Cheaper and compatibility (1 Viewer)

mike from ebbw · Mar 14, 2009

Roy C said:
Let this be a warning to you - If you have a Sigma that you are pleased with do not be tempted to try a Canon 'L'

Couldnt agree more Roy LOL.
I have had numerous offers from my mates to try their`L`gear etc but I politely refuse `cos I know I will be straight down the dealers!:t:

rezMole · Mar 14, 2009

Roy C said:
BTW there are some Sigma's that I would be happy with like the 150 macro and 500/4.5 but that's about it for me.

These are the two Sigma lenses I have and both are superb given the price. One other Sigma lens I'd consider a cracking lens is the "dirty thirty" 30mm f1.4. No other lens at around this focal length is reckoned to come close.

mrsbell · Mar 14, 2009

Roy C said:
I agree with this, I have had Sigma lenses in the past and was fairly pleased with them but then I made a fatal mistake and bought a Canon 'L' lens, after you do this there is no turning back, it will cost you a bucket of loot as you buy more Canon L's. Needless to say the siggy's have all gone now.
Let this be a warning to you - If you have a Sigma that you are pleased with do not be tempted to try a Canon 'L'

BTW there are some Sigma's that I would be happy with like the 150 macro and 500/4.5 but that's about it for me.

What is a Canon "L"???

oncebittern said:
For what its worth, I was in a similar place about 6 months back, and this is my experience:

Firstly, I bought a 10mp Nikon D80 body. Not the newest camera around, but still fairly up to date, and with VR (Nikon's version of image stabilisation). Still learning how to use it properly, but perfectly happy with it for now. Cost me £200 2nd hand.

Next up was a lens, and I bought a Nikon 70-300 zoom. Nice and sharp, but it didn't give me the reach I wanted, so that got sold. I think it cost me around £80.

After some research and loads of advice in another thread here, I opted for a Sigma 170-500 zoom, which I've been using for a couple of months now. Quite an old lens, and without some of the features that are standard on more modern ones, but I'm very happy with it, and at £220, I won't be complaining about price!

Also just picked up a Sigma 18-50 wide angle zoom, and again, I'm very happy with it - for just £40

So all in all, I would say just go for it. The beauty of buying 2nd hand, is that if you find you don't like what you've bought, you can probably sell it on for what it cost you. This allows you to 'experiment' a bit, without the worry that you might be pouring money down the drain.

BTW, all my purchases were either through BF's own For Sale threads, or ebay.

Good luck.

Steve.

Thank you for your advise! I would ideally like to know where models come in the line of newness if you get what I mean, like for example a list of say canon's with the newest being at the top! Not the big fancy ones as they're not hat I need or am looking for but likes of the D rages in Nikon, 40/50/60/.80/90 etc Does it start from D90 being the newest? and the lower the number the older the model?

At the moment I have been looking at a Canon 1000D and to be honest it is within my price range new as well. I would like a smaller lense (not essential to start with) say a 18-55mm and I would like a say 75-300mm zoom as I dont think I can allow for a more powerful zoom at the moment?

Does anyone know what the Canon name for anti shake is? I know for nikon its VR but I am not sure for canon and would like to know. I am 24 so would I need one? I have a fairly steady hand but if it imporves my pics then I would rather get one to start with.

Sorry guys, more questions for you but I'd rather ask and get it right! In afew weeks I will be posting my pics from the camera I have chosen for you all to see lol

rezMole · Mar 14, 2009

Canon anti shake is IS (Image Stabalisation)
Sigma is OS.

My main birding lens doesn't have anti-shake. When taking photos of birds you'll probably find that you need a fast shutter speed anyway, to freeze the movement of the birds. It can be useful, at times, but isn't a must have. My previous lens (Tamron 200-500mm) didn't have any anti-shake either, and it was a very good lens for the price.

Nikon cameras - not sure of the order but it isn't numerical - the D70 was first. Nikons tend to be the lower the number, the lower the spec (for sub 100 numbers). I think the D60 and D90 are the later models, but not sure.

mrsbell · Mar 14, 2009

rezMole said:
Canon anti shake is IS (Image Stabalisation)
Sigma is OS.

