. Plus it seems like everyone loves that 'large sensor' look with beautiful background blur (bokeh) and very sharp foreground details, and wide angle lenses at very low apertures will definitely give you that. Just mind you that 35mm is kind of a short length, but you can live with it. (My GF1 only has a 20mm lens attached to it, and it is still one of my favorite lenses to date from Panasonic.) The price is to DIE FOR.
55-300mm f4.5-f5.6: While I don't exactly like variable aperture zooms, they are are fantastically priced. Don't expect ridiculous zoom levels though, but it'll still zoom pretty well; 300mm is a fairly good zoom. The reason why I don't really like variable apertures is that sometimes you completely forget about them, and if you are shooting in manual that will absolutely kill your shot if you weren't shooting in RAW.
So I'll be zoomed at 100mm, probably at f4.9, and then zoom to 280mm. Suddenly, I'm at f5.5 without changing it myself because the lens doesn't support f4.9 at that zoom. Kind of a downside, but you just have to keep it in mind and shoot in RAW.
There is another option if you don't want variable apertures however.
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: This is the beast lens. If you want to save up money for a lens, I promise this is the one you want to do that for.
My 70-200mm VR is a lens I refuse to leave at home when going on a trip, it is simply my favorite lens EVER. This is the next version of it, but it is cheaper because of demand.
But now you see the downside to low aperture telephoto: price. $2,400 isn't exactly the most affordable lens on the planet, but that's why it is worth it to buy this a while after you have had your DSLR and have saved up some money for that killer lens. This, paired with the 35mm f1.8 I put above there, would be a killer kit. It would be fantastic for low light conditions, even with the telephoto.
I'm a loyal Nikon shooter for a reason: They are quality. While I'm a bit disappointed with how long it took them to jump into DSLR video, the quality of their cameras have always pleasantly surprised me ( Not counting the D7000 of course ;) ). The D3100 was one of those cameras that I just loved, the price is fantastic and the quality of the camera itself is mind blowing for the price.
My first camera was a D80, and I fell in love with it. That was a while ago though, and once I picked up my D300... Magic. I had never used such a powerful camera before, and it blew my mind what the D300 was capable of. While it is getting a bit old (Older Sensor, still an old 12MP with lesser low light capabilities than the newer cameras), the auto-focus points are fantastic and the overall speed and RAW processing power of the camera have never failed to make me smile.
I have a nice little savings account for a D3x or the D4 line once it is released. ;D
The D3100 is a camera that you'll probably keep for a long time. It is a quality camera, like all Nikons. It is powerful, and is considered to be one of the 'new age' DSLRs: lower price, greater power. Hopefully this camera will turn you into a life long Nikon fan. ;) Have fun with it, that's the one major rule. Don't pay attention to any of the shooting rules if you feel like you have a better idea; follow your eyes, not some other person's laws (Rule of thirds, etc.).
Good Luck! And Have Fun! :D
First option is an FX VR II lens, latter is DX and doesn't have a VR switch option.
If you're going to get the latter DX lens, might want to consider the Nikon 55-300mm VR which is wider and the same price:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003ZSHNCC/
that was a $499 lens 6 months ago an highly regarded. I have one in Canon mount and its great.
It's been replaced by thiswhich is why the price drop. If you can stand having last gen stuff its an absolute steal.
A Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 would be a solid choice if you can afford one. That's a fairly useful focal range for a crop sensor camera like yours. It also has a wide aperture across the entire zoom range to improve the light it gathers. That's definitely important if you're using it indoors, since you can't count of being able to control the lighting.
Get yourself the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I have the same camera as you, and trust me, the extra light that 1.4 can let in will blow your mind the first time you try it in less than perfect lighting conditions. It's truly awesome. A 50mm, I find, is far too restrictive to really be my "walkaround" lens.
Nikon D40 - $409. This is an incredible camera for the price, the next real step up costs $1000 more.
Spend maybe $20 on a UV / protection filter and a 4GB SDHC card - save the rest.
When you've got a bit of experience, you'll know if you want a basic telephoto zoom to get a little closer to your subjects - or something a little more exotic for low-light indoor shooting.
Just be aware that there will always be more expensive and complicated equipment to tempt you. Remember that the skills and creativity of the operator are the most important factor in producing good art. So long as your camera isn't complete junk - upgrades and fancy lenses may be fun to play with - but they won't magically improve the quality of your pictures.
Nikon's ED is in almost every modern lens, such as the 55-200 kit zoom. It's not necessarily special.
I would suggest the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 if you're looking for a good wide angle lens that's relatively sharp across the image and is pretty fast as well. Less than $500 on Amazon: http://amzn.com/B0014Z3XMC
A good start.
You are correct that the 55-250 isn't meant for macro - no lens is unless it's specifically advertised as one, like the Canon 100mm 2.8
I was in a similar position about 3 years ago. But then it was either the D3100 or the D5100. I chose the D5100. I chose it due to the higher ISO capability. I loved my decision. It was a much better camera than the 3100. I tried my buddy's 3100 and my 5100 side by side and mine outperformed 3100 significantly. The location was a dinner party at a restaurant. I was able to easily pull of images in low light he was not able to get. Also, the additional features helped me learn photography better. To me the 3100 seems like an advanced point and shoot camera with SLR capability. The 5100 gave me very good pictures, kept me interested, and kept me growing in photography for the last 3 years where the 3100 would have bored and disappointed me with photography in couple of months. Honestly, today, I am disappointed I just didn't go for a D7000. If I would have gotten the D7000, I believe I would have been satisfied for another year or two before upgrading. But it was my first DSLR and I wanted to learn how to shoot manual. I wanted to tip my toes in the water first before spending lots of $$$.
Yesterday, I just upgraded my 5100 to a D750. I was between the D7100, D610 and the D750. I figured why the heck not... I wanted something that can keep me satisfied for the next 5 years. Rather than constantly have my body go out of date then wanting to upgrade again.
To see what kind of pictures the D5100 can take, look here. http://imgur.com/a/kZxC2. http://imgur.com/a/1eOv5#9.
I am sure the D5300 will perform much better.
I highly recommend getting the Tamron 2.8 28-75 lens and skipping the kit lense. The Tamron 2.8 was my first lens purchase. All pictures you see above was taken with it. It will be the lense you may need for a while, unless you need a super zoom.
You can get it new for $500 http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05
or used < $400. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/284402?gclid=CjwKEAiAtNujBRDMmoCN46aB8noSJAC7SYv7mf2IsbdzMWfDQ6PQ7TP8v3RtWwojn7S83gSJnLjSkhoCGhfw_wcB
It is an FX lens and you can still use if if you decide to make the jump to FX later like I did. Even if you buy DX now, I suggest you still by FX lenses. I have only purchased 2 lenses over the last 3 years, but they have been very good lenses. They will serve me much longer than the bodies. If you do not want to spent that much on new lenses right now and want to get the kit lense (which I highly don't recommend), wait few months and get the 50mm prime lense. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417144124&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+50+mm. Its an excellent lense and you can use it on FX camera's as well. I am planning on this to be my next purchase after I get over the D750 sticker shock.
Edit: I also jumped from a Canon Powershot to Nikon DSLR. I have really enjoyed Nikon as they just felt better in my hands. Also D7000+ bodies has a built in motor so you can buy older lenses much cheaper.
Edit 2: Best Buy has a great deal going on now for a D7000 and a zoom lens for $800 bucks. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d7000-dslr-camera-with-18-140mm-vr-lens-black/2071002.p?id=1219068635598&amp;skuId=2071002.
Edit 3: Scratch that. You may want to take a look at this... http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00POQ8B74/ref=twister_B005MX9OSE?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1
Tbh at that vintage I'd go with a 40D. Prices are actually cheaper, and it's a better camera imo. 1 year older and slightly less MP, but a prosumer body with superior controls, ergonomics, and build quality.
I have one, and love it still.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-40D-10-1MP-Digital-Body/dp/B000V5P90K/
It's my backup, but once in a while I still take it out - like when I went out on the water a couple of months ago. I recently made a comment about it here with some sample shots, etc (though obviously, there are faaaaar better samples online).
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cameras/comments/649hy1/start_of_low_or_high_on_the_dslr_spectrum/dg0hj42/
If you dig photography, you can always upgrade the body and at current prices you're not really risking anything. The price is pretty much at the bottom already. Your lenses will still be current.
Also recommend the 24mm 2.8 pancake, don't know much about the zooms listed, but love my Tamron as an all-around (buy used, it's almost always a much better deal - except maybe the pacake because it's so cheap already). The 1.8 50mm is a classic for a reason, but can be a bit tight on a crop body. Great for portraits though.
From one of my earlier comments:
I purchased a refurb from Amazon of the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for $280: http://smile.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1451844612&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tamron+28-75
The first one I got was a dud and I had to return it. The second one is amazing though, reasonably light, very sharp, good depth of field. Some slight vignetting when using with my full-frame 6D. Also about 1k cheaper than Canon's 24-70.
If you have Amazon prime, its pretty easy to test what Lenses you want and you can return the ones you don't want. I dont have one but this could be a good place to start: http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004FLJVXM/sr=8-1/qid=1451844871/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&amp;me=&amp;qid=1451844871&amp;sr=8-1 It'll get you super wide shoots of landscapes, or you can zoom in to capture a distant object (ie birds), and anything in between.
Also if you're looking for a versatile/fast/sorta cheap lens, look into the Tamron 28-75 2.8. I used this lens for a good year and a half in many situations before I started building a prime kit.
If he goes for the [$374 Metabones] (http://www.adorama.com/MBEFEM.html?KBID=66297), that only leaves him with $626 to cover 24mm to 70mm at f2.8 or faster. That won't really work for native Canon glass - but I guess he could get something like a [Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 for $419] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000A1G05/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=390957&amp;creativeASIN=B0000A1G05&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=battleforthew-20) and have a few dollars left over.
That said - autofocus with Canon compatible lenses is a little slower using this adapter.
Cheers,
Bill
Honestly the only lens I'd recommend is this one. It's the highest quality lens you can get for your budget.
I have the [30mm Sigma] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-30mm-Digital-Canon-Mount/dp/B0007U0GZM/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1335220868&amp;sr=1-1) and the Canon 50mm as the guy above mentioned and some older lenses I use with an adapter.
Just remember it's a cropped sensor. So your 50mm lens is going to be around a 70mm on a full frame sensor. This isn't too big of a deal, but it's the reason I grabbed myself the 30mm. (That gives me around a 50mm on the 5d MkII) the standard film perspective.
If you want anymore tips;
Install [CineStyle] (http://www.technicolor.com/en/hi/theatrical/visual-post-production/digital-printer-lights/cinestyle)
This is to get the flattest image possible, because of the DSLRs compression you do not want to over expose or under expose the image. You won't have any wiggle room in post to bring it back down. Once you've lost that info, it's gone!
Keep your shutter speed around 50-60 to give you the best filmic look, you might not realise, but film is quite blurry. It's not overly sharp. You might find this hard to start with, the image may be too dark. This is where you use your ISO, although because you're doing a horror, if you have lots of shadows be careful of grain when using those higher numbers.
Pick yourself up some ND filters if you're filming with sunlight, this will let you keep the apature low without over exposing.
Don't use your hands to film with, the low form factor of the DSLR means you get horrible jello footage you won't be able to fix in post.
Careful with your apature, don't just stick to the lowest number possible to get extreme shallow DOF. Be creative, use shallow DOF when you need too. (Especially in scenes where there might be a lot of detail in the background, builds, fabric, book shelves etc) The camera hates this. But if you have two people talking to each other make sure they are both in focus.
Take your time and have fun!
Sorry this is most likely very terribly written, bed time for me!
My 2 cents as a long time hobby photographer with somewhat similar interests (I shoot nature, at macro and telephoto distances).
Just about any modern DSLR body will be able to do what you are asking for, but you will need very different lenses for both purposes.
Sensor size is the main factor to consider in modern DSLRs.
Full Frame bodies have a sensor inside that is equal in size to one frame of a photographic film. APS-C or crop bodies have a sensor that is smaller than photographic film, therefore you have a "crop factor" (1.5 or 1.6) which represents the part of the image produced by the lens that is captured by the sensor. In effect, this is equivalent to cropping out the edges from a full frame image. Micro four thirds is a sensor standard that is roughly half the size of a full frame sensor and cameras featuring this standard are very compact (this is related to flange distance [distance from sensor to the lens], not sensor size, but that is not important here). Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sony make both full frame and APS-C bodies, Fuji makes APS-C bodies and Olympus & Panasonic make M4/3 bodies. I'll stick to Canon and Nikon in my recommendations here because other manufacturers are not well represented in India.
Macro
There are 4 ways to shoot macro images;
(i) The easiest way is to use a dedicated macro lens. These are lenses optimised to focus at very close distances. A "true" macro lens produces 1:1 or life-size images. What this means is that at the closest focusing distance, an object the size of the sensor will produce an image that fills the complete image frame. The Nikon 60, 105 and 200mm, the Canon 100 and 180mm, the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm, Sigma 105 & 150mm are all excellent lenses. These are all moderately to very expensive, so I recommend looking in the used camera market. Most macro photography is done with manual focus, so you may be better off purchasing an older manual focus lens for 8-15k, than a newer auto focus model for 20k and up.
Pros: Excellent image quality, lenses are all built to high standards.
Cons: Cost.
(ii) Reverse mounting a zoom lens. The use of an adapter allows you to attach a lens (such as a standard 18-55 kit lens) the wrong way around and take magnified images.
Pros: Inexpensive.
Cons: Learning curve, lot of trial and error. Image quality not as good as a dedicated macro lens.
(iii) High quality close-up diopters (such as a Raynox DCR-250, Canon 250/500D, Nikon 4/6T) can be attached to the front of just about any lens to provide magnified images. You can also get cheap "close up lenses", but these will provide poor image quality. The diopters mentioned above are doublet or triplet (made of 2 or 3 lenses) assemblies that will not affect image quality to a great extent.
Pros: Pocket friendly.
Cons: None really, unless you want to nitpick.
(iv) Extension tubes are hollow tubes you place between the lens and body which magnify the image produced by the lens thanks to simple physics.
Pros: Inexpensive.
Cons: Take a bit of getting used to.
Sports
Taking pictures of fast moving objects at distances requires the use of long "telephoto" lenses. I would recommend a 300mm lens as the very minimum if you want to take pictures at cricket distances (assuming you're sitting in the stands of a stadium and trying to photograph the batsman). As telephoto prime lenses are rather large, heavy and expensive, you're better off going with a zoom lens right now.
Keeping your budget in mind, the best deal right now might be the Nikon D5300+18-55+70-300 for 48,000. The 70-300 AF-P is a pretty good lens that focuses down to about 2 feet and gives you a magnification of 1:4. Add a Raynox DCR-250 for about 7k and you have a pretty nifty macro set-up that will do a decent job with sports as well.
If you want something a bit more rugged, I'd suggest a used Nikon D7100 for about 25,000 coupled with the 70-300 AF-P for 17,000. A Raynox diopter and an 18-55 will add 10,000 to the cost.
The Canon equivalent of the AF-P 70-300 costs 36,000 (although the 55-250 can be had at that price), unfortunately. Which does not leave much for a body. There is an inexpensive Canon 70-300, along with Tamron/Tokina/Sigma variants in both Canon & Nikon mounts, however none of them offer Vibration Reduction (which the AF-P does). VR corrects for "lens shakiness" and is quite useful for beginners. Entry level Canon bodies also offer a somewhat less featured auto focus implementation compared to nikon.
If you want to go with Canon, I'd recommend the 750D+18-55 combo for 47,000 combined with the 55-250 IS for 12,000. Or, you could go with a used 7D (a 10 year old body, but still quite capable) for about 32,000 and couple it with the 55-250.
There are additional options if you'd like to restrict yourself to one form of photography. You'll also get lots of useful information if you ask this question on the photography & camera sub-reddits, as well as Indian photography focused sites such as the JJ Mehta forums.
That depends, I'm generally sort of hesitant about used bodies because I don't always know what to look for to check and see if it's in all working order. I know people here often say to get them, it's a matter of comfort I think.
You could get a new t2i or t3i from amazon for around 700 bucks, with a lens that would be ok for most stuff. They aren't the most durable cameras, but they take great pictures and are cheap.
For lenses, you could get a 70-300 is usm which will give you a nice range for animals and large birds. That looks to be about 500 bucks.
The lens that comes with the camera and that one should cover most of what you will want.
Thank you. :) I love aviation photography; this year I wasn't able to go to any, due to the sequester grounding The Blue Angels, The Thunderbirds and all other military demo teams. Hopefully next year will be better.
I was sitting in the media section... my membership at an aviation photography website gets me media passes to this airshow, and that gets me right up to the edge of the crowdline with no one in front of me. Here's a picture showing how close I was able to get.
The T-6 Texan and the F-18 were shot with the Canon 400mm F/5.6 L-series prime lens, and the F-4 was shot with the Canon 70-300 F/4-F/5.6 telephoto.
This lens?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0007Y794O/ref=sr_1_2_olp?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1464935877&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=70+300+canon&amp;condition=used
Its 450 brand new....
55-200mm. Seemed like a great idea at the time and I used it a lot during my month in Greece, but I've barely touched it in the year since then. I guess I don't do much shooting that requires that sort of lens. The 18-55mm kit lens took care of most of my needs, but that's seeing less use now in favor of my 35mm 1.8.
It's also a hassle to carry around since it's a heavier lens.
In photography, the lenses you use make much more difference than the actual camera. I was in the exact same situation about 6 months ago. My wife wanted to get into photography and didn't know where to start.
I highly suggest starting with a Nikon D3000, D3100 or D3200 depending on how much you want to spend. Each model up is a little more and has a little bit more features. The stock lens is pretty decent and overall you can stay significantly below your budget. If she is just starting out, don't spend too much money (yet).
If you want to explore lens options, we recently purchased a f/1.8G 35mm (http://bit.ly/bOeXNu) the wide aperture means she'll be able to take great photos with little light, best for indoor shots and gives a very shallow depth of field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field (good thing). If she wants to take some photos of outdoors, maybe animals or people, getting a longer lens will let her take shots from far away, a 55-200mm lens (http://amzn.to/NiuCUB) will let her do that with ease.
I am in no way an expert in photography, only been at it a couple months, so anyone can correct me if my tips are no good. haha.
I am looking for a decent lens for "sports" shots. Current body is d5300. I have the following lens.
I know the prime I have is pretty fast, but since most of the shots I am going to taking will be from a ways back, on the side of a pool deck, etc. I am thinking of a telephoto lens, just not sure if my 55-200mm can handle it. Any suggestions on some entry/amateur ones? Most of the places I'll be taking pictures of will be inside, with not the best light, and chances are not the best for flash.
Would something like this Tamron 70-300mm be decent? (Also seems pretty cheep compare to some of the other lens I have looked at)
Budget is less than $500 currently.
EDIT: Going back and looking, I think the 55-200 is fast enough, just need a longer reach for some of them. At least when outside. See examples from this past summer.
also looking at the Tamron 70-300 but i don't believe it has VR - however the price is right!
https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17E/dp/B0012UUP02?th=1
and of course there's the Sigma 70-300 too:
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0012X61U2?th=1
Along the same lines, this lens is on Amazon for 26K USD. Read the Amazon reviews (at the bottom of the page).
I need one of these bad boys for my camera. I think /u/186394 already owns one.
You can't go wrong with Sigma. I would suggest one other lens for wide angles(18 is not wide enough): http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC
The Lumix 20mm f/1.7 is pretty great and tiny.
Budget lenses:
Panasonic 45-150mm with image Stabilization - $270
Panasonic 14mm f2.5 - $319
Panasonic 20mm f1.7 - $428
You could always buy a cheap adapter or a $430 Metabones Speedbooster and then buy some cheap Nikkor lenses from Nikon, Rokinon lenses, etc...
Remember, you have to double the lens focal length on the GH4 in 1080p mode, and it's 2.3x in 4k mode. So the 14mm becomes a 28mm in 1080p and a 32mm in 4k.
Yes! I used a Canon T2i with a Canon 55-250mm lens.
You REALLY need two lenses for landscape photography. Unless you want to buy a mediocre super zoom lens. You need wide for the vistas, and you need long for the more intimate shots. I would argue you can't leave out one.
