Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Hance wrote:Save your money for awhile longer and get a fixed aperture lens. f4.0+ lenses suck.
lex-ington wrote:I've been told that this is a rather subjective topic, so I would like to present this question to you guys.
What do you look for in a lens "EXACTLY"?
I have these 3 lenses I am looking at, and all I can tell is you pay a little more for the name:
Tamron 70-300mm lens
Sony 75-300mm lens
Sigma 70-300mm lens
How would you choose? I am looking for a long range lens to compliment the 18-70mm that came with my camera. I have a friend that works at a place that mostly deals with Tamron lenses. Would it really make a difference if I buy Tamron vs. Sony brand lenses? I am quite lost on the terminology when describing a lens. I know from the responses I have gotten here before that a faster lens with a wider aperture - in general - would be a better lens (if I had the money), but when it comes to "number of elements" and the like, I have no clue.
I am taking all personal preferences and understandings into consideration here. I would like to make a decision in the next two months since I will be going home to the Bahamas in June for a family reunion and I have a feeling that my camera will be getting ALOT of use.
lex-ington wrote:What is the downside of the filter rotating when focusing?
lex-ington wrote:I will look around to see if I can find the "beercan" JAE is referring too. What do I lose in terms of usability between f/4 and f/2.8. I can graspd that the aperture is larger so more light gets through continuously, but if the f/ stops aren't that far apart how come a zoom lens with an n f/ stop range of 3.5-6 is considered garbage?
lex-ington wrote:Please excuse my ignorance/ lack-of-knowledge in the world of photography.
What is the downside of the filter rotating when focusing?
I will look around to see if I can find the "beercan" JAE is referring too. What do I lose in terms of usability between f/4 and f/2.8. I can graspd that the aperture is larger so more light gets through continuously, but if the f/ stops aren't that far apart how come a zoom lens with an n f/ stop range of 3.5-6 is considered garbage?
lex-ington wrote:What is the downside of the filter rotating when focusing?
Voldenuit wrote:Sony makes a very good 300mm f/2.8 G super-telephoto prime lens that weighs 5.1 lbs and costs $6300. The 5.3 lb Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG is available for the Sony α cameras for only $3000.While I love fast primes, I concede that not everyone wants a $4,000 lens that weighs over 5 lbs (as Canon's 300mm f/2.8 L lens does).
phez wrote:I encounter this problem when using a polarizer on my telephoto zoom lens. I can usually hold the filter ring to keep the polarizer from turning with the lens while focusing, but that's not possible with the lens hood mounted.Circular polarizers require you to rotate the filter to achieve desired effect ... if the filter-end of the lens rotates along with the lens when zooming/focusing, the orientation of the filter is changed and you need to re-set it. Gradual filters create a gradient effect and again, you'll need to reset these filters to get proper orientation.
lex-ington wrote:That price is more or less normal for "3rd party" f/2.8 telephoto zooms. Sigma's is going to be similar in cost, I'd suspect, and I believe has their HSM focus motor which is nice. They recently launched a stabilized version as well. That might cost more. In terms of image quality and build I'm not sure how they all stack up. Another possibility in that price range or lower is used Minolta glass.If I am understanding the information given correctly, then THIS lens would actually be considered a bit of a steal. Anything in this range of f/stops and price is a good bargain and if I can find similar for cheaper, that would be a bonus.
I'll be doing some more looking this weekend, but I wonder if this is worth the $730 they're asking for it?
lex-ington wrote:If I am understanding the information given correctly, then THIS lens would actually be considered a bit of a steal. Anything in this range of f/stops and price is a good bargain and if I can find similar for cheaper, that would be a bonus.
I'll be doing some more looking this weekend, but I wonder if this is worth the $730 they're asking for it?
Actually, how many of you actually use a zoom lens? Do you just pick a zoom . . .say 135mm . . .and work with that (like a 135mm f/2.8 lens)? And then get a macro lens and move around with both to get the best picture?
Hance wrote:I bought the wife a Tamron f2.8 17-50 mm lens for christmas and it has worked very well so far. The one you are looking at is probably fairly similar performance wise.
Welch wrote:I'm fairly new at all of this but have figured things that I like already. So far I like primes (Fixed Focal Length) lenses too. Something about the one i've been using produces a much more appealing image to me, and I like feeling like I can interact with my surroundings when im taking pictures. At times I feel like an idiot moving my entire head and body towards and away from plants and things but it just makes you try or see other angles you wouldn't get if you were stationary with a zoom lens.
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:You can get a Tair 3S for cheap. It's an old fixed 300mm lens that uses the M42 mount. There are converters for that type of lens mount out there.
Welch wrote:Well.... lets set something straight here hehe. I know that we've got some very knowledgeable and experienced guys in here so allow me to ask the question that might help them to make an honest suggestion for the OP. Lex-ington....... what EXACTLY do you want a new lens for??? Are you looking to shoot nature pictures, animals from far away/close up..... looking to take personal portraits of people, fast action sports shooting? What your shooting for will determine what you will want to buy. Also how much are you willing to spend on a lens? Do you travel around with the lenses a lot like mountain hiking or backpacking long distances. I guess these are things we should have asked you before hand heheh.
I'm fairly new at all of this but have figured things that I like already. So far I like primes (Fixed Focal Length) lenses too. Something about the one i've been using produces a much more appealing image to me, and I like feeling like I can interact with my surroundings when im taking pictures. At times I feel like an idiot moving my entire head and body towards and away from plants and things but it just makes you try or see other angles you wouldn't get if you were stationary with a zoom lens.
As of right now I have:
Kit Zoom lens 18-55 - General use.... but sadly I haven't been using it since I got the 50mm
A 50mm Prime (F 1.7) - Portraits and night/low light shots
Want to get:
70-210 (Telephoto) so that I can shoot some nice close up mountain ranges. If I wanted to shoot some nice night shots of things like say...... the moon close up I'd look for a slightly larger aperture.
Macro....... Now I haven't given the focal length much thought but I'd like to get a 1:1 for some really nice true to life shots of things like ants and other bugs.
Do any of those shooting styles or subject matter match what your looking at doing?
RAW is always better