My main birding lens doesn't have anti-shake. When taking photos of birds you'll probably find that you need a fast shutter speed anyway, to freeze the movement of the birds. It can be useful, at times, but isn't a must have. My previous lens (Tamron 200-500mm) didn't have any anti-shake either, and it was a very good lens for the price.

Nikon cameras - not sure of the order but it isn't numerical - the D70 was first. Nikons tend to be the lower the number, the lower the spec (for sub 100 numbers). I think the D60 and D90 are the later models, but not sure.

So an normal non anti shake lense would probably do me fine?

The worse thing I could have done i done, looked on the net and of course there were examples with and without (anti shake) and they made the without ones to be rubbish so i thought well no point in getting one without the anti shake! but they've obviouslt done that to sell them.

I am getting there, slowly but surely

Next question, whats the difference between a say 75-300mm and a 100-300mm lense? I know the 300 is the zoom well the whole thing is but I am struggling eith what the beginning means? Is it the higher the number the more it zooms? So on that one the 100-300mm would be better?

oncebittern · Mar 14, 2009

mrsbell said:
Next question, whats the difference between a say 75-300mm and a 100-300mm lense? I know the 300 is the zoom well the whole thing is but I am struggling eith what the beginning means? Is it the higher the number the more it zooms? So on that one the 100-300mm would be better?

These figures refer to the focal length of the lens. In the good old days of film cameras, the 50mm lens that usually came as standard, was regarded as the norm. Longer lenses gave magnifications directly related to their focal length, so a 150mm would equate with 3x magnification, a 400mm with 8x magnification etc.

So a 100-300mm zoom would give magnification between 2x and 6x, whereas a 75-300mm would give magnification between 1.5x and 6x.

However, digital SLRs bring a further complication, in that many have a sensor that is physically smaller than the old 35mm film was, so using a lens designed for film, on a digital camera, increase the magnification further still. eg, in the case of my Nikon D80, I have a 1.5 magnification factor, so although I may be using a 500mm lens, which would give 10x magnification on a film camera, it actually produces 15x on my Nikon, of the equivalent of a 750mm lens.

I do hope this hasn't confused you even more

john-henry · Mar 14, 2009

Hi mrsbell,

Regarding zoom lenses, the lower number is the least magnification of the lens and the higher is the greatest magnification.
It is all based on a standard lens being 50mm, (roughly equal to what the eye sees), anything below 50mm is termed wide-angle and anything above is a telephoto, so a 75-300mm lens magnifies what's seen through a standard lens 1.5x to 6x and a 200-500mm lens magnifies it by 4x to 10x.

Canon camera models in your price range could be - starting from the oldest - 10d, 20d and 30d in the 'xxd' range and 350d, 400d and 450d in the 'xxxd' range with the 1000d being brought out about the same time as the 400d and 450d, all except the 1000d would be outside of your budget to buy new.

mrsbell · Mar 14, 2009

oncebittern said:
These figures refer to the focal length of the lens. In the good old days of film cameras, the 50mm lens that usually came as standard, was regarded as the norm. Longer lenses gave magnifications directly related to their focal length, so a 150mm would equate with 3x magnification, a 400mm with 8x magnification etc.

So a 100-300mm zoom would give magnification between 2x and 6x, whereas a 75-300mm would give magnification between 1.5x and 6x.

However, digital SLRs bring a further complication, in that many have a sensor that is physically smaller than the old 35mm film was, so using a lens designed for film, on a digital camera, increase the magnification further still. eg, in the case of my Nikon D80, I have a 1.5 magnification factor, so although I may be using a 500mm lens, which would give 10x magnification on a film camera, it actually produces 15x on my Nikon, of the equivalent of a 750mm lens.

I do hope this hasn't confused you even more

I had a feeling it wouldn't be as simple as I was geting used to LOL No I knew roughly something about that but all I need is reassurance that it can only be better right? Whatever lense I get + my camera magnification ill be better than just the lense right?

