Selecting a new lense

Forums: Art And Photography
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Im a dolt.

I truly am almost completely clueless when it comes to lenses.

I know that I need a lense that allows clear close ups from far away ( telephoto) and vibration reduction would be wonderful.

But, I want something that takes good wide shots.
Not necessarily a panoramic lense.. but .. I could get a group in a picture with out having to be a mile away.

Remember, I am primarily taking pictures of moving kiddos..

I have a small bit of knowledge about lenses, but not enough to where I feel comfortable just running out and buying one.

Right now, I am using a 70-200 AF Nikor ..... or something like that..

It is a cheapie. But it has given me some wonderful pictures. But I am tired of how narrow its view is.

what else can I use?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,520 • Replies: 10

No top replies

Well, a 70-200 is a tele, you really might need something more.

Good lenses cost sometimes a lot more than the camera.

I made a compromise between price, quality and purpose .... and choose some Sigma lenses, F2.8:
- 17-35 (F2.8-4.5); 28-70; 70-200; 50 (1:1 MACRO).
Additonally, I've got a teleconverter (which, however, brings the F down to 3.5 when I use it).

I do need a better wide lense, something like a 15mm. And a 100mm.
Christmas, birthday ....

0 Replies

This is the lense I use right now.
It has been a great all around , all purpose lense that has produced many wonderful pictures .
It has never left me feeling like I needed any kind of stabilization, or.. any other lense for that matter.
Until now.
I dont think a sigma will keep up with me or my clients.

though there are alot of them out there for really cheap!

0 Replies

Well, it depends on what you call cheap. (I've a Nikon D200 - but my lenses have cost the treble of it.)

And my photos with them are good enough for newspapers, books, calendars, brochures, websites, cd-covers .... and awards :wink:

0 Replies

Without messing with brands, 35-70 sounds like a good compromise for what you're doing. Walter mentions a 28-70 which would be even better, everything lower than 50 being somewhat macro.

0 Replies

Yes, I said so above. I would never consider a 70-200 as a universal lense. (My Sigma 70-200 costs - best price - now $1.400 here.)

I use the 28-70 (F2.8) as my standard lense.

My 50mm is a full macro (1:1) as weel a great lense for portraits.

And as for brands: you certainly can favour this or that.

0 Replies

a 70-200 lense IS a good universal lense for the type of photography I do.
I can get a close up on a cute facial expression 1/2 way across the park, or get a general body shot from just a few feet away.
With kids as fast as they are, it is what I need and makes a good universal, all purpose lense for me.
Diffrent jobs, diffrent lenses.

But I also need a quality lense. I can not have one that will break on me on a regular basis, or be unreliable in any way. I need one that will stand up to the occasional bumps, bangs, and sand.

I think I may have found one though.. it is more of a lateral trade off then an upgrade.. but . eh.

0 Replies

shewolfnm wrote:

a 70-200 lense IS a good universal lense for the type of photography I do.

I don't doubt that you're very comfitable with that lense.

But it's still a zoom lense - and with f/4-5.6 it doesn't have a really good focal width.

0 Replies

For all you photography lovers, I thought this was a fantastic article -
all about Leica and much about the history of photography -

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane

0 Replies

I'm not sure if you'll pay less or more for one without the extra "e".

0 Replies

Oh yes, Leica. I had three of those. But owned by the navy and not to be used for normal photography :wink:
(I still have my old Zeiss Ikon, though.)

0 Replies

Selecting a new lense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know