Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 6, 2006, 9:40 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17
Default

I recently decided to purchasemy first digital slrKM5d.I am not quitesurehow to pick out a lens. I am shooting pics on a soccer field mostly and some landscape. I am new to this lens stuff. I had a minolta 35mm with 2 lens, but never paid attention to length, just used whichever zoom I needed at the time.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Could someone give me an example of how far a certain lens wouldzoom maybefor example a tamron 70-300 ld macro?

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"I also saw some talk about a 18-200mm lens to make the camera sort of like a digicam??? am I saying this right?

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"If I don't plan on changing lens frequently would buying that 18-200 lens be enough?The outside pics are far, indoor pics close. in a highschool gym to be exact and probably any kids birthday parties.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"thanks all!

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"beth


bethel02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 7, 2006, 6:26 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

The 18-70kit lens is not a pro quality lens, but it doesn't add much to the cost, and is a decent lens for indoors and a "normal lens". The 20-200 issue was just discussed, so I won't elaborate too muchon that issue. I have a 70-210 already, and am looking at a Tamron 70-300. If you only want to own 1 lens, the 20-200 would seem to fit the bill, and there are 20-300 (pricey) also; part of the beauty of a SLR is interchangeable lenses, so you are defeating the purpose if you only want one.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 7:36 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Beth:

What kind of photos in a gym?

Will you be able to use a flash?

Zoom lenses like you're describing won't be bright enough for indoor use without a flash if you're taking photos of non-stationary subjects. None of the lenses with that much focal range are going to be bright enough for low light use.

You'd probably want to use a prime (non zoom) lens for sports type photos in a gym. A 50mm f/1.7 would be one choice that's inexpensive (then, use your feet for zoom).

How about the soccer games... will any of them be at night? What's bright to the human eye is not to a camera's lens.

If you need to take photos of night games, the zoom lenses you're describing are not going to be good choices either. You'd probably be dissapointed in the amount of motion blur you get from slower shutter speeds.

A zoom lens that can maintain f/2.8 throughout it's focal range is going to be preferred for night sports in a stadium or field with typical lighting.

What are the photos going to be used for? Web only, or will you be printing them? If web only, or smaller prints, you might be able to get by with a less expensive zoom if you keep ISO speeds set high enough. It all depends on the lighting and your expectation of quality.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 7:53 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17
Default

I am able to use flash inside at the gym, and get down with the action.

I do not really need a zoom for this sport.

My canon A95 takes great pictures outside(only 3x zoom) but the indoor pictures aren't the greatest.

The soccer games are not at night until high school so I have a few more years, but would like a zoom to get a close up shot. I can stand on the sideline, but need a zoom which will reach the kids.

I am using the photos to share email and print 4x6. Maybe if the picture is outstanding, an 8x10 every once and a while.

I turned toward the slr's instead of the panasonic fz30 I had first decided onbecause everyone told me indoor pictures would be terrible and Ideal with that now with my A95. That is maybe 40% of my picture taking and I don't want to be disappointed. I was planning on getting 2 lens until I heard talk of that 18-200 lens. I understand that the whole point of an slr is to change lens, but I cannot afford to buy a expensive zoom lens right away and thought that would do me good until I could.

could someone also let me know how far in feet/yards/inches? a lens would reach, maybe the sigma someone recently talked about 70-200. Iam really not familiar with the distances

thanks!

beth
bethel02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 8:10 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

bethel02 wrote:
Quote:
I am able to use flash inside at the gym, and get down with the action.

I do not really need a zoom for this sport.
OK, I found some of your previous posts about taking photos of wrestling in a gym.

You may want to consider getting a 50mm f/1.7 AF lens for this purpose so that you don't need to use a flash (which can be distracting to the participants).

They've been a bit hard to come by lately. But, if you're a patient shopper, you may be able to find one for under $100 on Ebay if you can't find one new for that much.

Quote:
The soccer games are not at night until high school so I have a few more years, but would like a zoom to get a close up shot. I can stand on the sideline, but need a zoom which will reach the kids.
Good. I'd save your pennies over the next few years for something like a 70-200mm f/2.8 for night sports use.

Sigma makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG lens that's about $800. This is a larger and heavier lens than something like an 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (mostly because f/2.8 is more than 4 times as bright as f/6.3)

Quote:
could someone also let me know how far in feet/yards/inches? a lens would reach, maybe the sigma someone recently talked about 70-200. Iam really not familiar with the distances
Here's an online application that you may find handy with graphical comparisons of different focal lengths:

http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

As for a lens like the 18-200mm, the more focal range in a lens (difference between widest and longest zoom setting), the more compromises a manufacturer needs to make. But, if you're not going to be making very large prints, it may be worth it to you versus the need for multiple lenses. Also, quality is subjective, and in good light where you can use smaller apertures, differences between lenses start to diminish.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 8:27 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

Your Canon A95's effective zoom (in 35mm equivalent) is 38mm-114mm, at f2.8-5.0 respectively. It is not a terribly bright or long zoom (in comparison to a DSLR lens) so you will not have to gain too much zoom to see marked improvement.

I can recommend the 70-210 Minolta f 3.5-4.5, it's effective zoom is 105mm-315mm (you multiply the focl length by 1.5 on any lens to get the 35mm equivalent for these DSLR's.) In effect, it would pick up right where your A95 leaves off (also where your kit lens leaves off, if you get the 18-70 kit lens) and be a 3x zoom. I.E.- it gets you 3x closer to the action than you can currently get, and is1 stopbrighter. If you look around, this lens can be had for around $100.

I also would get the 50mm f1.7 that Jim recommended above, it is sharp and bright. You can always use this lens where your others fail due to low light, and crop later.

I also do not like the all in one zooms, and don't recommend those unless you absolutely need to only carry one lens. Their optical quality is relatively low and they are generally very dim.

The 50-500mm Sigma may be an exception to me, it is very well recieved. It is still not likely to be bright enough for a lot of zoom indoors (f4-6.3) and it is not cheap at around $1,000.

Describing in feet and inches is daunting and zoom magnification gets more impressive the farther you are away from someone. I can say that the 70-210 lens I mentioned above will start where your A95 zoom ends and be a 3x zoom from there. So if you think of doubling the zoom you already have, that would be accurate.


Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 1:57 PM   #7
Member
 
Juzzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 73
Default

I just got last week a Sigma 70-300mm DG APO lens and took this (amongst many others!) picture at a football match last weekend.The players were about 50-60 yards from me;





This picture was taken at full zoom and must be at least 120-130 yards away;




This is at full retraction (70mm): NB, this image is a vertical panorama of two shots;


Juzzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2006, 11:49 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17
Default

JimC


Here's an online application that you may find handy with graphical comparisons of different focal lengths:

http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

This site is great! It helped me alot.

When looking at cameras/lens, I came across some on ebay. One is refurbished with a 6 month warranty. Is that something I should avoid???

Also, found a lens 70-210 for a little more than you said, but cheaper than the camera stores.



bethel02 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 8, 2006, 2:03 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

bethel02 wrote:
Quote:
When looking at cameras/lens, I came across some on ebay. One is refurbished with a 6 month warranty. Is that something I should avoid???
I've been known to buy factory refurbished gear (not gear that someone is claiming is refurbished that could be returns with problems) in the past, provided it comes with U.S. Manufacturer's warranty (not a store warranty).

You'd need to use your own judgement.

Quote:
Also, found a lens 70-210 for a little more than you said, but cheaper than the camera stores.
I didn't mention a 70-210mm. I mentioned a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX (around $800 new).

Perhaps you mean the Minolta 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 that Mercury694 mentioned?

You can find them for around $100 in great shape if you're a patient shopper. They were selling for less not long ago.

I'd probably avoid the 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6 variety (you can find these for even less, but the quality isn't as good based on reports I've seen, and it's not as bright as the f/3.5-4.5 lens).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:01 AM.