I am guessing then that the 100-300mm lense is better than the 75-300mm lense as you're getting 0.5X more with the 100 than the 75? Even though they are both the same on the end the beginning is different if that makes sense or am I confsing you lot now LOL

john-henry said:
Hi mrsbell,

Regarding zoom lenses, the lower number is the least magnification of the lens and the higher is the greatest magnification.
It is all based on a standard lens being 50mm, (roughly equal to what the eye sees), anything below 50mm is termed wide-angle and anything above is a telephoto, so a 75-300mm lens magnifies what's seen through a standard lens 1.5x to 6x and a 200-500mm lens magnifies it by 4x to 10x.

Canon camera models in your price range could be - starting from the oldest - 10d, 20d and 30d in the 'xxd' range and 350d, 400d and 450d in the 'xxxd' range with the 1000d being brought out about the same time as the 400d and 450d, all except the 1000d would be outside of your budget to buy new.

Thanks John, do you think then that the 1000D would be a good starter for me?

I just want to say I really really appreciate all your replies and help and advice. When i do something i like to do it right and not jump in and you guys have really helped answer my questions and tought me more about slr photography and camera's than i could have hoped in such a short space of time. So thank you

oncebittern · Mar 14, 2009

mrsbell said:
I am guessing then that the 100-300mm lense is better than the 75-300mm lense as you're getting 0.5X more with the 100 than the 75?

Not necessarily better. Different certainly, but only better if the extra bit of magnification at the bottom end is important for what you expect to be photographing.

eg, I use a 170-500mm lens, and to be honest, 95% of what I take is at 500mm. Ocassionally, I pull back to 400mm. In the couple of months I've had it, I think I've only taken ONE photo at 170. So in reality, it wouldn't matter a jot to me if the lens were a 100-500, 170-500, or 250-500, as I only seem to use the top end anyway.

Typically, you might set yourself up with say a 35-70 zoom, and a 70-300 zoom, thus fully covering a wide range, from wide angle to telephoto, with just 2 lenses

john-henry · Mar 14, 2009

[Thanks John, do you think then that the 1000D would be a good starter for me?
[/QUOTE]

Not neccessarily mrsbell, the only way to know is to try one.

If you have a camera shop near you perhaps you could try one there with a zoom lens on it and see how it feels in your hands, see if it feels comfortable, can you hold it steady etc.
You've got the right idea of not jumping in with both feet so take your time and get what feels right and you find easy to use.

Don't forget you may also find a good s/h deal.

mrsbell · Mar 14, 2009

john-henry said:
[Thanks John, do you think then that the 1000D would be a good starter for me?

Not neccessarily mrsbell, the only way to know is to try one.

If you have a camera shop near you perhaps you could try one there with a zoom lens on it and see how it feels in your hands, see if it feels comfortable, can you hold it steady etc.
You've got the right idea of not jumping in with both feet so take your time and get what feels right and you find easy to use.

Don't forget you may also find a good s/h deal.[/QUOTE]

Yes I wont buy without trying! I have to see how things feel etc so will try and get a hold of one of those to try and see how I get on.

I think I will buy s/h anyway John as the money I'd save I can put towards my zoom lense!

john-henry · Mar 14, 2009

Just had a look at the website suggested by AC/DC there's several Canon reconditioned 400d's wih 6 months guarantee at a reasonable price, (about half your budget), which should leave enough for a decent s/h lens.
I've got a 400d and could honestly recommend it as a good first camera.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/index.php?id=26&category_filter=20

Have a look and then ask for a few more opinions on the camera and what would be a good zoom lens to go with it.

mrsbell · Mar 14, 2009

john-henry said:
Just had a look at the website suggested by AC/DC there's several Canon reconditioned 400d's wih 6 months guarantee at a reasonable price, (about half your budget), which should leave enough for a decent s/h lens.
I've got a 400d and could honestly recommend it as a good first camera.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/index.php?id=26&category_filter=20

Have a look and then ask for a few more opinions on the camera and what would be a good zoom lens to go with it.

