Lenses For Dummies

[Tailwag]

The 70-300 IS (samples shown) should be under $1000.

Yep i paid around $995 but i think this may have dropped some now i got mine on line via digital camera warehouse. You should be able to pick it up at a fairly reasonable price if you shop around at present this is the only lens i use.

Thanks Chezzyr it was taken around 6.30 am a while back

The examples i have gven are really just to give an idea at what the lens can achieve

[PooMother]

I am not that familiar with canons lens range, But for the doggies i find i am usually around the 200mm mark. I see cannon have a 70-300mm Im not sure what this lens is like but it is $900.00 ish and would slot in to your existing set up nicely. they also have a 18-200, this would cover a wide focal range and mean less changing.

I will pull my head in now and let the canon people come and give you their real world experience

when I look at the lenses available for cannon i have brand envy look at them all!!! http://www.d-d-photographics.com/canonlenses.htm and they are white and comparably inexpensive....

Right Ive looked at this site and now I am totally confused

[chezzyr]

Having a quick look D-D online have the lens at $885

http://www.d-d-photographics.com/canonlenses.htm#70-300is

Edited December 16, 2008 by chezzyr

[Tailwag]

That is a pretty good price and i would be amazed to get it cheaper than that

[PooMother]

Well, allow $2500 for the one Luke mentioned.

and a little more.....i looked into it when i bought my 2.8L USM (Only) lens today that set me back $1600+, but man i bet it is gonna be worth every cent when it arrives

Excellent cant wait to see pics from it.

[ruthless]

Here's a gallery of pics taken with the 70-300 IS. There are galleries for most lenses, if you just do a search. Fred Miranda is good for reviews.

Check eBay, you might pick one up secondhand.

[Guest Tess32]

Be nice if we could all afford the 70-200L IS hey?

[Ripley]

Ok I need to set the budget somewhat higher then by the looks of it :-)

Not at all. I'd get the one chezzyr mentions (the Canon 70-300 IS). I've recommended this lens to monelite too. Ruthless has it and so do a few other DOLers. Unless I wanted to shoot professionally, I wouldn't spend $2.5k on one lens. Can't justify it personally. If you want to take nice dog images, that Canon lens above should do just fine.

I do have the 70-200mm L f/4 without the IS facility on it, but I got my boss to get it for me when he went to the US earlier this year and when the dollar was up around the 90 cent mark (ah, remember those times?) so I only paid AUD$650 for it, plus $AUD50 for a 3 year int'l warranty. Good grief, that was a bargain.

ETA: Here is a photo taken of a wild lorikeet with the lens above, hand holding (wish I did have a lens with IS with it, but I don't so have to try and make do). This shot needs a good crop when I get around to it.

I noticed ruthless posted up some lovely bird shots taken with the 70-300mm the other day you might like to check out too.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Ripley

[rocco]

I have to agree with Ripely. I know some people that went out and bought their first DSLR gear. A canon 40D (is this a flashy camera for canon, if not one of the top canon ranges) and the 70-200 f2.8 - $2.5K lens. All because they got in a zone to "have the best". They didn't need a $2.5K lens to achieve what they do. I cringe at nearly $4K of gear to pot around the house with, but hey, they are happy with what they get I guess and that's what counts.

If you have the money then why not, but I def dont think people should stretch themselves.

[Guest Tess32]

I have a 70-300 IS for sale for $650....retails for about $800...

[ruthless]

I may know someone who'll buy it ... can you hold it for a few minutes!

Ooops, just realised PooMother might want it too :rolleyes:

Edited December 17, 2008 by ruthless

[Guest Tess32]

You're first in if they want it....:rolleyes:

[chezzyr]

I think there is a risk of people getting caught up in the

"wow that is an awesome photo, must buy that same camera/lens too".

When really the resulting image could be a result of technique

and image manipulation/post processing too.

[Luke W]

.

Edited December 20, 2008 by left the building

[Tailwag]

I have to agree with Ripely. I know some people that went out and bought their first DSLR gear. A canon 40D (is this a flashy camera for canon, if not one of the top canon ranges) and the 70-200 f2.8 - $2.5K lens. All because they got in a zone to "have the best". They didn't need a $2.5K lens to achieve what they do. I cringe at nearly $4K of gear to pot around the house with, but hey, they are happy with what they get I guess and that's what counts. :rolleyes:

If you have the money then why not, but I def dont think people should stretch themselves.

Totally agree with this comment, i started out with a 350D and the kit len's that came with it, learnt with that camera and then started to upgrade i do alot of photography tho and it has taken me nearly 3 years to look at another possible upgrade however decided to put my money towards a lens. I think it all depends on what you want from your camera and what you want to photograph.