Since you have a 18-55, you could add a longer lens. Canon makes an EFS 55-250mm that is pretty decent, for around $300. This would, of course, be useless whenever you plan to upgrade to a full frame.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU
The other option is a 70-200mm, but you'd have a sizeable gap from 55-70.
You could upgrade the kit lens too, but I think you'll gain a lot more by going with a telephoto lens at this point. (upgrade the kit lens later)
Got one, love it, really like DSLR form factor though so make sure to get your hands on one before buying. Also yeah you can pretty much adapt anything and ive just been using the 10-15$ adapters. Kinda hard to beat a 50mm 1.7 for 5 bucks, and like you I don't shoot sports or portraits and find I enjoy hand focusing, if you're pressed for time focus peaking is pretty helpful. I was shooting with someone and as I was driving I asked them the get a shot, them being unfamiliar with full manual asked , "how? And how do I know what to focus to?" So without looking I reached across gave the focus ring a spin and the shot came in perfect, moral of the story is manual will become second nature after a while. Youll just get a feel for what you need. I would Def keep the 7100 as a backup if able, I still find myself reaching for my Canon at certain times.
Edit: Just buy extra batteries off the bat, number one complaint of mine is those things run dry quick especially for long exposure. Also get a standalone charger, charging in camera is miserably slow.
And this Lens is fantastic,
Rokinon 12mm https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_yGVkybXA6XTJZ or the 14mm Roky, I use it all the time
50mm f/1.8
It's cheap as hell but it's still very sharp. It's my every day lens since it's so compact and perfect for most types of photography.
I heard there were no dumb questions.
Why is this lens 200$ and this lens 900$?
Comparison
Sony Alpha a6000 Mirrorless Digital Camera w/ 16-50mm and 55-210mm Power Zoom Lenses https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NO1T55I/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_VZK8BbNGAKRTA
PANASONIC LUMIX GX85 Camera with 12-32mm and 45-150mm Lens Bundle, 4K, 5 Axis Body Stabilization, 3 Inch Tilt and Touch Display, DMC-GX85WK (Black USA) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079VDF7ZG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_k0K8Bb9FGKVJF
Sony SEL50F18F Full-Frame E-Mount Lens, FE 50mm f/1.8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DLMD5O6/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_C0K8BbGKX2BWF
These are the easy ones to find. They also show up on Amazons Black Friday deals pages as of today as well as some others.
On a crop you're looking for a 35mm. https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL35F18-35mm-Prime-Fixed/dp/B0096W1P5W
The 50 is much cheaper, but may be too tight. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DLMD5O6/ref=psdc_173565_t1_B0096W1P5W
I don't think you can use Yen and just convert the amount, with how country economies fluctuate that's not reliable
When the lens debuted on Amazon it was priced at $250
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Sony-FE-50mm-F1-8-Lens/product/B01DLMD5O6?context=browse
I've been going to these for a few years now, mostly just to see the randomness and watch the spectacle. There are some occasional good deals both for flipping or keeping, but the vast majority is junk. I've seen some items sell on Ebay for $400-500 that sold for $20 because they were obscure enough that no one bothered to google. The previous auction someone spent $2,700 on four different camera lenses and immediately put them on Craigslist. One of the lenses was this, brand new in box, it sold for $700. https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW He most likely profited around $2,200-$3,000 in just a few days after posting on Craigslist.
The downside is you're going against the same flippers who buy out 80% of the auction. Jewelry and coins go to the same three guys. More expensive bikes go to the same three guys, etc. Then there's so much over paying it's hilarious. Enough that it makes you wonder if people are actually laundering money through the police. I watched someone pay $5,500 for ten older Iphones that retailed for $500 each brand new.
You don't actually get to see the content of the cardboard boxes when the actual bidding takes place either. So every auction there are people who will take a desired item and place them in a different cardboard box in the final moments before everyone is forced away from looking. For example, at the last auction they auctioned six boxes, in a choice bid, meaning the winner chooses whichever box he wants out of the six. The bid went for $120-180 because the winner wanted the box that had a new pair of Beats by Dre. As he goes to pay, someone else requests another choice bid out of the remaining five boxes, which he wins with a bid at like $40. The first guy after paying, grabs his box and finds that the Beats aren't inside. Instead, there was just the outer sleeve the Beats packaging came in. The person who requested the second bid? Miraculously, the Beats were inside the box he chose. No refunds either, so the first guy got screwed. I've witnessed this happen multiple times.
I'm like you. I have things that I want to buy in the future. The most expensive is a [70-200mm lens] (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&amp;colid=1W26AZXHPCWRO&amp;coliid=I3NPT8GSX9UZTS)for my 60D so i can take better pictures on the race track and it's an all around good lens. I do need a new laptop since mine is falling apart so I won't be buying the lens soon.
Hey there!
By fixed focal lengths as opposed to variable focal lengths, I can only assume you're talking about prime lenses (e.g. 50mm F1.2) vs zoom lenses (e.g. 35-70 F3.5)...
However, fear not as one of the awesome things about the MFT mount is that it can take a lens with practically any mount, as long as a provided MFT adapter/speedbooster is used.
Now here's where it gets a bit tricky. Some lenses (mostly older and cine versions) have a manual ring just like zoom or focus, but for aperture (cine lenses have a smooth aperture ring while vintage/still lenses have a click for each available F-stop). If your lenses do NOT have a physical aperture ring, then you will need a device with the capabilities of changing that lens' aperture like this, not including a power source for it.
Now I come from the BMCC crowd, so I have a dumb (no electronics) MFT mount on my camera while the BMPCC has an active MFT mount, so I'm not sure how that works with adapters/speedboosters.
What I personally recommend (if budget allows) is to get the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 both for Nikon as well as a normal Nikon-MFT adapter which controls the aperture for you so no sweat there...
If that's a bit expensive, then look into vintage M42-mount lenses on eBay as well as a m42-MFT adapter, and you'll be well on your way with some very filmic looking creamy lenses that match BM cameras really well..
Also, check out www.bmcuser.com as it's a great community of brutally honest, and very intelligent BM owners and operators from the pocket cam to the URSA. If you peek at the forums long enough I'm sure you'll find more than you need to know about lenses for the BMPCC.
Good luck!
Before you get a tracking mount, I would take a look at this lens.
Shooting at a really wide angle allows you to leave the exposure open for longer (the stars' movement is a smaller proportion of the image so it becomes less noticeable). You can follow this rule, 500/focal length/1.6 to get your max exposure time before the stars start streaking. So, with your 58mm lens, the max time you could use was 5 seconds before the stars start streaking. But, if you had an 11 mm lens, you could use a 28 second exposure before the stars start streaking. Plus, the Tokina lens can open all the way up to f2.8 which will also help immensely in getting good star photos.
You can try the Tokina 11-16, but I don't know why you would want to go that wide. The 18-55 is plenty wide.
I'm using a Canon 60D with a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM ART.
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-35mm-F1-8-Lens-Canon/dp/B00DBL0NLQ
We where in a hurry taking the shots so focus is not spot on. But I like the lens very much :)
Purely speaking on brands:
I recently did a lot of research into starting lenses and here are my suggestions :)
This lens is used for 'walking around' you can get some wide angle and some good portraits with it. It's very flexible.
This lens is very pricey. Look at Tamron to save the most money (I vouch for it) or Sigma for a little more, but less than the Canon.
Remember with crop ratio that changes the FL of a lens! Figure out if yo have one or not.
Simple rules of thumb? Save money. Wherever possible. But, always get the best glass you can afford. Glass is greater than body.
Hope this helps - if it does please pay this comment forward, it took a lot of typing so feel free to share with other people in similar questions :D
If you want something a bit longer, check out the Canon G7 X Mark I or II. It uses a very, very, very similar (if not completely identical) sensor to the Sony and goes from 24-100mm. Additionally, the older RX100 Mark I and II both have 28-100mm zooms, but at the cost of smaller apertures at the long end: f1.8-f4.9 vs f1.8-f2.8 on the Canon. If you want both a bit more zoom plus brighter aperture, the G7 X series is probably going to be what you're looking for. Splurge for the Mark II if you can because it'll give you more usability improvements over the Mark I in terms of a touchscreen, improved battery life, faster frame rate, and more flexible tilt-screen, but the Mark I still wouldn't be a poor purchase.
Any larger sensors than that, and you'll probably start jumping into the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera market, starting with Micro Four-Thirds by Olympus and Panasonic. They're still on the smaller size, but still a size increase when you consider the lens.
Also one thing to keep in mind is that you shouldn't get too hung up on a zoom multiplier. Some of the highest quality, frequently used, and most expensive lenses out there don't even qualify as "3x", but good god their image quality is stunning. By limiting the amount of zoom that a lens has, that's less the lens designers have to worry about when correcting optical aberrations like distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberrations.
I would buy 7DII over a 6D in a heartbeat hands down more versatile. But I encourage you to buy an older camera since you're just starting out the
BUY THIS 7D with a low shutter count only $600. Still a hell of a camera to start with, lenses are more important.
Canon 10-18mm lens $300
Canon 50mm f/1.8 $120
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 $650 OR buy a 70-200mm f/4 IS L lens USED off FredMiranda, or buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkI L USED off FredMiranda I got my f/2.8L mkI for $1,300 last year the MKII goes for $1,900 or so used but wasn't worth the $600 for me.
Card reader $18
Then get some Sandisk 16gb or 32gb cards
___
Other stuff to think about:
Canon 85mm f/1.8 $360
$130 Flash
Tripod $200
Canon 50mm f/1.4
---
Big purchases way down the road
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII L $2,200
A 300mm f/2.8 or even f/4 wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot for either if you really want to do wildlife but not spend over $6,000 on a lens
Canon 1.4 teleconverter $500 this only works with L lenses buy this way down the road if you need more reach.
Canon 16-35mm or 17-40mm L lens
My comment is going to be a bit more specific to the gif. Everyone has given good info, but I feel like we could quite easily explain the gif.
So Kronk gave a good explanation about focal lengths and f-stops.
Focal lengths are very important in determining two things about the gif. Angle of View and Depth of the Background (not the same as DoF), which are inversely proportional to each other. So as the face of the cat gets more distorted/closer to the lens you can see the background start to get very stretched, this is an effect of the DotB increasing, but the focal length decreasing. That is because of the angle of view increases as the focal length shortens up
Here check these out to get an idea of ultra ULTRA wide view and here you can see some pictures of a telephoto view.
Quickie explanation. Now there are f-stops. f/4 is smaller than f/2.8. f/4 causes less DoF compared to f/2.8. We call the areas where the depth of field really starts to take effect as fall off. There is barely barely any DoF in this gif. I'm going to guess that the f-stop starts low and gets bigger as the focal length increases.
get this
I'm upgrading for ability to shoot video instead of carrying a camcorder to my daughters gymnastics meets. Usually in fluorescent lights.
Outside of that I primarily shoot nature and portrait type pictures. I use the 18-55 kit lens, plus I have this 35mm lens, and this 55-300mm zoom lens.
7200 is a great choice! 18-55 for landscape, 55-300 for wildlife, 35 1.8 DX for crispy shots and bOkeh and some extension tubes for macro. You'll see later whether you want spend thousands for better pro lenses. For start this should cover almost everything.
Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.
-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-
After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).
-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-
So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.
you can take the exact same shot over and over for median stacking to reduce noise, no need to alter settings. You are right that 25s is right on the edge of causing star movement.
https://petapixel.com/2015/01/06/avoid-star-trails-following-500-rule/
I would still try median stacking @ 20 seconds with a couple shots, but you're correct- you may need a lens that can open wider to get your exposure short enough for this technique.
Fast wide angle lenses aren't cheap unfortunately. Here is the bottom of the barrel for your application. Rokinon qual control is shit so one copy will be great another will be crap.
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Digital-Cameras-10M-C/dp/B00JD4TCR6
Everyone likes this one, if you can scrounge up another 100$.
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/
You can also rent these from a place like lensrental.com to see if you want to save the money to own one.
Edit: median stacking intro: https://petapixel.com/2013/05/29/a-look-at-reducing-noise-in-photographs-using-median-blending/
Hey guys, I'm planing to travel to Thailand and I want to buy some new lenses for that trip. At the moment I only have my Nikon D5300 with the kit lens 18-55. The lenses I'm planing to buy are: Tokina 11-16 2.8 // Nikon 50 1.8 G // Nikon 35 1.8 // Sigma 17-50 2.8. I love doing landscape photography, astrophotography and portraits, but I can't afford all these three lenses and I don't want to travel with all that weight on my bag. What would u do in my situation? Thanks for the comments.
I think completely different lens offering. I looked at the dates they were first offered on Amazon 11-16 (2012) and 11-20 (2015), so the 11-20 might be newer, but not by much. Both are great choices for the price, but the 11-20mm is the better lens.
Yes they are. This is the the best "affordable" option http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1420828935&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tokina+11-16+dx+ii+nikon
I have that lens and take panoramas like this https://www.flickr.com/photos/128475051@N04/15800909882/ with it. It's actually an amazing lens for that price. Was $700 when I bought it :/
I would try to go wider than a 35 and with at least a 2.8 if possible . Dont know what you're budget is but I've been looking at this lens as I have a d5300. Maybe someone will chime in on some better/ different recommendations.
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Digital Zoom Lens (AF-S Motor) (for Nikon) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_EQU2DbAWCK650
http://www.amazon.co.jp/Tokina-%E8%B6%85%E5%BA%83%E8%A7%92%E3%82%BA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA-AT-X116-Nikon%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A6%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88-X0932N/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1333413557&amp;sr=8-5
That's a good looking lens but for $700 I would be hard pressed to buy that over the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for $430 unless the 8mm focal length was absolutely needed.
OP, since your camera will not focus with the new Nikon 10-20mm I would suggest the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. It's $430 new but you can find deals down to $350 used if you keep an eye out.
Without knowing what your budget is, or what you need out of the lens, I think /u/visavita hit it on the head with the Sigma. It's the cheapest.
Here's a few more I found with a DP Review search. All under $600. All with auto focus. All non-fishy.
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM $430
Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) $460
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II $570
Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124 Pro DX II $500
>You don't think that having the equivalent to a 14.5mm f6 lens on an APS-C sized sensor in a module smaller than a fingernail is impressive?
No, not really; that's just physics, as calculated. It is unimpressive, because the light-gathering capability of a 14mm ƒ/6 lens as used on an APS-C camera is unimpressive. Asking anyone what they think of such a potential lens, will only get one laughed at.
This lens is four and a half stops faster than the hypothetical ƒ/6 lens above, and zoom, to boot (hardly need mention that it is about as pricey as most 'mid-range' smartphones today).
That means the difference between a terribly noisy ISO 8000 in a dimly-lit area, versus a significantly more manageable ISO 300–500. And that is on APS-C.
EDIT: I fully think that if smartphones were accepted with either a fairly large camera bump or a general increase in thickness, it would be entirely possible to either a) put a proper zoom lens in them, or b) use something like an ƒ/0.3 aperture. Or even both. But we're stuck with an ƒ/9 full-frame equivalent as the best lens on a smartphone.
2 lenses by Tokina that i found:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8
&#x200B;
the d3200 has a aps-c sensor, with a 1,5x crop. There's some speedboosters that can get rid of that, giving you the fullframe equivalent of the lens. Metabones produces some, but they are quite expensive.
24mm isn't wide on a crop sensor - that's the equivalent of a 35mm lens. I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and it's a great lens, but it's really not that wide either and it focus hunts a bit and the focus is pretty loud. I do use it in MF some for video, or when you don't care about the on camera audio (even with an external shoe mount mic). Still though, 17-18mm is not really that wide on a crop sensor Canon.
If aperture is not a big issue then I'd recommend the Canon STM 10-18mm - it's really wide and made for crop sensor lenses and the STM motor is really silent. Autofocus works extremely well. It's a great affordable wide angle lens for video.
I haven't used it for video (yet) but the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is an amazing quality ultrawide for the price. Might be worth checking out reviews that use it for video if it's in your budget. I tried one out at B&H a few years back (only on photo mode unfortunately) and was really impressed. It's been on my wish list ever since.
Keep in mind that 35mm on a 60D is not wide angle. It's normal angle field of view. It is a wide aperture lens (good for low light and shallow DOF). If you want wide aperture, that is a fine lens but this one will be a bit cheaper and be pretty much just as good. The 35mm you list is made to work on full frame and APS-C cameras, the cheaper one I list is made only to work on APS-C/Crop cameras like your 60D and as a result it's $400 cheaper.
If you want wide angle, the question is how wide. Do you want something wider than what your 18-135 can do at it's wides (18mm)? Then you're going to need a lens wider than 18mm. The lenses I'd recommend for that case are the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, the Sigma 8-16mm, or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 DX II. The Sigma will the the widest, the Tokina has the widest aperture (better for low light), and the canon is in-between on both counts and a Canon, which some people like having. All are in the $600-800 range.
Question: For indoor photography (Real Estate) on APS-C where I'm trying to make the room look as big & nice as possible, would you recommend the:
&nbsp;
OR
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
I've compared both lenses on dp review and the only main difference appears to be that the Tokina has 9 blades vs the Sigma's 7 and the Tokina is a half stop wider.
&nbsp;
Any experiences or opinions? Ken Rockwell doesn't appear to have a review of the latest f3.5 Sigma (he does for the old 4.5-5.6). And while I have read his review for the Tokina, I don't have a sharpness/vignetting diagram of the Sigma to compare to.
&nbsp;
Thanks for your input!
Metabones' Speed Booster is not compatible with Canon EF-S lenses (due to an extended protrusion at the rear of the lens), but it is completely compatible with third-party APS-C lenses (e.g. Sigma, Tokina, etc.).
Here are a few wide-angle options:
You may also be interested in native wide-angle lenses for astrophotography purposes. They may not be fast, but they may provide better quality at these ultra-wide angles, especially compared to non-Metabones focal reducers. Here are a couple options:
May I suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Digital Zoom? For a smidge more $$ you get some zoom adjustment and a consistently wide aperture. I have one and enjoy the landscapes I've shot with it.
Hi everybody.
At the moment I'm shooting pictures with a Canon EOS 450D (EOS Rebel XSi) togheter with Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. I've been pretty happy with this so far. But I feel the need to upgrade because of the following reason:
So. I'd like one lens that is good for the following:
I know that's a lot of different areas but I believe I could manage find one single lens that would work alright for all of those purposes.
What I've been looking at:
Which one would be the most logical for me to buy? Zoom is really not that important for me (at least I don't think so). The first two ones also fit full format cameras and it's not impossible that I'd like to upgrade the camera body too sometime during the following years.
I'd really appreciate any kind of advice, thanks! :)
Hey, if you're interested in that type of lens, you should try this. It's a good lens, pair it with a T6i or 70D, or try it with the D3300 or D5200
Don't overlook the Sigma 30mm lenses (the older EX DC HSM and the new DC HSM A), they aren't the super sharp lenses Sigma is becoming known for but are very usable and are much better suited for every day shooting with their 48mm equivalent focal length. I own the EX version and use it for nearly everything I shoot.
Sweet dude, we'll get that one then! Thanks a lot. Could you please confirm for me that this is the correct one? https://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-210101-18-35mm-Canon-APS-C/dp/B00DBL0NLQ
I'm no expert when it comes to DSLR's, but as someone who started with a 700D then moved up to a 70D after three years learning the basics, go for the 70D first. The auto-focus is phenomenally better, higher megapixel count and wifi connectivity. In terms of quality they're all pretty much the same and a beginner such as yourself wouldn't really be able to notice many of the main differences, but if you're going to throw some cash at a starting line I'd make sure you're in the perfect place rather than wanting to upgrade later down the road. :)
Another pointer from my experience would be to get a variety of glass, best quality you can afford. It doesn't really matter which camera you go with when you're starting out if you have some decent lenses to mix up your shots. Get yourself a wide angle, a prime and a zoom; 10-18mm, 50mm/35mm & 75-300mm. That's your starter kit, then upgrade to better quality lenses and cameras as you go - worth noting that the ones I linked are all the lowest quality (except the 35mm) considering you're probably on a tight budget, but you'll still get some sweet footage. It simply means you'll be able to get a wider variety of shots and you'll be prepared for most occasions - the beautiful city skyline scene, the crispy portrait with a bokehed out background, and the "Oh! There's a deer 50ft away! Let's capture it on video rather than running up to it and being kicked in the balls!".