I like the look of that yeah! Any ideas on lenses now but I would still want to have a shot of one. shame your on the other end of the country John, i could have had a go on yours lol

mike from ebbw · Mar 14, 2009

The mm on a lens is the focal length.IE,the higher the number then more powerful (in terms of magnification) the lens.A 75-300mm lens will take pics at any focal length between 75 and 300mm a 100-300mm lens will take pics at any focal length between 100 and 300mm.Therefore you have a greater range of focal length (magnification) with the 75-300mm.
Try to think of it as 35mm being as your eye sees the subject(IE with no magnification).With this in mind the 75-300mm set at 75mm will be just over double the magnification (35mm x 2).At 300mm it will magnify about 8 or 9 times (35mm x 9).
I hope this helps and isnt too complicated for you as I know it can be very confusing just starting out.

mrsbell · Mar 14, 2009

mike from ebbw said:
The mm on a lens is the focal length.IE,the higher the number then more powerful (in terms of magnification) the lens.A 75-300mm lens will take pics at any focal length between 75 and 300mm a 100-300mm lens will take pics at any focal length between 100 and 300mm.Therefore you have a greater range of focal length (magnification) with the 75-300mm.
Try to think of it as 35mm being as your eye sees the subject(IE with no magnification).With this in mind the 75-300mm set at 75mm will be just over double the magnification (35mm x 2).At 300mm it will magnify about 8 or 9 times (35mm x 9).
I hope this helps and isnt too complicated for you as I know it can be very confusing just starting out.

LOL thanks Mike, I was going before from a 50mm instead of the 35mm) which is why the 100-300 came out better no? Well not better but...oh I'm not sure LOL

do most people that use 2 lenses then cover with small and large like 35-70mm and 70-300mm so everything from 35-300 is covered or am not grasping this at all? I'm going by oncebittern's comment.

mikfoz · Mar 15, 2009

At the moment I have 3 lenses I use regularly.

A 70-210mm zoom makes a fine walkabout lens when you're not wanting extreme magnification. It's fab for shooting portraits of people or relatively close range wildlife stuff. The big advantage of this lens is that it's compact and light.
A 18-55mm zoom which covers general use for snapshots and scenery. It's very useful for either extreme closeups or as a general purpose walkabout lens as it's light and fast.
A 50-500mm zoom which I'm finding incredibly useful already. It's handy having the huge zoom range so a shot can be framed well without having to change lenses should something close turn up. The main downside to this lens is it's very heavy and large so discretion while carrying it is not an option. It can be used hand-held, regardless of what some people say, but it's not for the puny or faint-hearted. Carrying a tripod/monopod around is a sensible option, this notwithstanding, so you have to mean business to use this as a walkaround lens.

I also have several trusty old manual focus K-mount prime lenses I use for wide angle work that I can never bear to get rid of. They must be the best part of 25 years old but the pictures you get are magnificent. I sometimes use a 500mm mirror lens in good light for distance work or macro shots of plants.

Claymore · May 31, 2009

i have a Sigmonster lens (300-800mm) I had the 500mm Canon L but decided i prefered having a zoom as i have mobility problems so sold the Canon. Having used both I honestly cannot spot ANY difference in picture quality apart from the Sigma enables me to get closer.
my mate is a pro togger and has used both my lenses and actually preferred the Sigma.
The thing i have noticed over the years regarding quality is usually down to the person taking the shot ie My shots are far from excellent and this is down to me being a crap photographer but give the same gear to someone with more experiance and its amazing the difference in quality. So my £6500 Sigma lens isn't as good as a Canon 500mm? wish i'd know before buying it.
Think I'll dig my old yashica fxd quartz out (remember them)? ah those were the days just stick a film in and away you go LoL

Cheaper and compatibility (1 Viewer)

More options

mike from ebbw

Well-known member

rezMole

Well-known member

mrsbell

Active member

rezMole

Well-known member

mrsbell

Active member

oncebittern

Steve Sheehan

john-henry

Well-known member

mrsbell

Active member

oncebittern

Steve Sheehan

john-henry

Well-known member

mrsbell

Active member

john-henry

Well-known member

mrsbell

Active member

mike from ebbw

Well-known member

mrsbell

Active member

mikfoz

It's not a competition. Watch the birdy!

Claymore

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread