|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 68
|
![]()
Hi,
I plan to buy a dSLR camera in the near future & am wondering what the most versatile lenses would be to get. I will be taking mostly photos of family, my pets, travel, nature (flowers & scenery) & may try some still life at some point. Is it better to just buy the camera body & choose a lens I know I will want rather than the one that comes with the camera? I don't plan to buy all the lenses right away so want to start with one that I will use the most & gradually acquire others. Besides, wide angle, standard & telephoto,& macro I'm not sure what other kinds of lenses there are. Janice |
![]() |
![]() |
Sponsored Links |
|
![]() |
#2 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
jvanwees wrote:
Quote:
jvanwees wrote: Quote:
jvanwees wrote: Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 68
|
![]()
The salesperson at my local photography store recommended a Pentax K200 camera which comes with a 18-55 lens. I would also get a 55-300 lens for it eventually. Is there any other lenses that I would need for anything? I plan to do some close up photography esp. of flowers but he said I could use the 55-300 for that although would that mean I would need to use a tripod most of the time for photographing flowers?
Can you get a lens specifically for macro that is small & not so cumbersome to carry around as the 55-300 & that you wouldn't have to use a tripod for that is not super expensive. He said true macro lenses are about $1000. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,826
|
![]()
As less expensive telephoto zoom lenses go, the Pentax 55-300 is nice. But if you're interested in macrophotography, you might want to consider the Tamron 70-300 Di LD or the Sigma 70-300 APO instead. They are cheaper, as good optically, and can focus closer. The Pentax is capable of 1:4 magnification (the subject is projected on the image sensor at 1/4 its actual size), but the Sigma and Tamron are 1:2 macro lenses (the subject is projected on the image sensor at 1/2 its actual size).
And since the Pentax has sensor shift image stabilization in the body, there is less of a requirement for using a tripod. That does not mean that you will never use a tripod, but you cna do things handheld that you can't with a system that isn't stabilized. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 550
|
![]()
If you are interested in doing macro photography I would recommended you get a dedicated macro lens. No they do not cost $1,000.
Pentax make a 50mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro for about $400 or a 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro for about $520. Sigma and Tamron also make dedicated macro lens for around that price or lower. If you are on a budget and want to shoot macro, I would look into older manual focus lens. When shooting macro, AF is not that important anyways. You can find a really good used macro lens for $100-200.
__________________
http://saelee.smugmug.com/ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|