One other thing that might be worth mentioning is that I always carry a point-and-shoot with me. My choice is the Sony RX100 IV - shoots in 4k, incredible slow motion (up to 1000fps), slog2 recording (higher dynamic range to make your scenes look incredible after colour grading), no hassle with interchangeable lenses and in my opinion is generally more convenient than lugging a DSLR around with you when you're on holiday somewhere.
Throw me a message if you have any questions, or just leave a reply and I'll check it when I can. Here're a few video samples for you to compare your possibilities: Canon 70D Auto-Focus, Sony RX100 IV Sample.
EDIT: Fixed up some grammar & wanted to throw you a few accessories incase you hadn't thought that far ahead:
• Gorillapod: Your trusty ol' wrap-around-a-tree tripod. Way more versatile than your traditional kit and easier to travel with.
• Røde Shotgun Microphone: The best quality microphone you're going to be able to find for the price. Canon's default mic sucks balls, so grab one of those if you run with the DSLR.
• Class 10, 64GB SD Card: If you decide to grab the Sony RX100 IV, you'll want one of these to shoot in 4K otherwise your camera will just give up after a few seconds. If you run with the Canon, grab this anyway for faster transfer speeds, but it's really not necessary.
Yeah for me it was my upgrade from my kit lens, it was a choice between the 17-50 or the Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8 but I couldn't justify the price for my 1st lens purchase!
Metabones Ultra Speed Booster & Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.
Thank you!!
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-210101-18-35mm-Canon-APS-C/dp/B00DBL0NLQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1449763949&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=sigma+18-35mm+f1.8
Is this what you would recommend?
This is the one I have. I have read that it has the same optics, but just doesn't have the image stabilization that the L version has (I read that, but I can't promise it is true). For the macro shots I wanted to take, stabilization wasn't very important.
Have you compared that one to this one? I'm wondering how big of a difference that red stripe makes.
Look at prime lenses my friend.
Regarding your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: If you're shooting wider than 15mm make sure you take off the hood, otherwise you'll end up with some funky vignetting. :)
1.) Something that is grey.
2.) Something reminiscent of rain. (It sprinkles all over you!)
3.) I've heard these are delicious
4.) For my best friend because birthdays! Also he loves superheroes!
5.) You must read this because I mean... V for Vendetta. The movie was fantastic, this will blow you away
6.) Well, it can be... ;)
7.) I am the crazy cat lady, so...
8.) I mean... It's beautiful
9.) Not the actual movie
But seriously, everyone needs to see this movie. It changed my life, really. I mean, it changes how you perceive things. Even your littlest actions. Not to mention, fantastic movie score... 10/10 would recommend.
10.) May not be real, but it still shoots...
11.) Definitely this or this but they're wicked expensive. The lens would absolutely change my photography career so much because photography is a lot more about equipment than people like to admit. The Macbook would help me with my photo editing, music mixing, and even my coding and programming. These things would open up so many possibilities for me...
12.) Ugh, stupid add-on... I just want to cure my chapped lips! :(
13.) This is the most expensive and I'd love it for photography... The MacBook, my second dream item, is only $100 less...
14.) Definitely bigger than a bread box...
15.) Earring are small.
16.) This smells glorious
17.) Because neurology <3
18.) This would be extremely helpful!
19.) I CAN'T STOP. I also may or may not have already finished the second volume...
20.) THIS COMIC OMFG but seriously, it is one of the best comics ever (according to statistics)
Thank you for the contest! :) <3
EDIT: Bonuses
fear cuts deeper than swords.... muahahahahaa!
That's what you're going to pay for a used one on eBay, so that sounds like a nice entry level kit there.
If you go Canon for the Macro, I'd recommend this one as a nice balance between price and performance.
Macro is one of the most technical sides of photography, a good starter lens is the 100mm macro from canon http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?pc_redir=1410422622&amp;robot_redir=1
If you want more magnification after that you can add extension tubes to the lens, but then is getting hard to manage the focus of the lens and the working distance can be awkward http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000U8Y88M?pc_redir=1410295973&amp;robot_redir=1
Finally if what you are really after is a microscope like magnification the 65mm macro from canon will do the trick, This is a highly specialised lens and I will not recommend it to a beginner. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00009XVD5/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1410489652&amp;sr=8-1&amp;pi=SX200_QL40
For versatility, I recommend the Tamron 24-75mm f/2.8
It's fixed aperture, decently fast, and its focal range goes from wide to juuust about close-up. It's not going to be as sharp as a prime, but if you can afford to shoot stopped down to a f/4 it can do good things.
Do you plan on staying crop frame and enjoy the 18mm wide angle? This lens is optically stabilized which will help significantly with your videos.
If you don't care for stabilization and need longer than 18 I would suggest something like Tamron's 28-75mm 2.8. Very cheap for a full frame 2.8 zoom. I own one and it's incredibly sharp.
You could go first party with this, but you'll have to spend $900+
I'm in the same boat with the 1100D, but I know that the body, while it does have it's limitations, is still an excellent camera. I've yet to reach it's full potential, but I know that with current kit lens and a 55-250mm lens, I could do better. I've been looking to get this lens.
damn. he gave a dude a list of helpful links while he was on mobile since the dude clearly didn't do his own research, and all people can say//do is put him down for bad formatting. Pretty fucked up if you ask me.
/u/kirrkirr's list formatted:
"Beggars can't be choosers girl this ain't Chipotle"
Problem solved: Sigma 30mm f/1.4
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM
I picked up a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX a few years ago used and that almost never came off my camera. I recommend going for something like that if you're on a budget.
Or replace your kit lens with any 17-50mm (or 17-55) f/2.8 lens. I use that (Sigma again) almost constantly now when I want some zoom.
The 24mm is good too and cheaper than both of those I mentioned. Just wanted to expand your options.
Get the Sigma 30mm 1.4
It's easily my favorite lens in my bag, It looks better than my L series zoom.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM
Wait for a sale, I've seen it go down to like $260 before.
> Hey guys, I am posting this on behalf of my sister who is too stubborn to make a reddit account.
tell your sister that in order to give proper advice, we really require her presence, because:
> As a new photographer, how much should she charge for prom pictures?
this is kind of a hard question to answer. as a new photographer, and with some questions like these, i'm inclined to answer that she shouldn't be doing it at all. every pro has to start somewhere, granted, but there should generally be something of a gap between "picking up a camera" and "starting a professional career in photography". that gap allows for practice, experience, skills, knowledge and personal style develop, and gives you exposure to what real paying jobs can be like, as you kind of progress up the ladder of job legitimacy.
frankly, i doubt i could do a similar job that cheap at cost. gas to the job costs money. prints and CDs cost money.
> She has a canon T2I with various lenses.
so... what lenses?
frankly, this is an amateur camera from three generations ago. it's not really a professional tool. you may not need it for what she's trying to do, but there are definite reasons that professionals use professional tools and not just the cheapest thing that gets the job done.
> What is the best mode for taking pictures in the outdoors(for prom pictures)? She believes it is portrait but is a bit unsure.
if you're using the scene modes, you're doing it wrong. who knows how those things work? why the make the choices they make. if you're taking pictures for pay, you'd better know why you camera is set the way it's set, and not leave those choices up to some program in its firmware that's trying to guess what you're taking a picture of.
you want to, at the very least, be in a priority mode (probably aperture), or even manual. you want to decide what exposure setting is more important and set that, even if you let the camera set everything else accordingly.
> What is the best website/store for purchasing prints? We are thinking costco will be the cheapest
costco definitely makes pretty good prints for a fast turnaround. for websites, i like adoramapix.
> Which lens would be better for an outdoor prom picture shoot? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Select-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXY or http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-70-300mm-4-5-6-USM/dp/B0007Y794O
this is one of those kind of things you should know before taking jobs professionally. the answer is "you should probably have a 17-55 (or 24-70 on full frame) and a 70-200, and not these junky kit zooms." truthfully, there isn't a right answer to this: i have and will continue to shoot groups with telephoto lenses. it's a mater of what you're shooting and how you want to shoot it.
> Can anyone provide a link for learning how to calibrate the Canon T2I ISO settings for outdoor pictures?
again, this is the kind of thing you should know before taking pay for jobs. and it depends on the light.
i took this image of the moon with the 70-300mm f5.6. I've also found the kit lens to be quite a good walking around lens.
I'm shooting on the cheap and used this throughout the weekend.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O
I have a $650 lens. But that's just a "maybe someday" thing.
I will get the $350 guide telescope and autoguider camera combo someday and soon.
Very happy.
And my jackpot, after almost buying the last 2016 Razer Blade, I discovered this. Current price is $1799.00. Granted this is a warehouse item, but I suspect that just means it was opened and maybe briefly used, it says it will be repackaged, not sure if that means by MSI or in aftermarket packaging, ETA 7/19
Disneyland Toyko!!! And while I'm there I'm totally going to the Nintendo Pokemon Center store that's 45 minutes away from it.
My best friend and I are cast members so tickets would be free, we just have to pay for airfare and discounted hotel in their new TANGLED THEMED ROOMS! (our favorite movie if you can't guess....)
I would buy myself a new lens to take! It would just be the best friend and myself :)
As a new photographer/filmmaker I still don't have a good enough eye for manual adjustment, sounds stupid, but I trust myself using auto focus and setting my focus point much better then manual focusing. All I'm trying to say is that I see a lot of condescending assholes on here that professionally shoot looking down on beginning filmmakers. Instead of being stuck up dicks looking down on people with less money offer good ideas. Like renting the major expenses from your college if you are in college, camera, mics, lighting. Or giving advice on what the best choice would be used, or going the DSLR route. There are options for under $1,000 and if it annoys people seeing those posts, simple solution... skip the post and don't read it.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-VR-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1323453778&amp;sr=8-1
The technique is much more important than the camera at this level. I would get the Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens and a 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. Then you would have plenty of money left over for accessories (or other lenses once you know what you want) and maybe a good book on photography technique.
edit: An extra battery can be a lifesaver. Also, make sure the memory card is fast enough if you plan on ever taking video.
well you could get close to the subject with the 35mm 1.8 if you want a tiny bit more space from your subject and less of a wide angle 50 mm1.8, but I think the best for you would be this 55-200. You could definitely use it for portraits and some amatuer action/sports/nature photgraphy, i use it all the time. if you've got the money then go for the 55-300 it might be a little softer and less crisp around the 250 mm+ range but I dont really have any personal use with it so i wouldn't know.
Why not this? http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0
Without a doubt get the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR.
For under $150 you can get a used or refurbished one. Some of the sellers list refurbished models in the used category on amazon. I was able to pick up a factory sealed refurbished model (listed under used) for $130 shipped last month.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000O161X0/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&amp;condition=used
You have the close end of the range and you have a prime lens. You are right to think about the long end of the range with your next lens. For the money you are looking to spend I recommend you go with a Nikon lens especially with the used prices what they are.
edit: I should add, despite not being a macro lens the minimum focus distance of the zoom i recommend is 1.1m. The sigma macro lenses you named above list 1.1m and 0.95m as their minimum focus distance respectively. This is hardly a difference and I think you get a better value from the Nikon lens here.
For a true macro lens with very close focus distance you will likely have to pay a lot more than you are looking at (closer to $1000 than $100). A budget alternative is picking up a set of close up filters which will allow your current lens to focus closer. They add some distortion and have a very narrow depth of field, but they may be able to satisfy your curiosity on a shoestring budget: http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-definition-Close-Up-Diopters-Magnification/dp/B001UE6NAQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1345214405&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=close+up+filters
Not bad for a cheap telephoto lens
The 18-55 is definitely not a bad choice.
Do you know what lenses she currently has? In the price range it may be a little difficult to find a really nice one. You could always go with a Canon kit lens like the 18-55mm. It's going for $200 new on Amazon but you can very easily find it for less with a little research. I'll link it for you below. At 18mm it will be fairly wide.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG
Certainly, having only one focal length is limiting. Even for a DSLR, I would recommend some sort of kit zoom. The RX100 III also has a brighter f/1.8 - f/2.8 lens that won't be matched by a DSLR zoom. So yes, if you plan on wanting wide-angle landscapes or telephoto images, then your 50mm prime lens isn't going to be as flexible.
> if I were to spend, say, $300-500, what kind of lens would give me the most versatility?
A 18-55mm kit zoom lens is $200 new: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG Even cheaper used on Ebay.
Yes, the sensor size to phones is still a big difference. The only advantage of phones is the automated AI processing they perform, which attempts to overcome some of their limitations and is more convenient than doing your own processing.
Good luck and enjoy your trip!
This lens is the kit lens for canon APS-C cameras. It has a good zoom range (~28-88 equivilant) which makes it a good lens for both landscape and portrait work.
You might be able to get an older DSLR with a cheap superzoom for that budget. Something like this is actually not that bad/old of a camera. Pair it with a long but cheap zoom lens like this. But remember that with lenses especially, you get what you pay for. That's not considered a very good lens, but that setup will definitely get the job done. Also, it's not weather-sealed, so don't get it near the water.
I have a tamron 70-300 that has a macro function. Costs around 100 and it works well enough that after seeing how well it functioned my sister bought one the next day.
Tamron Auto Focus 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro Zoom Lens with Built In Motor for Nikon Digital SLR (Model A17NII) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_nenvCbFN2HFTH
Saving up for a macro lens for my camera.
Also looking at a cheap starter kit for silk screen. I've got a crafts project in mind that could use a little enhancing.
The problem is I buy books for my Kindle and Amazon take it out of gift card totals first. ^_^ Since I'm paranoid about my SB account being closed, I add my gift cards as soon as I get 'em. On the plus side, I've been earning more in gift cards then I usually spend on books. Still waiting for my $25 card to clear, but I ordered it on 3/27, so if they're going to do it, it should be soon. =D
(Maxed out on $5 cards for March, got enough for a $25 card, have enough now for two more $5 cards but waiting for the big one to clear then I'll redeem.)
This isn't a great lens, nor is it anything amazing but I own a canon version of it and it is a decent zoom.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1374621730&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tamron+70-300+macro+nikon
at 135 used, it's not going to give you any award winning shots, but I found it fun to play around with.
The lens is where it's at though. Cool thing is...the lens was very affordable.
To be clear-15x zoom just means the maximum focal length is 15 times the minimum. For example, I have a 70-200mm lens for my DSLR. That's less than 3x optical zoom, yet 200mm is a pretty long telephoto. I could buy this thing and only have 2.5x optical zoom-but it's like shooting through a telescope. What you really want is to decide your desired maximum focal length.
You'll need this: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU
Then you can get shots of the moon like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0013DAPNU/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_3?ie=UTF8&amp;index=3
This one is always good.
What is your budget range?
Buy now and take 24% off!
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU
Tokina 11-16 is a good choice.
You are being downvoted because you make the same mistakes as everyone else starting out. Good move getting the 35mm prime, it's a great lens. Most people would have preferred to get a 17-50 f/2.8 lens instead of the 18-200 zoom you got, however. Superzooms lenses like that one (which can zoom waaay in and out) have horrible image quality. Sure, they're convenient: everything in one package. But spending so much money on a camera to get images that are somewhat blurry isn't the best move.
The 35mm lens is a great lens, made even better at its low price at $200. The 18-200 superzoom is around $650. The Tokina is around $600. You could probably switch out the superzoom for the Tamron 17-50 and a 50mm f/1.8G, which is another great lens.
All the previous lenses mentioned are a great starter kit, very general-usage based, and suitable for everyone. In that senario, instead of buying the Tokina 11-16 now, you have a choice: Get a super wide angle lens (The Tokina 11-16) or get a nice telephoto lens, such as the Nikon 70-300, or lastly, some macro lens. Your choice depends on your style: whether you like to zoom in, take ultrawide shots, or come in close to your subject. Either way, you end up with a nice set of lenses that you will enjoy using.
That one is a fisheye so it's slightly different, I wouldn't get one unless you're sure it's exactly what she wants. With a normal wide angle lens, straight lines will look straight in the photo. A fisheye will curve everything.
This is a great choice but unfortunately it costs more.
Amazon sell it for $850
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00DBL0NLQ/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1374644998&amp;sr=8-2&amp;pi=AC_SX110_SY190
Dx0mark review
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-18-35mm-F1.8-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mount-lens-review-fixed-focal-length-quality-in-a-zoom
Its basically a zoom with the quality of your 50mm for its entire range, 18-35mm
If you only want to bring one lens and you want something that is versatile, bright enough for most situation and very compact the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 is a common choice. It will allow you to take pictures in almost all situations, it has a good focal length that is neither too wide nor too narrow and it's extremely compact, though it has some flaws.
I used to own that lens and although I loved it's image quality, its focus speed and accuracy left something to be desired in low light situations. In decent light it focuses in an acceptable amount of time with good accuracy, but in low light it can take up to a second to focus.
If you want something with a more narrow viewing angle (50mm equiv) you have the option of Olympus 25mm f2.8 though you are sacrificing quite a bit of light compared to the Panasonic. Between the two most people go for the Panasonic 17mm f1.7.
But the question you're asking has no true answer, because it depends on what kind of pictures you want to take or what kind of focal lengths you prefer.
If you want zoom lenses Panasonic has quite a few ones with small sizes like their 12-32mm lens or their 14-42mm which has more range in terms of focal length and optical image stabilization (though I'm not sure if it would be better than the camera's image stabilization and you can only use either the lens' image stabilization or the camera body's with most all lenses on Olympus bodies with the exception of one, if I'm not mistaken).
Olympus also has a small 14-42 that is cheaper but doesn't have image stabilization, though again I'm not sure if you need any since your camera's stabilization is already pretty great.
I think those are pretty much the best small travel lenses.
Hope this helps but let me know if you need other options or want something more specific.
As an aside, something I found after making this comment, something with a little shorter focal length with a slight trade-off in the aperture side is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, which will be an equivalent 40mm on yours.
Rule of thumb for your camera is 2x focal length for micro 4/3. Just multiply the advertised full-frame focal length (the number on the lens advertisement) by 2 for your equivalent focal length since you have a micro 4/3 sensor.
Hi /u/monsieurrodriguez - there are a few great wide, fast micro 4/3 lenses in this price range:
System lenses:
Manual
Hope this is helpful!
As a M43 user I have to jump in and recommend the Olympus EPL7. It has 3 axis IBIS so taking pictures sub 100 shutter without a tripod is very doable. Its touchscreen enables you to change focus points as well as take a picture with a touch of a finger. Both those things just make usability so much easier.
You also said that portability is important. With a M43 kit, you will have a kit that is 40%-50% smaller than an APSC kit (even vs a Sony mirrorless). The thing with APSC mirrorless is that cameras are smaller, but lenses still have to be near the same size as your standard Canon or Nikon lenses. A m43 kit being so small, also means that there is no excuse not to bring the camera everywhere you go. For most people, they only bring their camera when they plan to shoot since the bulk makes it inconvenient.
The M43 system has one of the widest variety and fleshed out lens ecosystem out there. With 2 main companies invested, and many third parties also joining in, there are just so many lens options. I would pair this camera with a Panny 25mm that is on a nasty price drop at the moment. Cool thing with M43 is that you don't have to worry about shooting wide open, since the sensor is small enough to make most lenses sharp, even when open all the way. For ultimate portability you could go the Panny 20mm. This would make the EPL7 practically a pocket camera with super sharp images. I wouldn't recommend getting the 20mm new though as it is usually widely available on the used market at a lower price.
There is also /r/M43 if you want to check out more.
I feel like the 20mm f1.7 would work pretty well
Dumb question: What’s the difference between these two lens?
https://smile.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto/dp/B0011NVMO8/ref=sr_1_17?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1541175274&amp;rpp=bsm%3A%2F%2F%0D%0ACanon++++++++%5ECANON%7CEOS+REBEL%5EEOS+REBEL%7CT6%5ET6%7Cdropdown&amp;sr=1-17
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EFILVQU/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=A34XSYLZECTRUU&amp;psc=1
I’m looking for this size in a used lens. I’m a beginner, and have these two already.
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
EF-S10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM
And the 18-55 kit lens.
Hoping to spend under 150. In general, what is a good second lens? A telephoto, wide, etc...
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-4-0-5-6-Telephoto/dp/B0011NVMO8
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU/ref=pd_sbs_421_t_1/134-5466414-1810016?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B00EFILVQU&amp;pd_rd_r=1dddaed1-c70b-4c21-b73a-7c43a7f32c18&amp;pd_rd_w=JDAGN&amp;pd_rd_wg=ZWFkR&amp;pf_rd_p=5cfcfe89-300f-47d2-b1ad-a4e27203a02a&amp;pf_rd_r=SSKMF1R1GSJFDCH4PDSG&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=SSKMF1R1GSJFDCH4PDSG
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-International-Warranty/dp/B00EP71ETU/ref=pd_sbs_421_t_2/134-5466414-1810016?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B00EP71ETU&amp;pd_rd_r=1dddaed1-c70b-4c21-b73a-7c43a7f32c18&amp;pd_rd_w=JDAGN&amp;pd_rd_wg=ZWFkR&amp;pf_rd_p=5cfcfe89-300f-47d2-b1ad-a4e27203a02a&amp;pf_rd_r=SSKMF1R1GSJFDCH4PDSG&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=SSKMF1R1GSJFDCH4PDSG
Also, what is the difference between these except the last being international and no warranty? What would you suggest? I don't see a difference between the first two.
hmmmm since she was looking for superzooms, I don't think she'll appreciate the 50mm as much because she already has that field of view, same goes for the 24mm. The only advantage they have for her would be the wider aperture, helping her with low light situations.
You could get her a fisheye lens like the Rokinon 8mm f3.5 but honestly you take fisheye lenses for maybe once or twice and you get bored with it. You could also get her a macro lens, but again, those are one trick ponies. Unless you see her trying low light photography and/or playing with depth of field, don't think primes would suit her at this moment. Primes generally are better performing, but I think she values versatility more than that little extra performance that you get out of primes.
Sounds like she could like the Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 lens. There's three versions of this lens (but don't bother with the first one). second one is bit cheaper at 195 new. third one is more expensive at 300 bucks new, but it has quieter autofocus, instant manual focus (meaning you don't have to bother with the AF to MF switch to get manual focus, you just turn the focus ring) and it can focus a bit closer than the second one (second one focuses up to 3.6' or 1.1m, third one focuses up to 2.8', or .85m).
It's not a big difference, but you do get a slight bit more functionality for that extra dough.
Well I hope you look into my suggestion. And tell her the first photo with the trees is fantastic!
P.S. Lightroom/Photoshop are the industry leaders in post processing, but I am cheap and I like RawTherapee/Gimp which are the free, open source alternatives. Editing is just as important. Take the skills you learned on your iPhone editing software and continue doing the same kinds of things on desktop (or mobile) but with a bit more control. Good luck.
Hey thanks I really appreciate this help.
I have 3 lenses (1, 2, 3), the first two are 49mm thread size and the third is 46mm as you said - So I should get a 49mm then get a 46-49mm step-up adapter?
So like this filter and this adapter?
Sony 50mm F1.8 is supposed to be bokeh heaven and is $300.
If you want a wider focal length, you can get the Sigma 30mm for $289.
I'm getting this lens! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EPWC30O/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s01?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1
> I want to be able to get shots of the milkyway/night sky, landscape, I will definitely use stabilization because I have shaky hands, will probably do 4K video (but not primarily) I know I'll get a tripod too. What are the benefits of a full frame?
I've done astro on my A6000, you just need to pair it with the right glass. Rokinon / Samyang 12mm F2.0
Try: https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI
I have 3 lenses (none of them amazing)
16-55 kit lens
Rokinon 12mm Wide Angle
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI
55-210 zoom lens
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HNJWSDS/ref=twister_B07H2LR77Y?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1
Oh man, that'll be such a great move! You're going to have so many great photo subjects! I did some research and it looks like this lens is supposed to be a great one for the E mount. It has very solid reviews. I think your 19mm will be good for town photography, but I'd have a lot of confidence in a 12 being able to get everything you want in a shot for big landscapes, like all the mountains and fields and lakes. It looks like the Rokinon in particular handles low light well, which was always my favourite thing about my 50mm 1.4f (RIP). Hope this helps a little! One of my friends purchased an E mount right before moving to Japan and she LOVES it.
Seems like the Kamlan would fit. Is 50mm the best lens for you? Most of the photos on here are with a wide-ish angle lens.
I can recommend the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm F2.0
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI
Relatively cheap and it lets in so much more light compared to the F3.5 kit lens. I like a wide angle shot though. My Fuji is APS-C.
so this - https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY12M-Ultra-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00KT0UH72
and this - https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI
same lens? The Samyang is $100 less....
After going stargazing with my girlfriend in Tennessee in a somewhat darker part of the state and taking some pics (can see a few here) with my Son a6500, I really want to start getting more into astrophotography. My main lens is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I have a few others at my disposal as well (including a 50mm f/1.1 manual lens and the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8). I plan to pick up the Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 at some point soon.
&#x200B;
Without buying tons of new equipment (like a new camera, I know that Sony is now known as the "star eater", and I'm considering picking up another Canon camera but I don't want to buy tons of new lenses) what would you guys recommend for me? I'm wanting to start capturing the Milky Way and eventually start taking pictures of planets and galaxies. I currently live in NE FL, but don't mind doing a little travel every now and then for better shots. I plan to move to middle TN in the next few months.
&#x200B;
I want to eventually invest in a good starter telescope as well, because I know that can vastly help with capturing planets, and galaxies too, from what I've heard?
I had looked at henrys and amazon but looking again I'm seeing there is a newer NCS model of the lens so yeah that's a pretty good price for $340 USD given it's $399 on amazon right now (but has sold as low as $315 USD). However I'd not think of it as an OMG I HAVE TO BUY IT as samyang/rokinon lenses go on sale frequently....
If you get some GAS over a amazon "deal" a quick look at one of the price trackers can often "cool your jets":
A quick check shows the current price is only great if you compare it to the recently jacked up price (amazon and vendors selling on amazon do this often right before a "sale") it's been a lot cheaper cheaper most of this year:
https://ca.camelcamelcamel.com/Rokinon-RK12M-Ultra-Angle-Mount-NEX/product/B00JD4TAWI?context=search
I wish! This one: This one:
Super budget lens, i dont recommend it very much. It takes a while to AF
Both of those are APS-C Crop lenses and would end up making your image quality suffer because of an auto crop.
Its hard to tell what focal length exactly the photographer is shooting just from pictures but you probably want a 50mm or maybe even an 85mm.
The options for this kind of setup are fairly wide, even for sonys smaller selection of lenses:
28mm 2 FE $450
50mm 1.8 FE $250
85mm 1.8 FE $600
Now for pricey options:
35mm 2.8 FE $800
35mm 1.4 FE $1600
55mm 1.8 FE $1000 (this is actually a really nice portait lens, a good medium length, and is considered by many to be one of the sharpest for the money)
50mm 1.4 FE $1500
85mm 1.4 FE $1800
Then there is a whole lineup of Zeiss Batis, Otus, and etc lenses in various focal lengths you can look into if you have more money.
But honestly If you are just looking for a good working portait lens i think Id suggest a zoom like the new Tamron so you can get more options.
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 $800
Or if you are loaded:
Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM $2200
I personally only own the 50mm 1.8 FE out of these and it works alright but I notice it not to be very sharp under F2.2 and seems to gain a lot of Chromatic Aberration. But it doesnt mean its not a good prime to just have on the camera most of the time.
Sony 50mm 1.8 lens (SEL50F18F), the Full Frame one, for 149.00 euro on amazon.es, link.
Thanks for your answer !
GH4 is definitely the way to go.
I forgot to say that i also owned this speedbooster-like that i used for my GH2.
The main concern that i have is witch lens is good for landscape, i saw some people said that the SLR MAGIC 12mm T1.6 is very good, and i'm also afraid that a non-zoom lens is not versatile when you are hiking in the moutains or climbing.
I'm not against buying a Metabones Speedbooster XL, my travel friend use a 6D for photography, if we can share lens. I saw the SIGMA ART 18-35 F1.8.
It's giving me headaches !
Actually it's Bonne chance ! (or you are a huge fan of Taken)
There's a few on Amazon right now http://smile.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00DBL0NLQ/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&amp;condition=new
Remember that Olympus has a 2x crop factor, so that 30mm lens will be a 60mm equivalent, which is not a good first lens. If you want a prime lens for an Olympus, get the Panasonic 20/1.7. I used to own one and it is a very impressive lens in a great all-around focal length.
I have a GH4 and use this lens for low light, totally gets the job done. https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-LUMIX-Mirrorless-Thirds-H-H020AK/dp/B00DJS830Y/ref=pd_lpo_421_bs_t_2?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=RF3SJREEYCY7V75E5Z9N
i'd split the difference and go with a Gh3. for an MFT mount first camera, i wouldn't worry about going crazy with lens quality. a kit lens will serve you fine for a while and when you upgrade your camera in the future, you may be going S35, APS-C or FullFrame, in which case your MFT glass wouldn't fit. i recommend grabbing the 14-140 kit lens, the 20mm pancake (roughly $400 each) then grab an e-image tripod
> Other cameras that have been recommended to me are the black magic cinema camera and the canon 7D
having owned the 7D, BMCC,and Gh4 i feel like I've trained my life to answer this! :)
the Gh4 is not great in low light by cinema standards, but its better than the BMCC or the 7D. the 7D and Gh3 are on par while the BMCC's low sensitivity and small sensor make it crap for low light.
with the GH3 and GH4 you get 1080/60p but the 7D is only 720/60p and the BMCC has no slomo.
the BMCC is a bitch of a camera ergonomically and it is a little finicky in its function.
the GH3/4 both have way more video minded features than the 7D (zebras, peaking, audio levels, histogram, etc.)
if you like the video that you get from a 7D, buy a t3i instead. it's the exact same sensor, but a cheaper body. then you could spend your money on EF mount glass which is more likely to stick with you when you upgrade (even if it's not canon brand)
I have an Olympus E-pl5 micro 4/3rds camera and am looking to get a new lens. I want to be able to shoot landscapes better, as well as photos in the dark, but in the end I'm just a hobbyist, so I want a lens that is well rounded for nearly any kind of shot. I was recommended 2 different lenses but have no idea which to get. Which one would you recommend?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055N2L22/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1PM6TGVB8IECO&amp;coliid=I1SKPLFC83CZLP
or
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DJS830Y/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1PM6TGVB8IECO&amp;coliid=ISYX6WLR39DYP&amp;psc=1
As for prime lenses, the PANASONIC LUMIX G II Lens, 20mm, F1.7 sound amazing, but this is priced $300. That's double what you suggested.
I am still able to afford that though, just not sure how would it work in the future. I also have no clue whether these are actually even good to begin with.
To add on to /u/av4rice's good answer, probably the smallest/lightest similar option would be a Panasonic GX85 with a 20mm f/1.7 or 25mm f/1.8.
That's a helluva a question. This! is what I have. I pulled it from my amazon order page. I'm patient, The offer is open to all if anybody else sees this and wants it
I have this lens for street photography. Love it. You can find tons of great reviews online, and here's some examples of it's capabilities.
I've heard great things about this lens, although it's a bit out of your price range. Maybe if you sold the kit lens? examples
this is my dream lens, but I won't be able to afford it for a while.
A little google-fu will take you a long way in terms of reviews and price points.
Yes that's a fantastic camera for that price. I recommend your upgrade route to be:
***
In future please post simple questions like this in the questions thread, thanks!
These are the two in particular. The extra zoom of the sigma would be nice if they're both comparable otherwise.
Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM for Canon Digital SLR Cameras http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008B48AAE/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_at_ws_us?ie=UTF8
Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM Lens for Canon SLR Cameras http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EFILVQU/ref=cm_sw_r_an_am_at_ws_us?ie=UTF8
Thanks! Canon 55-250mm IS, a great value for a decent lens. I'm currently saving up for a more powerful telephoto.
The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is very well liked for wide angle landscape shots. Though it's an ultra wide - so maybe the Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM Lens is better for you. Both of these lenses are very sharp for the price, and the STM autofocus will make it nice and quiet.
Take a look at sample images for both. And check out Keh.com for used copies of the lenses. They have an excellent reputation.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-F4-5-6-Cameras/dp/B00EFILVQU/ref=sr_1_4?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1457039751&amp;sr=1-4&amp;keywords=canon+lens+55-250mm+stm
so the Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM would work? seems people don't like the 70-300.
Unanswered question from the previous megathread
Author /u/sunofsomething - (Permalink)
I'm looking into getting Canon's 55-250 IS STM lens. But I've noticed there's discrepancies between the prices that some companies are asking.
B &amp; H has it for $299 USD, whereas it can be found on amazon for as little as $200 CAD. Henry's and Bestbuy have it on sale for $229. Though I noticed there they're marking them as almost 170 off.
Is this related to the 'best in glass' sale that canon is having right now?
I'm looking into getting Canon's 55-250 IS STM lens. But I've noticed there's discrepancies between the prices that some companies are asking.
B & H has it for $299 USD, whereas it can be found on amazon for as little as $200 CAD. Henry's and Bestbuy have it on sale for $229. Though I noticed there they're marking them as almost 170 off.
Is this related to the 'best in glass' sale that canon is having right now?
canon 55-250 STM. It's one of canon's gems, sharper than lenses 3x its price. it would make that 75-300 look like a potato. for only $100 more, you get a lens that's 12434645x better.
Maybe the 55-250mm STM if you want to go longer? It's got IS and is a good buy from what I've seen. Otherwise you could look at the 17-50 2.8 from Sigma. It's getting more expensive, but if you like the focal length of your kit lens it's basically a better version of it. Lets in 4 times more light at 50mm than the kit lens and has IS also.
Consider a cheap used Canon lens.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00EFILVQU/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&amp;condition=all
Ce que je me prévoyais d'acheter pour mon Canon :) pas trop $$ en plus. https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B00EFILVQU/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
Yes, or the newer version depending on how much you want to spend.
So my follow up question is when you are looking at a lens like Canon EF-S 55-250mm it lists what the lens would be size wise on a full frame camera not a APSC. On a APSC camera it would be a 88-400mm.
In the case where a lens would not be compatible with a full frame camera, why do camera companies list the lens size as the equivalent of what it is on a full frame camera?
I don't know if you'd be interested, but I'm actually selling this exact lens! For less than this. I'll attach the amazon link. This probably sounds super sketchy since I just joined Reddit and this is my first comment. Yikes. But i figured it was worth a shot.
But yes, you can buy this lens cheaper refurbished or even new.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B00EFILVQU/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&amp;condition=all
^thats the list of 3rd party sellers selling that lens on amazon.
Does anyone know of a fast 90mm lens designed for APS-C sensors?
I'm hoping to buy a macro lens for my APS-C camera, but I'm finding that there's not a lot of selection. The only EF-S lens I can find that seems to be made for macro is the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM. I'd much rather get a lens in the 90mm range. I currently use the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, and I can get decent macro results with a macro ring. But at f/4 max aperture, the bokeh isn't that great. I'd also like to use the macro lens for portraits as well, which would really benefit from a fast aperture. I could get a 60mm EF lens, and it would behave like a 96mm with the 1.6x crop factor, but it would also slow the aperture by 60% for depth-of-field.
In Germany it's 285€ https://www.amazon.de/dp/B00EPWC30O/ which is more than 300$
Edit: whoops. I meant this one https://www.amazon.de/Sony-SEL-50F18F-Vollformat-Objektiv-geeignet/dp/B01E7NGVEY/ which is still almost 300$
Hello everyone!
Just got the a6000 recently with some christmas money and I freaking love it already. I've been doing some research and I want to try out an upgraded lens. The kit is fine, but I'm definitely seeing the benefits of a lower aperture prime (more bokeh effect, better in low light, etc.)
I've narrowed down my search to the Sony SEL35F18, SEL50F18, and the Sigma 30mm F2.8
The SEL35F18 definitely seems best to me overall, and I'm thinking it probably makes sense to just suck it up and go straight for that. However the Sigma is also attractive because it seems like a great budget alternative. The SEL50F18 is probably last on my list because at ~$300 currently, its just not a significant enough difference in price from the 35... Any advice is appreciated!
I just realized you said you just started looking into cameras.
I'll leave some reference links for the lenses for you.
This is the FE
This is the non FE
FE are for full frame cameras (a7, a7r, a7r2). They're a larger sensor size.
The a6300 is aspc or a cropped sensor so it has a smaller sensor. The non FE lens is designed for the smaller camera.
I was stuck on learning HSS. Pictures come out great and fun to do. Here's what I have.
Godox w trigger
Sony 50mm 1.8
Of course you'd shoot the flash through a diffuser.
Here is a shot from the first paid session I did after months of practicing.
HighSpeedSync
Exif:
Nex6
50mm
1.8
1/1600
HSS through umbrella
Landscape and portraiture are completely different with respect to lens needs. Here's some thoughts, but get ready to open your wallet.
Landscapes will be the Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0783J5BWP/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XKeHDbA4H058S
Portraiture would be good with with the 50mm F1. 8 OSS Sony https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_6MeHDbSH3FX9K
You'll be served well with the excellent Sony 24-105 G PZ OSS if you want a single travel companion. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_bIeHDbD47B6XM
Just to clarify - "full frame" refers to the size of the sensor. It's a property of the sensor inside the camera. Your a5100 and your old Rebel both have APS-C (i.e. not full frame) sized sensors. Hopefully this will make it clearer.
Lenses can be designed for any sensor size, including APS-C and full frame. The APS-C sensor size is also known as "crop". If you use an APS-C (crop) lens on your a5100, the image will cover the sensor exactly. If you use a full frame lens, the image will be larger than the sensor, so it'll look more zoomed in than it would if you used it on a full frame camera.
"Crop" is not something to avoid; it doesn't mean you're losing part of the image or anything like that. Your camera is designed for "crop" (APS-C) lenses, and you should use those unless you have some special reason for wanting a full-frame lens which will be larger, heavier and much more expensive. FYI there is no Sony full-frame 50mm f/1.8 - do you mean the 55mm f/1.8? There is an APS-C 50mm f/1.8, however.
Ok so my a6000 is coming next week. and it comes with the standard 16-50. I wanted a lens for street photography and maybe portrait down the line(whenever I get better).
I was wondering which lens I should go for?
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-FE-50mm-F1-8-Lens/dp/B01DLMD5O6/
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/
Okay that makes sense. What is the difference between these two lenses?
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498159559&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=sony+50mm+f1.8
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-FE-50mm-F1-8-Lens/dp/B01DLMD5O6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1498159559&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=sony+50mm+f1.8
Is it that the more expensive one is 50mm for APCS while the other is 75mm for APCS?
Actual 50mm, this lens.
thank you for your reply
I'm doing videos without really fast motions while the camera is on one spot all the time and the filmed person is also on one spot most of the time.
I've just seen a couple of videos which were made with the sl2/d700 and this cheap canon 1.8 lens but I'm not sure if there's a similarly cheap alternative for the A6000 that works as good as that in very low light (or maybe one which is a bit more expensive). On the german amazon canon lenses are sold way more often than sony and have better reviews. Any further suggestions?
what about this one https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1520713581&amp;sr=1-1-fkmr0&amp;keywords=Sony+1.8+sel50
Thanks for the tip, do you have any lens you would recommend?
The lens included above would be good for?
And would this be a good low light lens? and is there anything cheaper ... (T_T)
The best bet would be a zoom lens and a fixed f1.8 lens for versatility?
A few assumptions need to be made to make this post not 10 pages long. I assume you have approximately $500+ dollars to get started. If you don't it'll be clear where you can cut back, but lose out on quality.
In order to do what Duncan does, you need a few items:
Bonus 5: Lenses. As usual, lenses that come with the camera are not the best in terms of sharpness. So I have 2 recommendations to supplement your camera. An incredibly sharp (in terms of detail) lens but it only can take advantage of Sony's slower auto focus, or a less sharp lens that can auto focus very quickly. Combining sharpness + capability to utilize Sony's new fast auto focus features costs $$$. It does exist, but I'm hesitant to link it.
My recommendation: If you know you want to get into this, buy the a5100 and an SD card (if you need it). Play around with the camera, its settings, different set ups, etc. Once you're familiar, buy the tripod, film test tutorial of you painting something, edit it and render/publish it. Once you're certain you are enjoying the process or the outcome, buy a better mic set up, and then finally a better lens.
/u/RamenProfitable
It all depends on how close you can get to the action. There aren't many great telephoto lens for the E-Mount system so you'll have to look at third party lenses. Since the a6000 is APS-C, you can take good photos with this 50mm f/1.8 if they're close enough but you definitely won't be able to get tight shots unless they're literally right in front of you. You could definitely use this 15-105 f/4 if the field is lit well, but you'd have to bump your ISO up a bit. But sports at f/4 with a APS-C sensor is definitely pushing it.
Is this the recommended 50mm for a beginner with an alfa 6000? Can someone please recommend a good prime 50mm for the a6000? I purchased an alfa 6000 with the 16-50mm lens kit and I was reading it is good to practice shooting with the same lens all the time to get used to use the lens as an extended eye. Total beginner here!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EPWC30O/?coliid=I1NFGSSUEW2ZVZ&amp;colid=ANS7IUZOHVOC&amp;psc=1&amp;ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
Not sure about a macro lens but this lens gives a super cool cinematic look and its commonly used for b roll type stuff!
APS-C. This one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EPWC30O
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SELP18105G-PZ-18-105mm-OSS/dp/B00ENZRQH8
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL35F18-35mm-Prime-Fixed/dp/B0096W1P5W/ref=pd_sim_421_4?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B0096W1P5W&amp;pd_rd_r=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS&amp;pd_rd_w=ogf56&amp;pd_rd_wg=Qx7dq&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=pd_sim_421_10?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=B00EPWC30O&amp;pd_rd_r=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS&amp;pd_rd_w=ogf56&amp;pd_rd_wg=Qx7dq&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=M6Y227QVTB5Q0BMV9FGS
To complement DatAperture's answer the other option in the mirrorless market is Sony. The tradeoff is probably a bit better quality (the same sensors as in APS-C DSLRs) versus larger size and less lens selection.
For your budget you could get a very nice body:
Or a cheaper kit:
and then complement it with some lenses:
The Sigma ones are also available in Nex mount:
For my kind of shooting, on a backpacking trip of Europe I'd go for A6000+19/2.8+50/1.8. Fits in your budget. Is light and small. Gets you a wide angle for scenery and a 50 for everything else, including low light. If you prefer zooms you can get the A6000 with the 16-50 kit lens plus a 55-210.
So I bought the Sony a6000 body only and went and bought a SEL50F18/B 50mm f/1.8 Lens off Amazon, as I saw that was the recommended first lens to buy. I like the lens, but everything seems zoomed in, and I just want a regular lens as if I were looking through my eyes. I tried playing in the settings and the lens comes built in with magnification(I guess???) Here are two images I took to show how zoomed in the lens is. I'm such a fucking noob and just want to get the stock lens that comes with the camera :-) thx for any help! and my hand was pretty far from the camera and it just looks so zoomed in??
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | G85 vs A6500 - Best option for film making? Max Talks EP#4
Description | Which camera is the right fit for you? Filmmaking, Vlogging, and Videography G85 Amazon➡ http://geni.us/jEyA76A A6500 Amazon➡ http://geni.us/bffB4nA If you enjoy our content please consider supporting us on Patreon. Even $2 a month helps us make more and better content for you! https://www.patreon.com/MaxYuryev -------------------------------------------------------------------- This Review was Shot using: Camera on Amazon➡ http://geni.us/bffB4nA Lens on Amazon➡ http://geni.us/dmcMpa Mic on...
Length | 0:10:14
SECTION | CONTENT
:--|:--
Title | Panasonic G85 OWNS the Sony a6500 in almost every way...except one
Description | This is just a quick update after shooting my first ever video on the Sony a6500 since deciding to try and switch to it from my Panasonic G85/G7/GH4. I'll just keep walking you guys through what I'm learning as it happens if that's cool with you! New Sony camera & lens: http://amzn.to/2owhmEU Must-have other lens for new camera: http://amzn.to/2pJlBiv Mic I use on my vlogging rig: http://amzn.to/2oQcvBU My bendy-tripod: http://amzn.to/2pkAJ8R Old main Panasonic camera: http://amzn.to/2pJl5AU F...
Length | 0:07:41
****
^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)
And as a further fyi, according to camelcamelcamel, $248 is the lowest it has ever been on Amazon (and Amazon is pretty good about price matching whenever someone has an item on sale)
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/product/B00EPWC30O?context=browse
And I typically match the color of the camera, but, that's just aesthetics at that point :)
Hey man. Just wanted to let you know that the rokinon 12mm f/2.0 is going for $277 new on amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1518490684&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=rokinon+12mm
Thank you I really appreciate it!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_eYmdAbHAV2FNX
There's a Canadian duty calculator here:
https://www.crossbordershopping.ca/calculators/canadian-duty-calculator
It varies quite alot depending on if the item was made in Canada/US, the type of item, etc.
For example, if I were to buy a this $399 USD lense from the US, it would end up costing around $540 CAD + another $60 in duties (estimated). The same lense on Amazon.ca is also around $540 after tax. Not to mention the time it takes for me to go across the border to pick it up.
I was about to order the Rokinon F2.0 12mm for my a7ii and realized it is designed for a crop sensor. This Mieke lists full frame sensors as if it is compatible, but also says it is for a crop sensor, so I'm a bit skeptical. Is there something out there in the <$300 range that will offer a 12-14mm focal length in a fast lens for full frame? I don't care if it's manual focus, since it's all I do anyway. Lower the f-stop the better, obviously, but I exclusively shoot in low-light.
I've booked 2 vacations for this year, Peru (machu pichu) and California (Yosmite, Nappa Valley). As such, I've decided that I'd like to purchase a camera to photograph my adventures. After a ton of reading, I've narrowed down my choice to Sony a6000 (due to its compact size, i'll be doing a ton of hiking) with the 16-55m kit lens. In order to take advantage of all the landscapes, I'm also looking to purchase a wide lens, the rokinon 12mm. If its possible, I'd appreciate the any feedback on these choices, if there are better alternatives etc. My budget is around is capped out at $1,000. Also, is there any difference between these two lenses besides the prices?
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-E-Mount-RK12M-E/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1493678699&amp;sr=1-1-catcorr&amp;keywords=rokinon+12mm+e+mount
https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY12M-E-BK-Ultra-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00KT0UH72/ref=pd_pgd_B00JD4TAWI_B00KT0UH72?pf_rd_p=2971640562&amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;pf_rd_i=B00JD4TAWI&amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_r=E46TJNBVKRFH54V4T49T
From my understanding these are identical, just branded different for whatever reason.
Thanks!
https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI
I just put the whole lens name- f/2 is lowest possible for that lens, this photo was at f/5.6
Are these the same lens? samyang vs. rokinon
I own the Sigma 30mm 1.4 http://amzn.to/2hSCySn , it is a sharpness beast at a great price. That is what I use for street photography. The Roki 24mm 1.4 http://amzn.to/2hSGe6x is a manual lens, if that matters to you. The Sony 35mm 1.8 http://amzn.to/2iCMNxU isn't quite as awesome as the Sigma 30mm IMHO, but the OSS makes a difference, especially in low light. If you had an a6500, I would not recommend the Sony over the sigma... due to the IBIS. In your case, however, I only have a slight preference for the Sigma. It's a close call.
Unfortunately... going wider than that generally comes with higher prices or smaller apertures, so you'll find you don't use them as often as you may think. The Sigma 19mm 2.8 http://amzn.to/2hSHUNn is a great, inexpensive lens. Rokinon makes a lot of good wide lenses, but again, manual focus. For Astrophotography, the Roki 12mm 2.0 http://amzn.to/2iRLIjz is hard to beat.
Hi,
I have a Sony a6000 but can't decide between 2 lenses for astro / landscapes.
Rokinon 24mm F1.4 ED AS IF UMC (RK24M-E)
or
Rokinon 12mm F2.0 NCS CS (RK12M-E)
Thanks !
Thanks. Yep everything is from the A6000. Many of those are with the kit lenses, but the long exposures of the milkyway was done with this lense: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JD4TAWI/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1
more like 250 vs 125~
https://www.amazon.com/Sony-FE-50mm-F1-8-Lens/dp/B01DLMD5O6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1524162673&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=sony+fe+50mm
But you're right!
If you're just starting out and really want to do portraits, you need a "nifty fifty." Like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Sony-50mm-F1-8-Standard-SEL50F18F/dp/B01DLMD5O6/ref=asc_df_B01DLMD5O6/
hey, sorry to double reply but i did some research and found this lens: Sony Fe 50mm F1.8 (SEL50F18F), Black
link (canadian site): https://www.amazon.ca/Sony-50mm-F1-8-Standard-SEL50F18F/dp/B01DLMD5O6/
Do you know if you'd recommend this? Or if it's more worth getting another lens slightly more expensive over this?
Also, 1.8 - 2.8.. on the scale which side is more towards that blurred background? I'm sorry i know it's newbie questions
I'd go for the kit lens for now. especiallt to get your feet wet. Gives you a bit of versatility with shoots. IIRC the FE 50mm 1.8 is on sale right now for $199.00.
50mm 1.8
If youre into Astro/Landscape & Street, I personally have the Rokinon 24mm 1.4. covers those bases fairly well!
Rok 24mm
Also, Tamron just announced 3 new Prime lenses set to release ~January 2020. A 20mm, 24mm, and a 35mm. All are f2.8, and all will be $349.00
http://www.tamron-usa.com/ - They Should be featured on the front page at that link.
Cant Wait to see what you create!
Shooting a "recap" video of my cousins wedding in a week. I have about $500 to spend on it. Currently, I have a:
- Sony A6500
- Sony 18-200 f3.5-6.3
- Sony 50 f1.8
I was thinking about getting a DJI Ronin S Essentials version but the biggest negative is it doesn't work with Arca mounts (my tripod and Peak Design adapters). Your thoughts?
I have a sony a6000 with 50mm prime lens. You could get the macro version but this makes for a killer all-around lens with beautiful bokeh. I used 26mm extension rings to get it to focus at close range
Lighting is very important too. The best shots are not taken directly under your grow light
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW
Dream gift.
A bit more reasonable.
I usually don't ask people for camera equipment, because of the price tag on 99% of the stuff I want/need. I usually just ask for gift cards for Amazon or Paul C Buff, that way I get get exactly what I want/need and don't have to worry about returning something that someone saw that was "similar" to what was on my list, haha.
A Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II Lens
The L variant, aka fucking expensive as hell.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-2-8L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B0033PRWSW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1375597539&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=canon+70+200+L
> 95% of the digital camera/camcorders use digital zoom
This is absolutely, flat out wrong. Optical zoom vs digital zoom
> DSLRS camera bundles usually come with lens that have f1.4 aperture which is great for night time shooting.
This is also absolutely false.
Most popular bundles are shipped with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens or something similar. Sometimes they may have a slightly larger basic zoom lens like this ... you'll notice the average f is f/4-5.6 Which is dark as fuck. You're going to have a LOT of noise and be shooting with a high ISO if you're using a dark ass lens like f/4-5.6 at full zoom.
Now, these are still only up to what, 300mm?
You will notice that the majority of these are fixed or under 100mm.
To even remotely approach the claims you are making, you'd have to be using a lens like this this this or this
> I use my d5100 with bundled lens all the time @ night, gives clean and clear picture even when zoomed.
If it's an 18-55. you can't zoom that much, and it's still more than likely f/3.5-5.6. Which means it's f is 5.6 when at full zoom. What you are seeing is your sensor working well and keeping your high ISO noise down. Put a bundle zoom lens on your camera, go to full zoom on an airplane at night, and then post your shots here.
Best lens for the money? Or some other AF telephoto completely?
Tamron 70-300mm
Nikon 55-300mm
Leaning towards the Nikon as I've heard better things, but I have the Tamron 28-75 and absolutely love it so there's that as well.
My SO recently bought a Nikkor DX 35 and loves it. He's looking for something more for landscapes/scenery or otherwise a good all around lens. He has two stock lenses which he does not like. Any suggestions? Apologies as I'm not familiar with any of this stuff. Thanks!
Edit: the camera is Nikkon D5100
The lenses are AF-s Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G and af-s nikkor 18-55mm 1 3.5-5.6 g
So something like this is probably what I'm looking for if all I want is a good zoom lens?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1396194765&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=lenses+for+nikon
Consider the 70-300mm or 55-300mm or 300mm f/4 instead. The first is a very good quality zoom lens that will allow you to change zoom for framing, the second is a cheaper version of the same, and the third is a very good prime. I have the 55-300mm and I found that I use it for birds and such, almost 99% of the time at 300mm. I think if I were to reconsider the purchase I would go for the 300mm f/4, epecially because it allows the use of teleconverters. If you go for the 18-300mm, you sacrifice a large amount of quality in all focal lengths. It isn't worth it. With the budget you have for the 18-300mm, you can get the 70-300mm and gain quite a lot of quality or the 300mm prime and find yourself with an amazing birding/wildlife lens. If you stick a 2x teleconverter on there, you have 960mm f/8 lens on an APS-C body - basically a telescope, but also amazing for birds (but a little lacking in low light).
Same equipment! I think I'm unfairly harsh on the kit lens, so I usually stick with the fifty. I nearly bought the 55-300mm (it seems like an amazing deal) but my buddy told me to save my pennies. See, I'm hesitant to buy DX lenses, just in case I want to upgrade to full frame at a later date. I'm still torn on that.
Not trying to argue or anything, everything is 100% cool with you not wanting the lens.
But I am a professional photographer, so I have to say something to help out where I can...
Do you mean the newest 50 f/1.8 G? Or an older D model? Older D models have a screw-focus mechanism and will not autofocus with D40/40x/60/3000/3100/5000/5100 model cameras and will have to be manually focused anyway. And the lens is more than $200 before taxes.
If you want a "normal" (normal field of view, i.e. what your eyes see more or less) lens with the 1.5x crop of most consumer level digital cameras, you might want to look for a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G. You can see that, even used, the lens is less than $200.
And do you mean the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6? That one is $400 and has less light coming onto your sensor wide-open at f/4.5 through f/5.6. Any lens that goes from 55mm to 200mm is not going to be very sharp and will probably not focus well from about 8pm on (due to modern phase focus systems and consumer lens manufacturing).
What camera do you own?
Personally, I would look at prime lenses (lenses that are one fixed focal length) over zoom lenses - you zoom with your feet rather than with the lens and it makes you a better photographer faster because you have to use all of that slight annoyance of not zooming to get a better picture. It helps you think. In my opinion, zooming is a crutch. Prime lenses are also generally sharper because they are not trying to be sharp at all focal lengths and they are generally faster (f/1.8 as opposed to f/4.5-5.6 which means it lets more light onto the sensor).
Thanks a lot for your detailed response! The Tokina sounds pretty good to me, shooting stars is one thing I definitely hope to do at some point, but it's quite a bit monetary investment for a single lens for a beginner like me, but perhaps as a present...
Also that's good to know, I can manual focus fine but obviously autofocus is seriously useful in most scenarios, so wouldn't want to unwittingly be landed with a lens with no autofocus.
I think I might invest first in a long focal length one (thinking maybe this) and maybe a 35 or 50mm large aperture prime, could get both for the price of the Tokina... But yeah, thanks very much, you've been a tremendous help
Nikon D3000, this lens and I don't remember the settings. I just always play around with the settings & adjust until I get one I like.
I'm planning to get a 55-300mm or 55-200mm lens. Don't know if there is a specific one I should be looking at but I had this one in mind:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G-ED-VR/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1300726552&sr=1-2
I'm upgrading from a bridge (Lumix FZ150) to a DSLR. I learnt on a Canon 350D so I'm not really a 'beginner' but my price range doesn't allow much better than a beginner camera. I'm currently looking the the Nikon D3300/D5300 with kit lens and this since I'm mainly going to use it at air shows. Does anyone know if the D5300 is worth the extra £100? I don't care for Wifi/GPS but the articulated screen and more AF points are tempting me.
If anyone's got suggestions for a completely different camera/lens I'm open to anything.
The 18-55mm lens is good but not great. It's not a bad idea to have that lens around, as it gives you a moderate wide angle at 18mm, but can close in to 55mm for portraits, etc. That lens is also astonishingly light, and makes the D3400 a great walkaround camera. It's one reason I've kept that camera and lens even after getting a D7500.
In my opinion, the 70-300mm lens is really not very good. It lacks VR, which is very very useful for a lens that long, as any handshake is magnified the longer a lens is. And the maximum aperture is small. It could probably work okay on a bright sunny day. I used mine a couple of times and it's sat on the shelf ever since, and is now replaced by the superior 55-300mm (which does have VR).
It depends how important telephoto reach is for you right out of the box. If you're taking photos of airplanes, I assume it will be sunny, so the 70-300mm should work, as it will give you much-needed reach. It will at least fill the gap while you save up for a better telephoto.
On the other hand, on Amazon you can pick up a certified refurbished D3400 with just the 18-55mm kit lens for $400, and then get a used 55-300mm for $180 or less. That adds up to nearly a hundred more than the product you linked, so that's up to your budget, but I can tell you that knowing what I know now, that's the route I would have gone.
Edit: Product links (you can probably find similar at other websites like bhphoto or keh):
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D3400-Digital-Camera-18-55mm/dp/B0727RH23G/ref=sr_1_8?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1542788642&amp;sr=1-8&amp;keywords=nikon+d3400
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003ZSHNCC/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&amp;condition=all
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Nikkor-Digital/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1419374207&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=nikon+lens
Could anyone explain to me the differences between these two lens? Could someone also tell me which would be better and why? The more detail the better! If which camera they will be used on matters... It'll be a Nikon D5200.
Lens 1: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR
Lens 2: Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX
I have the Nikon D3300 with its basic lens that goes from 18mm wide to 55mm zoom - that's like rather wide so you can almost fit a whole room into the shot - to about 4-5x zoom on point and shoot cameras.
On top of that I got a used lens that goes from 55mm to 300mm ant this thing is good for hunting ducks and other animals from distance (dunno, additional 15x zoom? hard to say because these are different class cameras). Great fun lens for day use, I like it a lot for the 170€ that cost me used. It's this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1449671477&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikkor+55-300
For night time I got a fixed 35mm lens - no zoom, just very sensitive to light: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-1-8G/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1449671571&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikkor+35mm+dx Used a lot for concerts, video and general daily use.
After that is my "candy", stuff I don't reaaaallly need but wanted it bad enough to now have it :)
Got a fixed 85mm that's very sensitive to light: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-1-8G/dp/B006TAP096/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1449671642&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikkor+85mm I use this one for through the crowd shots on concerts and portraits and sometimes for the hell of it, the damned thing is fun to use.
50mm I got as a gift, also very sensitive to light: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-1-8G/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1449671767&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikkor+50mm It mostly lives on my other camera for every day use as I'm trying to learn fully manual photography.
A 18-105mm zoom that came with my other camera. Not a very good lens but comes handy when I have no idea what to expect. Got it with a used Nikon D90 camera. This is an older camera with poor video capability. But it has many pro features that I'm really starting to miss on D3300, like additional buttons and a second dial and an LCD screen.
Very nice! I am currently saving for this one ; )
Looks like 300mm to me which is why I'm confused https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B003ZSHNCC/ref=pd_aw_lpo_421_bs_img_1?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=ZXGYHPE5SGSC98PBCVY9
Hello!
not too sure if this will be seen, but i recently acquired a nikon d610 with an 80-90's manuel 50mm f1.8 pancake lens.
So pretty much im in the market for new lenses.
pretty much i want a landscape lens, portrait lens, and another all around lens. Since ive been shooting primarily in street shots, first is an autofocus, the faster the better. pretty much if you guys could give me some insight on my choices as to which ones are the best for my style
Landscapes
samyang/rokinon 14mm f2.8
https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY14MAE-N-Ultra-Angle-Nikon/dp/B006MI1UDU
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_S_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=6V50J6F8FVLL&coliid=I3TKDTQ6YY21PM
Nikkor 20mm
f1.8https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-Fixed-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00NI6WH1S/ref=sr_1_22?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1483652637&sr=1-22&keywords=wide+angle+fx+lens
Portrait
Rokinon/Samyang AE 85mm f1.4
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003V06YA6/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=6V50J6F8FVLL&amp;coliid=I30GK1FCMJMQPX&amp;psc=1
Nikkor 85mm f1.8 afafhttps://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TAP096/ref=psdc_173565_t1_B003V06YA6
Samyang/Rokinon CV 86mm f1.5
thanks in advance
DSLR with one of these for the appropriate brand.
Its not cheap, but really the best option.
Is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 my best best for landscape/camping photography if I also want it to be functional/capable enough for astrophotography? I'm trying to keep my backpacking setup relatively light, so would be bringing my Nikond7100, Nikkor 35 mm f 1.8, and ___. What do you guys think should fill that 2nd lens role.
Help me pick a wide angle lens:
I'm debating between:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731083-REG/Nikon_2181B_Refurbished_10_24mm_f_3_5_4_5G_ED.html
(refurbished I will get mostly likely. New is around ~$900! Yeks!)
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633618-REG/Sigma_202306_10_20mm_f_3_5.html
Thanks!
I'm looking to buy a wide angle lens for my D5100. I'm looking to use it to shoot more landscape photography. Currently I'm considering the Tokina 11-16mm.
I was wondering if anyone had experience with this lens or has any suggestions for a similar wide angle lens. Thanks!
The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is under budget for you and it's regarded as the sharpest DX wide angle. There's also the newer 11-20 2.8 version if you want a little bit more reach.
I have a D3300. My most used lenses are the 35mm 1.8 and the [Tokina 11-16 2.8] (https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1480092486&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=tokina+11-16). I highly recommend both of them. The 35 is great for every day use, and the 11-16 is amazing for landscapes. But it really depends on what you want the lenses for?
Hi everyone! I'm planning a trip to Norway in December and I needed some advice.
I will depart the 5th of december and return the 12th.
Here is what I'll bring with me:
My questions are: what lens should i buy in the list I wrote under this line? (I need the lens for astrophotography and norther lights)
Second question: hould I bring something for the cold temperatures? What should I bring then?
&#x200B;
Thanks and sorry for any eventual error!
Edit 1: the comment bugged out, it displays a point under this row that I can't delete...
Edit 2: grammar nazi
Newb here with a Nikon D3400. Looking to buy a wide angle lens for architecture/landscapes. The Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002D2VSD6/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza) and the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007ORX8ME/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza) are a whopping 11 cents (U.S.) difference in price. Both SEEM to support AF for the D3400, so I'm wondering if there's a clear difference between the two that would drive me towards one or the other. Thanks!!
for the record i think craigslist is a fantastic resource. ive used it countless times to buy and sell camera equipment and never been burned. i'd reconsider if i were you, but be smart when buying or selling.
however, you can find the tokina used on amazon for ~$400
https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B007ORX8ME/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1466031552&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=tokina+11-16&amp;condition=used
as far as other lenses go...i'm not sure. there weren't any at the quality/aperture/focal length for a comparable price when i left #teamcanon.
the-digital-picture.com is a great resource for lens reviews, but take them with a grain of salt, he seems to bend over for canon backwards when comparing to 3rd parties.
This one?
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B007ORX8ME/ref=dp_ob_neva_mobile
No problem! I think the one you linked is the old version. The new version is this one. It's a bit cheaper but doesn't have as much focal range. I'm honestly not sure what the newer version has that the one you linked didn't. Ken Rockwell (love him or hate him) has some comprehensive reviews on the different wide angles lenses that might be useful.
I'm looking into buying a wide angle lens for my Canon t6i rebel. I want to use it primarily for youtube (record myself) but I don't want to end up buying another lens in the future. I've had my eyes on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens, and the Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical. For the more expensive one's over $300 I do plan on getting them used. In my situation I think regardless of what lens I may get I'll be using a softbox for lighting. I know lower aperature is better but I cannot distinguish the quality of the lenses. Any recommedations and where I could buy used lenses at a lower price?
Unfortunately, wider lenses tend to be very expensive. That's because it's technically difficult to build a wide angle lens for a DSLR.
Your two main options are Canon EF-S 10-22 (I have one, it's excellent) at about $650 or Tokina 11-16 at about $550 (never used it but it has a good reputation). If you're lucky you may just find the previous version of the Tokina second-hand for $300 or a bit more.
I am debating between the Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
I currently use a Canon Rebel T5 and have been using a Sigma 10-20mm f/4 lens for my astrophotography. I have got some excellent shots with it. I am traveling to NZ soon and would like to get a better lens for astrophotography. My problem is I am torn between the better f/stop of the Rokinon and the focal length range of the Tokina. The auto/manual of the Tokina is also a plus for non-astrophotography pictures.
The Rokinon is cheaper too, which seems like a plus.
Help!
Automod still not happy, try getting rid of all the junk after the base URL
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-20mm-Digital-Ultra-Canon/dp/B00SXU9RXU/
It depends on the pictures you're taking.
A 50mm f/1.8 is always a good choice. About $100. It's better for portraits or walking around than landscapes though.
A wide angle zoom like this 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 from Canon wouldn't be bad. It'll let you get wide angle landscape shots of basically anything. Would not be the best for low light situations though and if you ever go full frame you would have to sell it.
Finally, more expensive, but generally worth it, is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You can get them used to save a bit of money and the best part is generally lenses hold their value very well, unlike camera bodies. This lens will be much more appropriate for low light shots or pictures of the stars.
If you're gonna splurge, splurge on lenses. Hope that helps a bit or gets some ideas flowing.
I'm looking for a wide-angle lens and they're at different ends of the spectrum and I'm trying to decide which to invest in.
Two lenses I'm looking at:
Some details:
I can afford both options, but I'm hesitant to spend an extra $1k if it doesn't make sense given the two lenses I'm considering. On one hand, the Tokina will allow me to take advantage of my full sensor (and save me a grand) and give me a full 11mm-16mm lens. On the other hand, the Canon+crop factor puts me at roughly a 36mm-56mm lens.
So, why does the Canon even bare consideration? Not is it well reviewed, but it's conceivable that I'd own a full-frame camera at some point. Logic here being get a great lens and be somewhat prepared for the future.
I've also used the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Fixed Lens and loved that, except for the fact it was fixed.
Looking for input on this as I weigh my options.
TL/DR: Considering two lenses. One is very well reviewed, but very expensive and meant for a full frame camera which I do not currently have. The other is significantly less expensive, still well reviewed (albeit not as well) and does not have to deal with the crop factor.
edit: also open to other lens recomendations.
The answer is the Tokina 11-16:
https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=dp_ob_title_ce
Thanks, I really appreciate the help. Its all so overwhelming for me. I think I've got the crop sensor thing - all the lenses with the 60D will be 1.6x their focal length (?).
These were the two lenses I was looking at: http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Super-Takumar-Element-Manual-Focus/dp/B004LCZG8Y and http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1377371777&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=Tokina+11-16mm.
Part of what confuses me is that, for the first lens, I need an M42 screw mount to attach the lens...and I'm confused how that works. There are so many different M42 screw mounts. Do I simply have to get one that attaches to a Canon? I've had trouble trying to figure this out.
I've also wanted to get a macro extension and I've been having trouble figuring out what I have to get for that too. I could get a Canon-geared macro extension tube, but would it fit over the Pentax lens?
You want a lens that is short with a big aperture, here are a few suggestions (they make these for the common bodies, I just linked to canon models because that's what I have):
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Digital Zoom Lens (for Canon EOS Cameras) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_Xe6PzbFCG97B6
Or
Rokinon 24mm F/1.4 Aspherical Wide Angle Lens for Canon RK24M-C https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006YM9L26/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_wf6PzbBDA6D9T
And read up about the max exposure time before stars start to blur from the rotation of the earth, there is an equation using lens specs for calculating a good starting point.
Lens buying can be a bewildering and expensive rabbit hole to dive down, and it really does come down to how much you want to spend and what you want to shoot. The 50mm you linked is probably the best cheap lens you can buy because it remains useful even as you get more and more into the hobby. It's never a bad buy.
If you're wanting this to be a surprise for your wife, I'd buy the camera with the 50mm, and talk to her when you give it to her about having planned to budget additional money for a second lens. Depending on how much she knows/remembers from her earlier experience with photography, she may know exactly what she wants. If she doesn't, the Sigma 17-50 that someone else mentioned is a good recommendation. It's a step or two up from a kit lens in terms of quality, and it probably won't break the bank if you were already planning to buy another lens. It also gives you a little bit of wide-angle and a little bit of telephoto, so you can see what zoom range you find yourself using the most, and whether you find yourself wishing for an even wider-angle or even more zoom, which will inform you as to where you might look next.
The Tokina 11-16 might be your next lens if you want wider-angle, or some flavor of a 70-200 might be your next purchase if she really wants to follow through on shooting weddings. Again, I'd recommend against diving straight to weddings, and maybe work for a friend, or shoot some other indoor events to warm up and learn what tools she might need. I'd advocate for a 70-200 f/2.8 (and preferably either Canon's version with IS or Tamron's version with VC) rather than the 70-200 f/4, as lighting conditions might just be too poor for f/4 and no stabilization.
This lens or this lens are great all-round and good in lowlight. Half of my album is with an equivalent lens like this.
If you're into ultra-wides (the other half of the album is an ultra-wide), then this lens is great, and this lens is even better but more expensive.
Those two focal lengths have carried me for the past 4 years without me ever feeling the need to get anything else. That being said, this lens I think is a must have for all Canon users. At just over $100, it will deliver great results in lowlight. Honestly it might be the best bang for buck lens in all of photography. And because it's so cheap, plus you're getting the camera free, I might even recommend getting all three, if that's in the budget.
If you want to be a little more conservative, here's what I would do: Get one of the first two I linked, shoot and play around with that for a while, and see what you find you need next. Do you want something a little more zoomed in for shallow depth of field and delicious bokeh? Get the 50mm. Do you crave getting some sweet wide shots? Get one of the ultra-wides. Let your needs decide what your second lens is, because it's a very personal choice and no one can know what you want to shoot until you try it out for yourself.
Software: Adobe Lightroom is all I use really, and it's all you need. It's designed as an all-in-one management, editing, and publishing platform.
Good luck!
I don't know what your budget is, but the Tokina 11-16 is a pretty great lens.
> On Canon APS-C cameras this is 1.62. Multiply the focal length by 1.62; for 16mm this is 26mm - if you have an APS-C camera with a 16mm lens next to a 135-format camera with a 26mm lens they would have the same perspective.
You lost me here. I'm not sure where you got 1.62 from or why you have to multiply this by 16mm to get 26mm. Could you explain this a little differently?
If I understand right 26mm on a full frame is the equivalent to a 16mm on a crop sensor? 26mm is actually 16mm on a full frame? I'm confused.
EDIT: is the Tokina 11-16mm DXII better than the first DX? Here is the DX on amazon and the newer version. Newer one is cheaper than the original but idk which is better or what the difference is.
Also, I see that the Tokina has it's own aperture ring...does this mean I have to always manually select this by turning the ring? Can I select the aperture electronically from my DSLR screen?
It even has an infinity sign which I know means "focus to infinity" but I genuinely don't understand how this works except I know it's for manual focus. What is this and how do you use this?
Duly noted! Suppose to be clear skies tonight around 8pm est going to give it a try! I also think I need a better lens with a better f stop?
Looking at this lens currently
How wide do you want it?
It's not a prime, but the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is my go-to for wide angles.
I was looking at the DXII one mate and it was definitely above my budget. Also, don't want any grey market gear if I'm honest.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B007ORXEIW?pc_redir=1396598256&amp;robot_redir=1
i borrowed the tokina 11-16 f2.8 off my canon buddy when i was selling my house and it worked really well for me
How fast, how wide, and how cheap? Here are a few combinations thereof:
Fast and cheap usually means Canon FD - you can get a 50mm f/1.4 for $50. Not what I'd call wide though.
Fast and Wide means that Sigma. As you've noticed, you'll need a pair of assistants to hold up the front of your camera to keep it balanced.
Wide and cheap means Rokinon fisheye.
Fast AND wide AND cheap, you can try the Kowa 6mm f/1.8 though the IQ is a little rocky. http://amzn.com/B00OBMCMFO
The compromise is probably the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It's somewhat wide, somewhat fast, somewhat cheap: http://amzn.com/B007ORXEIW
Olympus makes a 9mm MFT body cap lens for $80, but it's sloooooow.
Olympus also has a 17mm f/2.8 for only $200.
Save a little and get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 its £380, but totally fantastic, its 4 stops faster than the kit lens. Its got great subject seperation and is generally really fun. Its honestly my desert island, lens, if i could have only one, it be the 30 1.4! I can PM you some video samples if you want?
Edit: I actually have the previous (non art) version, you can get it a little cheaper on ebay and its 99% the same.
Well Canon is the best way to go for video. You can adapt some of your nikon lenses to canon too with super cheap adapters. You can get a t3i right now for 350$ plus a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for $570 a rode video mic for around 100$ or a zoom h1 for the same price then you can get either a sigma 30mm f/1.4 for about 500$ or a Canon 50mm 1.4 for about 350$ A decent tripod of your choosing plus either a glidecam/shoulderrig/crane or other rigs. And that should come to around 3k. But if you want a better quality camera and full frame which is better for low light then you can get a refurb 5dmkII for 1500$ plus a 24-105mm f/4 for 780$ and a the canon 50mm 1.4 for 350$ and rode video mic for 110$ which leaves you about 300$ for other accessories like a tripod or a rig
Edit: I am a digital filmmaking student and am very knowledgeable about gear so if you have questions I could probably help a lot.
Edit2: or if you want something more automatic with autofocusing and a built in mic and view finder but also great video quality you could check out the Sony Nex vg30
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (both old and new "Art" versions) are crop-sensor only. They DO work with full-frame in the sense that they attach and communicate with the camera and take pictures, but they exhibit heavy vingetting.
The Sigma 35mm f/1.4, however, is full-frame compatible, and is apparently an amazing lens. But it's a little bit on the expensive side.
Amazon.co.uk has it for £299
I do have an 18-55, that's a good point about checking out the lens at 40 to see what the field of view is like.
So you mean this Sigma?
http://smile.amazon.com/Sigma-Canon-Digital-Cameras-Black/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1409167328&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=sigma+30mm+1.4
Any idea what the difference between "Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras" and "Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Black)" is?
Amazon automatically prompts me to go to the second one because it's newer, but I don't see what the difference is.
Oh no, not at all... $800 is fairly high for a 'nifty fifty'. The price is because the Sigma Art 50 is pretty much the sharpest lens on earth (which makes it a bargain when you compare to, say, a Zeiss Otus
Actually, on the subject of those Sigma's... I got the 50mm first, but I found 50mm on a crop sensor camera is kind of an awkward focal length. You can't go wide enough to capture, say... a building across the street, or the head+shoulders of a friend sitting across from you at a small table. But you can't zoom in either.
Later I got the 18-35, and now the 50mm basically gathers dust. The zoom range of the 18-35 is limited, but it's just 100% more useful than 50mm. It's kind of my default lens now. It's a great lens.
But anyway, if you don't wanna spend a ton and you want a 50ish mm, and below f/2, there's a bunch of options.
The basic Canon 50mm 1.4 is $300 and is pretty sharp.
The Canon pancake lens is really well loved, surprisingly sharp and so small that it weighs nothing. A sigma art is quadruple the weight lol.
This Sigma Art 30mm seems to be on sale right now. $130 off. That's an outstanding deal, and you might find 30mm more useful than 50. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Lens-Canon/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=50mm+1.4+lens&amp;qid=1568732777&amp;refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A3130996011%2Cp_89%3ASigma&amp;rnid=2528832011&amp;s=photo&amp;sr=1-1
Yeah, when my skills are confident enough (say, in the year 2020) I'll probably go for an FF body. My 18mm is f/3.5 (close enough) and the 24mm I suggested is f/2.8, which should give me a rather minor boost to shutter speed if I want it. I'll sit on the idea for now. As it stands, apart from the "studio" work I do, most of my work tends to sit as either the night club shoots and cosplay at conventions. The later I try to shoot with the expectation of "everyone else except my subject should be blurry". So, a lower f should be the ticket to those without too much effort, right? If what's in my head is right, I could solve two problems at once. This is the Sigma you refer to? Monopods have come up to me before, but I basically just not extend the tripod I use and carry anyway.
But speaking of me, the fact that you found me IN A MIRROR made me spend 20 minutes going through the gallery like "Where?" and then I did and was like "Silly me." To answer the other "Where" question, Denver, Colorado. Renting kits here probably isn't that hard, just need to find a good place for it.
I am confused - I thought the conversion using the 1.6x multiplier was only for EF lenses and not for EF-S lenses ( i.e. EF-S lenses have the equivalent focal lengths for the crop sensor equal to what's marked on the camera) Since the Sigma 30mm is a DC lens which according to Sigma are lenses made for crop sensors wouldn't the 30 m be effectively 30 mm for crop sensors? be effectively 30 mm for crop sensors?
Hi, I'm looking to get a new lens for my Canon T3i. I have the kit, nifty fifty, and I bought a used Tamron telephoto last year for like $80.
I'm looking at these three:
Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon 28mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Any suggestions on which one I should go for? I know a lot of the time people say it depends on what you want to photograph...but I don't know what I'll be photographing yet! The f1.4 on the Sigma is quite tempting...
Thanks!
I just looked and apparently there are two different 30mm 1.4 for Canon, do you know between these two which one doesn't perform well? Or is it both? There's [this one](https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Lens-Canon/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1526669852&amp;sr=8-1- spons&keywords=sigma+30mm+1.4+canon&psc=1&smid=A2ZH1V1LBSRVIC) which is the Art, and this one which is the other type.
Reasoning behind the computer is to be able to write and take photos/video as much as I want.
The Kindle I intend to read on; I may go for the lowest-end model instead of the Paperwhite, but I want to take books without adding unnecessary bulk to what I have to pack.
The Canon Powershot I intend to carry with me almost everywhere, in order to have a photography tool with me at all times. It's compact and, with custom firmware, allows for a lot of DSLR-ish functions.
The GoPro is the hardest purchase for me to justify, because at present I don't have anything really specific I intend to use it for which couldn't be done with the Canon.
A final option would be to take the point and shoot as well as my T3i. The trouble with this is my current lenses don't give me the quality I want from my camera. I've been thinking about buying the Sigma 18-30, but it's much more than I can afford on this trip. Also, carry-on baggage space would be significantly limited by taking a DSLR.
This is the type of recommendations I was looking for. Thank you so much.
This Rokinon 35mm T1.5 keeps popping up as a lens to go with, the more research I do. I don't think there is going to be any getting around investing in it. Is it redundant to pair that with this ?
Questions at end is the important part, context first in case you're interested
I’m growing out of my kit lens and looking for a replacement walk-around lens for general usage (holidays, family gatherings, nights with friends). The two main choices are the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Both have tracked to similar prices on amazon UK (£650 for either today).
I like the extra 1.5 stops of the Sigma, although that is partly balanced by the 3-stop compensation claimed by the Canon. However, I’m worried about the reduced reach of the 18-35.
I already have the Canon 50mm so that would be a replacement for any portraits and I’d keep my current 18-55 kit lens but I wouldn’t want to switch too much from a walk-around lens. Shorter and longer focal lengths are covered by other lenses I already have.
In an attempt to answer my own question I reviewed 835 recent photos from similar events to where I’d use the new lens. I collated the focal length of each shot and charted the results. In short, I shoot a lot at either end of my focal length range and should never buy a 40mm lens! The analysis shows that the 18-35 focal range excludes 28% of the photos I’ve previously shot. But half of those are just “get as close as possible” shots. I know that focal length is not the same as zoom and that I can crop photos instead to make the subject bigger in the frame. This is where the questions come in:
Thanks in advance, and please feel free to laugh at the fact that nearly half my photos on a zoom lens are at the min and max lengths!
Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:
Amazon Smile Link: this one
|Country|Link|Charity Links|
|:-----------|:------------|:------------|
|USA|smile.amazon.com|EFF|
|UK|www.amazon.co.uk|Macmillan|
|Spain|www.amazon.es||
|France|www.amazon.fr||
|Germany|www.amazon.de||
|Canada|www.amazon.ca||
|Italy|www.amazon.it||
To help donate money to charity, please have a look at this thread.
This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.
If you wouldn't mind me asking, what is the difference between the lens you suggested and this bad boy?
I had a kit very similar to yours before Christmas. I had the T1i, and the same two lenses (assuming you meant EF-S, since I've never heard of EF lenses coming in those numbers). I found myself wanting to do more and more macro work, so I ended up with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. I haven't had much time to play with it yet, but the reviews on Amazon are spectacular. My only complaint is the lack of IS (which both of my other lenses have), but it certainly wasn't worth the extra $300 to get the next lens up.
A Macro lens will say "Macro" on it and have a focusing distance of much closer. They're more expensive because of this.
You'd want something like this lens to do really close up shots like you're talking about.
This is a good lens to go with for that...
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417540319&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=100mm+macro
It's big brother in the L series is here for a little more:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002NEGTSI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1417540319&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=100mm+macro
This is why a decent macro lens costs 600USD, without camera body. See https://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Fixed-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3.
This looks like a benign melanoctic nevus. You may want to visit a plastic surgeon. Remember, anything can be removed including your left eye. However, the most important question is the final cosmetic outcome: will it be better or worse than baseline? Can you live with the result?
Thanks! I bought the camera to film chemistry reactions in macro :P, was using a friends Canon 6D before.
This lens - https://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Fixed-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3
With the Metabones Canon EF adapter for the new Lumix G40.
Just any macro lens?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-Macro-Lens-Cameras/dp/B00004XOM3
But you probably want one compatible with your camera's mount and within your price range.
I have the 100 mm non L version by canon. Very very nice lens
100 mm
here is a review of the lens as well.
100 mm canon macro review
I do have the 100mm 2.8L macro lens BUT if I could redo the purchase I wouldn't get the L series. It's a beautiful lens but it was just shy of a grand. I could have gotten the 100mm non L lens for half the price. I am a fan of the STM lenses and of course the USM lenses but I do shop with price considered now. The L isn't my first reason to look at a lens. Plus there are lots of lens rental websites so you can try before you buy or for using a lens once for vacation or something.
If you want to talk macro, PM me. I live macro photography. I'm no professional but I love seeing the details you miss all the time on small things. Super macro is also fun and quite challenging. http://digital-photography-school.com/super-macro-photography/
The prices have gone up a bit but still a decent price for what you get. I use my 100L fit family portraits too.
Non L is 600. Not cheap but not terribly expensive. It's an achievable goal if you really want it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?cache=a0071f54bb81555881641ed403b15faf&amp;pi=SX200_QL40&amp;qid=1407817888&amp;sr=8-2#ref=mp_s_a_1_2
>Macro is one of the most technical sides of photography, a good starter lens is the 100mm macro from canon http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?pc_redir=1410422622&amp;robot_redir=1
This lens, my god. This lens is one of the best purchases you'll ever make in the lens department. It's phenomenal for portraits, excellent for macro, and it's fast! It's nearly identical to the L version except without IS. Buy this lens, you'll keep it forever!
But also, Canon makes both a 50mm and a 60mm macro. You can look into those as they will be cheaper and more versatile for everyday photography.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?pc_redir=1395934335&amp;robot_redir=1
Skip the extension tubes especially on crop body and just get a real macro lens.
The non-L version of the 100mm f/2.8 can be had for $550 after rebate right now at Amazon - http://amzn.com/B00004XOM3?tag=amz-link-20 - and it's a great lens that nearly matches it's L-series counterpart in almost every way.
What I would have said as well. If you want a little extra reach could go Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 . It's technically for full frame (which some people have issue w/ on a crop body) but I used it exclusively on my apsc for years. I do more portraits so preferred the long end over the short end.
A single lens for a novice, I would recommend a zoom lens rather than a fixed.
If you have the money to pick of a collection of prime lenses that might be a different option if you want to go that way. You might want to pick up a set with the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm... yeah, it adds up.
The kit lens for the rebel series is the one mentioned earlier (EF-S 18-55) and older editions can be found for cheap. Looking over ebay I see them for $11.50, $8.50, $13.00, $10.61, ... The range of 18-55 is not terrific and many people ditch their kit lenses as soon as possible, but many others never move on from their initial kit lens. They are not that bad, and the market is flooded with them, so they can be had for cheap.
If you're willing to go off-brand and on a tight budget for a better zoom, better both in terms of better glass and more versatile midrange zoom, this Tameron lens is one of the best ranked among the 'cheap' category. 28-75 f/2.8 for $315 used like new. It is missing a lot of expensive features, no image stabilization, slow noisy motors, but the glass is good for a midrange zoom lens.
If you do have a little bit of money for a lens, my absolute favorite "inexpensive" canon lens for regular walkabout use is their 24-105 f/4 L-series lens for about $650 used. Excellent glass (it is an L-series) good mid range zoom, fast quiet motors, image stabalization, full-time manual focus. True it isn't the very similar f/2.8 flagship that sells for 4x the cost, which I would recommend if you had the money. It is a mighty fine mid-range lens.
The Tamron 28-75 seems to be very good value for your money compared to the other brands, it's only $449 at Amazon. I don't know if it's a big difference though.
Tamron 28-75mm 2.8
Good range and fast enough to get away with indoor work.
Adorama, where I think I bought mine.
Amazon
I purchased from Adorama. I had used the lens many times before buying it because my school had a bunch of them for us to use. When I got mine, I knew right away something was wrong with it because the focus ring was way too stiff/had too much friction when manual focusing. This seemed to mess with the AF and it would mis-focus (although not always). I called Adorama and they exchanged it free of charge. Second one was much smoother and it has served me well. It's my default lens for most shoots, unless I wanna get super close up to an actor, or I need to get really wide (and even then I usually end up just getting farther from the subject).
Is this the lens that you're talking about?
I have had a T1i for about a year now. some thoughts.
If you're looking at telephoto lenses be sure to get one with IS (image stabilization). If you are zoomed all the way in on something, any movement in the camera will be that much more noticeable without some sort of stabilization. I think most of the two lens kits include the 18-55mm IS and the 70-250mm IS. Both are ok.
The only substantial difference between the T1i and the T2i is that the T2i can record 1080p video at up to 60fps. The T1i can only do 720p at 24fps. The T2i also has a jack for an external microphone, which is really only handy if you plan to hook up a shotgun mic or a lavaliere mic for interviews, etc.
The main thing I'd suggest is to think about how you plan to use it as well as your budget. You can get a Canon Xsi (no video) that takes great pics for much less than a T1i or T2i. Spend that extra cash on a good lens (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B0000A1G05) for sharper pics. If you really want video, spring for the T2i.
Another important thing to keep in mind about the video... neither of these can autofocus while recording. You can manual focus, of course, but that's not always easy and the camera will shake while you do it. The Nikon D3100 is pretty new and it can do video while autofocusing... the first to handle that, I think.
Nikon and Canon are pretty comparable on all their features. Some people are die-hard in one direction, but for the novice (like me) it's really impossible to tell the difference in the pics. The only thing about choosing a brand is that you're committing to buy those lenses in the future, so it's like getting married to your camera maker.
All that said, if creative picture-taking isn't high on the agenda, just get a good point and shoot. They're more portable, obviously.
Are you sure there isn't a switch for autofocus/manual?
This one has a switch for AF/M - you can see it in the lower right of the photo.
https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM?ie=UTF8&amp;*Version*=1&amp;*entries*=0
Which lens are you looking for? and how important is the adapter?
i have the non-art lens in very good condition but do not have the adapter.
Great suggestion. It makes the camera look a lot smaller too. If you need an even faster lens, I can highly recommend the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 <http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM&gt;
Set the camera in aperture priority mode and set it to lowest aperture number (wide open), manually set your ISO, starting around 400 and adjust upwards to get yourself the needed shutter speed to eliminate blur. It will all depend on how much light is in the room and what aperture you have.
IMHO, a 50 mm will not be wide enough for you.
This is the exact model: https://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-30mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZM
Thanks! I just searched Amazon and found the Sigma 30mm, and yeah, it's about twice my current budget, but I'll start saving. The good news is it's an f/1.4, which is better than my current prime (50mm f/1.8), which itself was leaps and bounds better than my 17-85mm f/4-5.6.
Seriously, I know everyone here intuitively grasps f-stops, but for me to make the jump to that 50mm prime, and see just how much more light it lets in was... well, a revelation!
I actually have a 70D as well, and i use a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, i got one on eBay in immaculate condition with the hood and case for $207.00 shipped. I like this lens a lot, its not super sharp until f/1.8-2.0, but even then it manages to pull a lot of light in, and its focus is able to be adjusted manually after AF without damaging the AF motors, which is pretty handy for super busy shots where you want to get that very narrow range of focus just right. Also, 30 x 1.6 (aps-c crop factor) = 48mm, the closest youll get to the equivalent of a 50mm full frame. I definitely recommend
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007U0GZM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_lIiWCbMFMSC9X
I'm still shooting with a 40D and it's a really great body, less flimsy than the rebels but easier to carry around than the bigger full frame bodies. I'd recommend checking out 3rd party lenses as well like tamron, sigma and tokina. If you aren't shooting pro I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference from canon/nikon lenses (usually sharpness and chromatic aberration aren't as up to par), and you're paying for significantly less. Typically you're gonna want 3 types of lenses, a wide angle, around 12-20, a walk-around lens, 30-55, and a telephoto, 70-200+, and the usefulness of each is going to depend on what kind of photography you'll be doing, like wide-angle is really useful for architecture and landscape, walk-arounds for street photography, telephoto for sports or birdwatching. FWIW I use mostly a Sigma 30mm prime. Do a lot of research, read all the reviews, and try stuff out first in a camera store if one is close to you.
To me it's a tie between this one and the Canon Nifty Fifty. I've seen so many good shots and amazing video from the Canon and it has a 4.5 star rating on over 1,700 reviews.
The Sigma only gets 4 stars.
What telephoto, Canon EF lens would you suggest? New, or lightly used is ok too. It doesn't have to be a Canon brand. I'd like to stay as far below $1,000 as I can. I don't care much about what the lower focal length is as I have other lenses that cover those, but I'd like the upper length from 200-300mm. This is going on a 6D.
I'm debating between the Canon 70-300 IS USM, the Canon 70-200 L, or the Tamron 70-300. Should I stay away from any of these, or is there another one to consider?
Thanks!
Thanks
This lens
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O
With this camera
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard/dp/B004MN00C4/ref=sr_1_18?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407159289&amp;sr=1-18&amp;keywords=canon+eos+rebel+t3i
Currently I have:
That would give you an advantage! 😃
I would recommend either the 70-300mm or 55-200mm. There's a price difference of course, but both great choices. Naturally a benefit of having an extra 100mm. Though make sure to get the lens with IS because it will make a difference. They do sell a 70-300mm lens without IS but I'd avoid.
https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O
https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-Stabilized-2044B002/dp/B0011NVMO8
You are probably the most helpful person I have ever encountered on the internet. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond with such eloquence and clarity! It is a graduation gift, and due to some hinting about a camera store sale this weekend I think I may be ending up with a t3i. I will check out the Canon loyalty program just in case.
I would love a 100-400mm, but it looks like that lens starts at about $1400, which will be out of my price range for likely a few years. What do you think of this 70-300 mm with f 4-5.6 and image stabilitation? That would be reasonable for me to save up to.
Thank you again for being so helpful!
Also, what is your opinion of tele-converters?
If you are looking for a compromise and dont want to shell out for the L glass check out the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I have this lens and its great for what it is. Sure its not an L lens but its does the job and I dont regret getting it.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
I bought this camera two years ago and have loved it. Feel free to ask me any questions about it.
Lowest price the 60D has ever been, probably because of the recent release of its successor, the 70D. Check out this page for more information on the lens bundle deals
Thanks, this was very helpful information. I am thinking about getting this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000O161X0/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_RFjxxbMKCMQ1P. Any glaring errors?
I would say it depends on the price. In the US, from a reputable dealer, the D7000 can be had for about $1200 for the body alone and the 55-200mm VR lens runs about $150.
From what I've heard the 55-200 VR is, taking the relatively low price into consideration, worth it. Of course there are better and faster lenses out there, but they're going to be at least 4x the price. So if the package you're looking at is less than $1350, I'd go with it.
Ah so grateful! Really, I needed this sort of 'debate' ironed out because it's bugging me. If I begin to sound like I'm counter-pointing I apologize, it's probably due to my lack of knowledge
Now, I probably should have lead on with this but sometimes I forget I even have one because the quality is lousy. I have a 55-200 and it's this one.
Again, I only use it if really necessary as I've never really liked a single photo that's come out of it. So I technically have the focal range but the photos are just so bad I don't even like pretending I own it.
The 70-200 is very nice. But it's arguably more expensive than the original lens I am out seeking. The end goal is to own a full frame, 24-70, and a 70-200 as they are champions in the game haha.
I believe the 85mm would hold me over for now and would provide a fill for the tighter focal length I'm seeking. If it turns out that I have a huge demand for my services (one can dream) then having that for tight shots, the 50mm for slightly wider and 'tight spaces', and the 18-35 for environmental portraits, I think I would be in good shape as long as my client could wait while I swapped the lens in and out haha
perhaps this would be more suitable https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-Vibration-Reduction-packaging/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=Nikon+AF-P+DX+NIKKOR+70-300mm+f%2F4.5-6.3G+ED+VR&qid=1562699521&refinements=p_n_condition-type%3A6461716011&rnid=6461714011&s=gateway&sr=8-13#customerReviews
Nikon.
Here it is if I'm not mistaken. Pretty good little lens.
I'm not sure about the price at Best Buy, I got it off amazon here http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000O161X0/ref=mp_s_a_2?pi=SL75&amp;qid=1347483141&amp;sr=8-2.
I notice someone else mentioned another 50mm without an AF feature. I would say not to get that one if you can afford to. You'll want the one with AF support for any fast moving subjects outside of what you normally shoot. Plus it's just simpler most days. Of course if you don't have the money for it, that's fine. The one with AF is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004Y1AYAC/ref=mp_s_a_1?pi=SL75&amp;qid=1347483321&amp;sr=8-1
Hey all,
Years ago I purchased a Rebel T2i that came with a 18-55mm IS lens. I then added on a 55-250mm IS II and a 55mm.
I haven't shot with them as much as I should have, but i'm now getting back into it. I'm about to add hood lenses to all of them (tip from a Youtube video I saw) and I will get out and start shooting more. My interest range from landscape, structures, portrait and anything really. I do have two questions though!
Thanks!
Premiere is my main editing software for this project. I would suggest you learn a bit of Photoshop and After Effects as well, if you have the time. The 3 programs work seemlessly together and you can create some very cool stuff.
Lenses: Canon 50mm
Standard 18-55mm that came with the T4i
Opteka Fisheye
External mic: Cheap 30$ mic I ordered from china. The resulting audio is surprisingly good.
Manual is the way to go with video, usually. As long as you arent going in/out of well lit/shady areas, so you adjust your settings to adapt to your surroundings. It takes more time to prepare, and takes alot of practice so know what to adjust and when, but in the end your shots will come out exactly how you see them on screen.
Believe it or not, I have very little experience with camera manipulation. I consider myself more of editor. This trip was one big experiment for me to test out what it would be look to haul camera gear around on my first trip ever. I think its apparent in the footage that my camera work did get better over time.
As for shooting/travelling advice:
-Test out your gear before you leave
-Bring extra batteries, memory cards. Depending on where you're travelling too, it could be hard to find a power source or computer to charge your camera or backup your footage.
-Watch your footage after filming it, it may not have come out like you wanted it to. Adjust settings for the next time you shoot.
-Everyone has a shooting style, I liked to leave my tripod still and get shots fixed on a certain area, seeing as my shitty tripod made most camera movements look bad. Please, for the love of god, when taking still shots, do not move your camera before less than 4 seconds. Its very frustrating to have a nice shot in your footage but it only lasts 1.5 seconds.
-Dont bring a shitty tripod.
-Again, I dont know what your goal is in documenting your travels, but as akward as it may be sometimes, try to capture human interaction, especially with those you are meeting/just met. I regret not filming enough of these encounters because it means I missed out on alot of good content.
Thats all for now, if you got any more questions, shoot!
Thanks!
I just got home and looked, the lens I have is this one:
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
The first picture clearly has motion blur (the doubled-up edges on the leaves). Not to blame the victim, but: are you pressing the shutter with a gentle press or a sudden poke? Because this looks a lot like the picture taken by an "angry snapper". Does the other lens you use on your Lumix G7 have Image stabilization? (I think it should say "OIS" on the lens). If the G7's lens is OIS, then the issue may just be that you're shaking the camera when you snap a shot, and the Lumix compensates for it while the Canon doesn't. (And the Lumix doesn't compensate when the canon lens is on because the canon lens lacks image stabilization).
Canon sells an 18-55 IS version with stabilization. You may be able to find one of those on the used market for relatively little money.
Now, having said all of that: if your lens IS the (er...) IS version, then the IS system is broken and the elements are jiggling all around in there, and you need to buy a new lens, and none of it is your fault.
Hello all,
I have some Lens questions.
I recently bought a new camera Sony Ax 6000. The kit came with a E 3.5-5.6 16-50mm lens and E 4.5-6.3 55-210mm lens. I'm trying to find out if I can use my old lenses from my Dads Canon. From my understanding they are a lot better then the Sony lenses I currently have. Is there some conversion kit I can pick up or is it not worth it and I should just buy better Sony lenses. Or since the old camera is a dslr those lenses wont work on a mirror less?
It is an EOS 20D Canon.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLU
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-75-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00004THD0
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG
Really appreciate the help. Thank You
Hi guys, I am not sure whether this is a good place to post this, so please feel free to delete if it violates the rules.
I am looking to upgrade from a Canon T3 to a smaller, potentially mirrorless, camera. I would like to sell my T3 + gear and use that cash toward the new camera.
What is a reasonable price to ask for this stuff:
Canon EOS Rebel T3 Digital SLR Camera DS126291
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-18-55mm-discontinued-manufacturer/dp/B004J3Y9U6
Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS II
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B000V5K3FG
Tiffen 58mm UV Protection Filter
http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-58mm-UV-Protection-Filter/dp/B00004ZCJI
Case Logic SLRC-201 SLR Zoom Holster (Black)
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Logic-SLRC-201-Holster-Black/dp/B001TZUS98
AmazonBasics Backpack for SLR/DSLR Cameras and Accessories - Black
http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Backpack-DSLR-Cameras-Accessories/dp/B002VPE1WK
Generic 58mm Hood
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens - Fixed
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-discontinued-manufacturer/dp/B0011NVMO8
Thanks!
I just bought a Canon t3i with 3 lenses for $350 for purposes of shooting video mostly indoors. Anyways, it came with 3 lenses and I don't know their "general purpose" or what I "should" sell. Here they are
18-55 lens, maybe sell this and get a 50 prime?
[Macro lens] (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B000AM7CJ0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1412478931&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=sigma+dg+70-300mm)
[telephoto lens] (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-III-Telephoto-Packaging/dp/B003MOHM0C/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1412478983&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=canon+75-300mm+lens)
Lens one, two, and three. Two came with the package when I bought the camera as a deal at Best Buy, the other one (the 18-55) I bought used off of Amazon. 85% of the time I just use the 18-135mm anyway.
The lens : Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II SLR Lens https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000V5K3FG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apip_baPclcc5Fy8vX
Thank you, trying to cancel the order atm.
Would a 18-55mm lens do wide and telephoto? Or for that matter, is there any one lens that would be capable of doing wide, normal, and telephoto (even if not drastically, but enough to technically count)?
I found this one, and this one. Are these right? If so, should I get one over the other?
Thanks again for catching my mistake, and helping me with this. I really, really appreciate it :)
Your response is exactly what I need.
I currently have a Canon EF 55-250 and a Canon Ef 18-55.
Maybe I should sell my 50mm and buy this because I'd have no use for a 50mm if I get the 18-55mm. Thanks, by the way.
It's not a prime lens but this is what I use and I've really grown fond of it.
It's probably a little bit slow in the autofocus department for what you are looking for but it's a hell of a steal for what you get.
Are you talking about the tamron with or without the stabilization ?
I owned the Nikon 70-300mm f/4~5.6 ED until I bounced it off of a sidewalk after getting brushed by an in-line skater. Eventually I replaced it with a 70-300mm VR. The newer lens is better in almost every aspect.
All xx-300mm f/5.6 lenses I've seen share the same challenge. For best results, you want to stop down to at least f/8, and when using these lenses handheld wthout VR you want to keep the shutter speed at 1/500th or faster to minimize the effects of camera shake. Depending on the light and the dSLR, that can mean cranking up the ISO to where noise begins to intrude. The result is a small "shooting envelope" where one can get the best result. For stationary subjects, VR can extend that envelope considerably, but as filyr points out, it does nothing for subject motion.
If you're still interested in a non-stabilized 70-300mm, I'd recommend this Tamron over either of the ones you list:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02
I have the same camera and had the same questions and settled for one of these:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF-70-300mm-4-5-6-Macro/dp/B0012UUP02
Really happy with it.