I would love to buy the 'top' gear but my budget doesnt expand that far and i still have lots to learn which can be done on my 400D so until i think i can do a really good camera justice my 400D will have to do

[Ripley]

Same here, tailwag. When I first got my first DSLR 2 years ago I had no idea how to use it and even less idea about taking a photo, and so left it on Auto mode.

Only over the past year or so I read mags and discovered what all those letters on the dial did. As I gained more knowledge, I sold the 350D and its twin kit lenses (my husband was not amused at first as he bought it!) and purchased a 30D (from the US when the dollar was higher this year).

I now have a Canon f/4 L 70-200mm, a Sigma 17-70mm as my general 'walkabout' landscape lens and the fixed 50mm 1.8. Accessory wise I have a polariser, 2 stop ND filter and a 0.6 ND Grad filter with holder. That's my kit and I'm set for what I want it for.

Down the track I will buy a longer telephoto (have my eye on a Sigma 150-400 with IS in it) but not until mid next year I'd say.

Just buy what you think you will use and not what some sales guy tries to flog you in a shop. After thinking long and hard about it, I can't justify the expense of the Sigma 150-400 as I won't get the use out of it. I can wait. :rolleyes:

[rubiton]

Exactly Ripley & chezzyr- its amazing how some people out there wnat to buy the biggest and the most expensive thinking that the camera will do it all. For the stuff I do I need the 40D - I need the selection of photos at the end of the race or need it to be able to write 60 odd photos in a burst to the card. It also needs to be hardy enough to take out in less than perfet conditions.

Yet the photos that others have put on here taken with the 350-450 series and recently the 1000D canons have been perfectly fine and probably just what they want to or close to. Its far better to start off with these cameras then build up lenses and then get the more expensive body if after learning what they (the settings) do you realise that you need the extra features. So many out there must buy mega expensive equipment then get overwhelmed and leave it in the cupboard.

I'm amazed that hobby photographers would spend 2500 or so on a 100-400m L lens but have come across people who have - I only bought one just under 12 months back and that was after considering it for a long time and working out what it was exactly for and if tht would benefit me in the future (Royal Shows, jumping etc). I remember the time I bought my very first zoom lens for my film pentax camera and it was a nightmare to learn - getting films back and finding maybe 2 or 3 photos worked out of 24 or 36 frame film (this was back when most affordable lenses were manual focus). I did learn but it as only a few hundred dollars (equiv of maybe $800-$1000 now) but it was a massive purchase for me at the time when the photos I took were just a hobby.

[Luke W]

.

Edited December 20, 2008 by left the building

[Tailwag]

I also was using film on my pentax i love B&W photography and film was awsome, but then went to DSLR and i find it a little cheaper (not speding a fortune on film) and the quality as good if not better. I love my Canon and i was looking at the 50D mainly for the fps especially photographing agility it comes in handy but after looking at many a review i might wait a little longer.

Lens's altho can be expensive last a lifetime. It has taken me 12 months to take the plunge to actually fork out the $$$ or the 70-200 f2.8 L USM lens and i did alot of reviewing on it prior to buying it. I would say to anyone not only set about reviewing what yo are buying but shop around as well.

[Chloes Dad]

Should I leap to my defence?

While more expenses lenses don't guarantee great photographs - they do help under some conditions. A good photograph might be 90% photographer, 10% equipment but sometimes that extra little bit helps a lot.

I've taken great photographs with expensive gear and cheap gear.

I started with film and less expensive lenses, moved to digital and less expensive lenses, before finally building a collection of high quality and expensive glass. I've been shooting DSLRS since 2004 and film before that.

I can afford them.

Rubiton, you shouldn't be amazed hobbiests are willing to spend $2500 on a lens - some people take their hobbies very seriously! Photography sure is cheaper than motorsport

I was in the city a few months ago for the rocks coffee festival, I have never seen so many High end cameras in one pace ever :p I felt very insignificant with my D80 seriously every second person had a DSLR and more often than not it was a full frame pro model. Then a few weeks after that I was asked to be in a photo shoot :rolleyes: (for a mates website...) and the guy shooting it was using an old(ish) D100 with a cheap(ish) lens. we got chatting and he was saying he was reluctant to upgrade cause he knew his setup so well. He did have some serious lighting though. He had a laugh and said I probably had a better set up than him.

a few weeks after that I was down Paramatta river shooting some bats that live in the trees there, trying to pan with them as they flew overhead. i saw two guys sitting up in the bank scoping things out with binoculars. They seemed interested in what i was doing so I felt pretty special. they then walked off and i diddnt take much notice. when i left i walked by them again and they wre setting up a tripod that looked like it would cost more than my car and screwing the hood onto a lens that was half as tall as me I felt less special then but this was early on a sat morning and i have no idea wether they are amateurs or not but it wouldn't surprise me.