Hi, i am wondering what the difference is between $150 lens and $400 lens. I have a nikon D3200 with kit lens rn and im looking to get the 70-300mm. Anyways, whats the difference in the lenses below:
The one im looking to get ($150): https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm-Motorized-Telephoto-Digital/dp/B0012X43P2/ref=sr_1_12?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1469401990&amp;sr=1-12&amp;keywords=nikon+70-300
The expensive one ($400): https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1469402065&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=nikon+70-300
Another cheaper one: https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_4?s=photo&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1469402084&amp;sr=1-4&amp;keywords=nikon+70-300
A DSLR at your budget is still an option as well - in fact, more so, if you want to look for telephoto (long range/large focal length) lenses. You can find really good deals on telephoto lenses in store, at amazon or at sites like craiglist - probably because these lenses don't have much use everyday, except maybe if you go to the zoo. For example, for your budget, you can pick up an entry-level DSLR, Canon 1200D - 2014 model - £250 new - includes 18-55mm kit lens (that's the focal length you will be using most of the time), and pair it with a Canon 55-250mm lens for £140. Also, bear in mind, a 55-250mm lens for a Canon really equates to 88mm-400mm in "35mm focal length". As all cameras see things differently, they have been standardised to its '35mm/full frame' equivalent. Now, off course, you can go for the Nikon equivalent, which would be the Nikon D3300 (widely acknowledged to be the best entry level DSLR), which goes for £320 with 18-55 kit lens. And pair it with one of many zoom lenses, such as this one from Tamron, 70-300mm, new for 80£. Also note that when looking at lenses for DSLRs, apart from looking at whether it's the correct mount, also check whether it has autofocus or not. You probably will want autofocus, especially if you haven't come from using manual focus before, and that you will be taking a lot of photos, not just one or two carefully composed pics!
Now, the reason why I didn't mention DSLRs previously is because they are pretty big! So keep that in mind. Also, the telephoto lens from Canon and Nikon are really cheap, even new. Quality wise, the're not 'wedding lenses' which are typically telephoto lenses with a really large aperture. But... they will be completely fine, and exceed, at taking pictures in normal lighting conditions. Given that both Canon and Nikon DSLRs have a large sensor, these budget telephoto lens will be able to take nice photos even in the evening. Also, you can switch out to the kit lenses which should be more than sufficient.
Nature photography, do you want to look at the small macro world or zoom in on larger animals?
Either way, a DSLR with a zoom lens (with macro option on it) will be where I would start.
Something where you can get an inexpensive 70-300mm lens like this https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1523837106&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=70-300mm+macro
I just got a Nikon D3500 with the 18-55mm kit lens. I am looking for another lens that I can do some zooming in with as well as take some macro shots. I found this lens on Amazon but do not really know if it is a good buy or not. Any recommendations? Trying not to break the bank.
Is it really necessary or would I be fine with the Tamron 18-200? The Sigma will cost me an extra $100 after conversion and import fees. Besides the extra 50mm, why is the Sigma better than the Tamron?
EDIT: Just reassessed my situation. I don't think I need something that's 18-2xx. I have a big camera bag and besides it being convenient, I can save more money by purchasing a 70-300. That way my kit lens won't be a waste and I can still use it if necessary.
I think I'll be deciding between these two.
1 and 2
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1412856422&amp;sr=8-9&amp;keywords=camera+lens
Which kind of adapter will I need to be able to use this lens? For a macro lens, I don't think that no AF will be too much of a big deal, because if you're doing macro photography, you're using MF anyway, right? Or am I ill-informed? Thanks.
Hey guys,
&#x200B;
There are some offers for the D3500, I'm looking for the best and I do need a 70-300.
I've seen a 70-300 for 100€ on Amazon : https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=twister_B001RPM7M6?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
What kit would you buy ? 350€ + 100€ or only the 550€ ?
I have a d5200 and I was looking into lenses. Wondering what your opinions are on these?
https://www.amazon.ca/Sigma-70-300mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0012X43P2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1492707485&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=sigma+70
or
https://www.amazon.ca/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1492707527&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=nikon+lense+70
I've been shooting lots of landscape lately and for the price, these lenses seem to be good? Are there any other lenses you guys would recommend?
I am looking to buy cheap telephoto/macro lens. So far I am set on Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD
Also have seen the used Nikon AF-S 55-300 mm 1:4.5-5.6 popup. Would it be better than Tamron?
Is this a good choice? Any other alternatives?
Would a Tamron brand be better, then? I don't want a fake Nikon, as I assume the quality would be bad. I don't care about it not being Nikon brand, I just want it to be good quality.
https://www.amazon.ca/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=pd_cp_421_1/130-8602092-9791136?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0012UUP02&pd_rd_r=541415ae-5bb3-4c80-a8bb-632a76952e9c&pd_rd_w=TjG0b&pd_rd_wg=R0jT4&pf_rd_p=0959e7da-83b6-46ad-a4f1-6c34fa3b4640&pf_rd_r=MQWSVYQXV20D40KVB9GD&psc=1&refRID=MQWSVYQXV20D40KVB9GD
For reference, I use the 18-55mm kit lens the D3100 came with, and also picked up the following lenses:
Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - I've found this to be a pretty damn reasonable telephoto & macro lens for the price. A couple of photos taken with it, for reference: wet flower (macro), WizzAir jet landing (full zoom), pigeon eating bread (full zoom).
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - lovely fast prime - I couldn't really justify the extra cash to go for the 1.4 version, but this one has worked very well for me so far. 35mm on a crop sensor like the D3100/D3200 ends up about the same as a 50mm on a full-frame camera. A couple of sample shots: custom motorcycle engine, York gate emblem, Wilmot-Breeden calormeter.
I also grabbed an ancient used Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 prime for £30, but as a lens without a focus motor, it can only be used in full manual. However, it can also produce some good images, e.g. bacon roll, lily flower, laptop keyboard. If you're willing to play around in full manual mode (and I'd recommend it, if you want to learn the most you can about photography), starting with something like that could make a lot of sense.
Hope this helps somewhat.
I have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and love it. By far the sharpest lens I own, and this is counting it against the 24-70 f2.8, 24-105 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 that I have.
But supposedly, the 85 f/1.4 is even more stunning.
And of course the beast of the Sigma lineup is this baby: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU
> Canon have a 200-500 f/5.6?
Canon doesn't, but Sigma has a nice one!
Required for all m- your stalking occasions
But... But I neeeed it
[This] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013DAPNU/ref=s9_acsd_simh_hd_bw_bc3Blz_c_x_w?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-4&amp;pf_rd_r=YAGW1YHRAQPH77VESJ1P&amp;pf_rd_r=YAGW1YHRAQPH77VESJ1P&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_p=c5f5f3cf-7373-4ac7-8927-9bdd75b91f85&amp;pf_rd_p=c5f5f3cf-7373-4ac7-8927-9bdd75b91f85&amp;pf_rd_i=562261011) is also very reasonably priced. You need to get that extra zoom
With this, the photographer could have retaliated against such an attack.
You could probably have afforded the tokina, £403 on Amazon. Second hand or grey market on ebay you could get it even less. Not dismissing the 10-22, just saying the tokina is affordable these days. Especially for Canon as the older version without the in-lens AF motor is just as useful as the newer one.
I thought they made a Canon mount. try this?
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16-Canon-Digital-ATX116PRODXC/dp/B0014Z3XMC
and also the Tokina 11-16 is also a great lens!!
It's in stock at Amazon (3rd party seller) and Adorama.
In fact, I think it was always available at Amazon the past 3-4 months (I was checking them once or twice a week).
How wide? If you're looking at something in the sub-20mm range you're better off with a zoom lens. There's a number of great prime lenses in the range but really they don't offer anything for a canon user that makes them worth it over a zoom. Two of your best options are the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS ($300) or for a bit more the Tokina 11-16mm ($490).
If you want something longer (20-50mm) there's an absolute glut of options from a bunch of different lens makers. But, once again, given the quality of some of the zoom lenses in the range it's hard to recommend a fixed lens. Something like the Sigma 18-35 f1.8($800) is expensive but for what you get it's an absolute steal.
But like I said there's a ton of options in the range and this site is a great resource for reviews.
Amazon has a few left. It's always been a bit short-supplied. Fantastic lens, BTW.
He used this camera with (this)[https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-2-8-Digital-Lens/dp/B0014Z3XMC], and he doesn't remember the settings except f/16 and ISO100
Tokina 11-16mm is a killer wide angle lens, especially if you're talking about the 2.5k camera.
2.5k, not 2.7k...whoops!
That is a nice lens and does exactly what I want but I just found these two lenses that I really like. Are you familiar with them?
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00XK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1418439271&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=sigma+10-20mm+f%2F4-5.6+ex+d+hsm&amp;pebp=1418439276830
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1418439061&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=tokina+11-16mm+f%2F2+at-x116+pro+dx&amp;pebp=1418439086107
which one would you recommend? DO you think the extra cash is worth getting the Tokina 11-16mm? Again I really appreciate you helping me out thanks :D
So I have a Canon T3i and a 50mm f/1.8 II. In the near future, I will be purchasing a new lens. I'm still a newbie, so I don't really have a specific style and I just shoot what's in front of me. I've been doing predominantly street photography and auto photography, but i'm also looking to branch out. It's come to my attention that I should have a wide angle lens in my arsenal as I was begging for a wider perspective when I went to my first auto show a couple weeks ago. It made framing weird, and I had to move back which was quite inconvenient in a packed show like that. I also love landscapes and views so I want something wide to capture those as well.
Here are some of the choices I'm considering.
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens
Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens
There are also a couple lenses that I have stumbled upon that are not as wide, but have a longer focal length which may double as more than just a wide-angle.
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens (really have my eye on this one!)
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens
This is all a bit confusing for a noob like me, so any help is appreciated it. If you feel like there is a better option, please do recommend it to me! And also, i'm on a working-class student budget.
One last question, how do you feel about used lenses. Just curious towards your experiences as i feel like they can be bargains. Lenses are built to last a long time if they're taken care of right? Sorry for the long post but thanks in advanced!
I recently went on a once in a lifetime trip to France for two weeks, so hopefully I can provide some helpful advice/insight.
First, and I cannot stress this enough, have enough memory! I'd recommend bringing at least 16GB, if not more.
I brought two 8GB cards to France and transfered them to my computer each night. I never used the second card, however, if I wouldn't have had the luxury of transferring to a laptop each night, I would have quickly exceeded this.
If you are able to bring a computer or other means by which to back up your photos, I'd STRONGLY recommend it. It's great peace of mind to not have to worry about losing pictures or running out of room.
Second, DO NOT use the Auto mode, that just makes your DSLR a big point and shoot. A lot of people recommend using M(anual), but it can be a little overwhelming if you're not used to your camera. The Av (Aperture Priority) mode is great because it allows you to select the aperture value you want (which will effect what's in focus and Depth of Field) while automatically determining the rest. Constipated_Help gave you some very sound advice on exposure, so follow that if you're able.
Third, make sure you have the right accessories. A tripod would be great for landscape shots. The Dolica Proline is a great value at 40$. At least one extra battery would be good to have, especially if you will not be able to recharge during the trip. An Opteka t2i battery can be had for 12$, and works with your Canon charger.
If you can swing it, a new lens would be good to have since the lens is the determining factor of image quality. If you like to "zoom" and isolate subjects, you'll want a telephoto. The Canon 55-250 IS is a great deal at 240$. If you like wide angle, you'll need an ultra wide. These will typically run above 400$. I have a Tokina 11-16 and I am very pleased. As others have recommended, the Canon 50 1.8 is an incredible deal at 100$ and provides creative options with it's wide aperture.
A nice bag is also a good thing to have. You can buy either a messenger style, a holster or a backpack. Filters would also be nice, but they're not a necessity.
I hope this can help. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to (try to) help! :)
Well it's not really my career, it's just something I wanted to do so I decided to do it and did it. Honestly, I'd recommend you do the same. These days, the equipment is very good and very cheap (compared to even 10 years ago) and there are tons of free resources online.
Honestly, I just bought a camera and started making little mini-docs about random stuff just for practice. For example, my brother graduated from high school, so I went back and made a little mini-documentary about that, with interviews with my parents and such. I didn't do anything with it; the whole thing was just for practice. Once I got to the point where I felt like I was good enough to make something watchable given a little funding and a lot of time, then we started working on Living with Dead Hearts.
If you want to get into making documentaries as a career, you should know that you're sort of taking a vow of poverty (it's very rare that a documentary does the Michael Moore thing and plays in major theaters or rakes in much money). Especially given that, I'd say avoid film school; take some film classes at your college if you can while majoring in something else, and mostly just buy a camera and learn by doing.
You can buy a Canon 60D body, a couple good lenses (the 50mm 1.4 is great for interviews, Tokina 11-16 is wonderful for wider stuff and handheld shooting), a Zoom H4N and a mic or two for well under $3,000, especially if you buy used (and you should as long as the goods are still OK). But honestly even if you're just shooting with an iPhone, the best advice is just to go start shooting mini-docs and learning about how to tell stories and communicate best in that form. Also watch docs and see what you like and don't like, what you think works and what doesn't. I don't know if my film is any good, but anything good in it is probably something I stole from other docs.
I found these two books to be very helpful, if you can only afford two:
Shut up and Shoot Documentary Guide - great basic overview of a lot of the basics, with illustrations. How to mic someone correctly, how to frame a shot properly, etc. All the practical skills you need to get started are here.
Directing the documentary - A film school textbook that covers EVERYTHING, from this history of documentary filmmaking to the practical stuff and, probably most importantly, the conceptual and ethical stuff. It's written as though you'll be directing a film with a real crew (you won't) and it's full of homework-style exercises like a textbook (some useful) but it's very worthwhile for the ethics stuff alone. As I've touched on elsewhere in this thread, shooting a doc can put you in some ethically tough positions, and you want to be sure you've thought out where you stand before you're sitting in someone's living room realizing you've just ruined their life.
I would say look on used B&H and KEH.com for lenses
Full frame I would say a used 24-70mm 2.8 L is great (this lens has been a great help to me over the years)
For a asp-c sensor (rebel/7d ect) I would really say look at the Tokina 11-16mm. http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC Great lens for the money! So good that companies rehouse them and sell/rent them to cinematographers for almost 3 grand http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281263585281?lpid=82&amp;chn=ps
All the best!!
Also there is nothing wrong with getting the 450 dollar Tokina and a few old soviet lenses http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&amp;_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1311.R1.TR3.TRC1.A0.H0.XMIR+len.TRS0&amp;_nkw=mir+lens&amp;ghostText=&amp;_sacat=0
they are a ton of fun to shoot with
Actually I just checked his amazon wish list and this was on it. Is this comparable to anything on bestbuy? Link
Its annoying how this subreddit downvotes everything immediately. I'm gathering you're looking for a quality wide angle lens that's good got filming video with? The problem is that a sharp zoom lens that also is good wide open is going to be expensive. I'm not sure what you're filming, but I would say you may be able to get away with a good 35mm lens. Sticking with a prime will allow you to get a good quality lens with a wide aperture for close to the budget that you want. I know Zeiss makes excellent video lenses, but they are expensive. One that I have used is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens. Its sharp, bright, and can be used in manual focus decently, althought I'm not sure it has image stabilization (which I'm assuming you want for video?). Certainly not an expert, but hope this helps.
Hi all.
I'm currently in the market to try and upgrade my current gear for my Nikon D7100, and I would appreciate some feedback / suggestions / general thoughts on my choices.
Thanks in advance!
Current Gear & Amazon Links
Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-40mm-2-8G-Micro-NIKKOR/dp/B005C50H2Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239451&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+40mm
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239371&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+35mm
Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Micro-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002SQKVE4/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239387&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=nikon+85mm
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239400&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+55-200mm
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6G-AF-S-Nikkor/dp/B000ZMCILW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239408&amp;sr=8-2&amp;keywords=nikon+18-55mm
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-10-24mm-3-5-4-5G-Wide-Angle-Digital/dp/B0026FCKC8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1411239420&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=nikon+10-24mm
Possible Lens:
Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000144I30/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=IVNS308RGQQCV
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JKUPRF4/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I31O79P9M4Q1LY
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VDCT3C/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I2N8O785AXS9I0
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000144I2Q/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I1EPOEZPN5J3EG
Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EOSHGQ/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=IANEM6J7PPWIZ
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I1B0R1WZS8SHQD
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005LE74/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=I2WCPU28S06PES
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TAP096/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&amp;colid=1TM9469NHCNQ0&amp;coliid=IQH4TBDDGW9QQ
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR FX Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=hsx_crw_8490290011_tl_1?pf_rd_p=1725118622&amp;pf_rd_s=center-5&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_i=8490290011&amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_r=0R6RD5CPZ4S5DR84N9G1
Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-60mm-2-8G-Micro-Nikkor-Cameras/dp/B0013A1XDY/ref=zg_bs_173565_80
What I'm thinking:
From the potential lens that I could get, I definitely want to invest in the 18-300mm lens.
With that lens added to my current gear, I could then get rid of the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lens from my gear. Changing my total lens count from six to five.
I want to keep the 10-24mm lens. I don't see the purpose of having the 10.5mm lens, so I must just cut that out.
The lens from the potential list (24-70mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, 24-85mm f2.8) I could remove from my list because if I understand this correctly, this seems more of a choice for people who want that extra step in the f stop.
I'm in a debate about which one of these to chose from to either replace or upgrade the 35mm I have in my bag, and the two I'm looking at are 50mm f1.8D and 50mm f1.8G. I'm just not sure if it is worth the upgrade in terms of a better overall picture or just to stick with the 35mm.
I am a little bit confused about the 85mm that I have and whether to upgrade it with the 60mm or the 105mm. If I understand that macro world of lens correctly, the 60mm would be the ideal choice, correct?
Lastly, I am in debate about keeping the 40mm with my given choices. I'm also not aware of what the 85mm f1.8 could offer, if it will replace a lens or just add another option to my gear bag.
In summation, here is the current gear:
: Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR Lens
: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
: Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens
: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens
: Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens
: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
What I will most likely keep if I go through my possible changes:
My new gear set:
: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens
: Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens
: Nikon 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro-Nikkor Lens
: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR Lens
: Maybe one of the 50mm or the 85mm f1.8
Any thoughts would be appreciated on this.
Thanks again in advance!
Hier ist das Sigma 200 auf Amazon- kostet nur schlappe 18000 Euro und ist nur 73cm lang und 16kg schwer.
Die Canon 1600mm ist übrigens noch extremer, wenn man sich die google-Bildsuche so ansieht.
i want a new camrea lens. this one to be exact. i also want this camrea bag.
What are the difference between these 2 lens? I have a Canon 70d.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-210110-18-35mm-APS-C-sensors/dp/B00DE74U8O/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1416922725&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=sigma+18-35mm+f1.8+dc+hsm&amp;pebp=1416922776688
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-210101-18-35mm-Canon-APS-C/dp/B00DBL0NLQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1416923104&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=sigma+18-35mm+f1.8+dc+hsm&amp;pebp=1416923140110
I do have a crop sensor lens. Can the first link fit in my DSLR?
Hey, I took a quick look at that video and it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to match that style of production. It looks like he might be using two cameras to film (one wide shot for him speaking to the camera, one lowered and tighter shot focused on the action on the table) but you could replicate this by using one camera with a zoom lens and a tripod that tilts down.
Affiliate links below
As for budget camera that fits this niche, I would recommend getting a refurbished Canon 80D (https://amzn.to/2EiB0OP). There's nothing flashy about this camera but it is very user friendly and offers a lot of good video features in an affordable body. It's over your $700 camera budget but not by far. If that budget is a hard limit then I would recommend going down to the Canon SL2 (https://amzn.to/2ElJ40Z) which offers similar features but generally lower quality and one area that it really lacks compared to the 80D is the autofocus.
For both of these you would want to upgrade out of the kit lens to something that opens to a wider aperture because the style you are emulating uses a lot of out of focus elements. I would suggest eventually going to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (https://amzn.to/2SyGZE6) but try to find a used one because buying used lenses is a great way to save money.
For lighting, I recommend just getting one good light to start, a reflector/bounce board kit and watching some tutorials. You can do a lot with 1 light and a good understanding of the basics.
Something like this for the light: (https://amzn.to/2SyGZE6)
Cheap light stand: (https://amzn.to/2H7nnoy)
Reflector kit: (https://amzn.to/2Syi6si)
So all in to start you would be looking at about $1100-1200 and if you want to upgrade down the road the best place to do that would be in high quality lenses
Do you know if this lens is any good for what you're talking about?
https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0