Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 30, 2007, 9:20 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5
Default

thanks now that I have decided to get the 400D body only, which lens should I get I would like get upto 300mm as I will be taking sport pics land pics, I will also like to take day to day pics (family, portraites etc). So I would like a good all round lens :-)



cheers from teh soulman
soulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 12:00 PM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

soulman wrote:
Quote:
which lens should I get I would like get upto 300mm as I will be taking sport pics land pics, I will also like to take day to day pics (family, portraites etc). So I would like a good all round lens :-)
Soulman,

I would suggest reining in your expectations a bit. You're not going to find a single lens that covers day-to-day and has 300mm and can do sports.

There has been mention of lenses like the Tamron 18-200 (equiv. to 29mm-320mm on the 400D). It's a decent all-purpose lens but won't excell at anything and it will be a poor choice for sports (slow to focus, 5.6 aperture, soft at 200mm).

Now is a good time to decide which way you want to go:

Do every type of shooting so-so but have only one lens to deal with (this is where lenses like the 18-200 come in very handy)

Do a moderate job at everything (probably looking at 2 lenses to start with)

So everything so-so and one thing very well (a 2-3 lens solution where you go with a moderate lens for most types of shooting and a specialty lens for the area you want to concentrate on).

Out of curiosity, what sports are you wanting to shoot (be specific as to the sport and level of play - e.g. HS basketball, 5 year old soccer, etc). I can then tell you what the minimum required capabilities of a lens are to shoot that sport. Not sure how much sports shooting you intend to do, but I'll let you in on a terrible secret - a DSLR isn't a magic box - you can't buy one and a single lens and expect to shoot any sport. So you're not going to buy a lens that will let you shoot middle school basketball and high school soccer - two different lenses required. This may not be an important part of your needs, but it's best to know BEFORE you spend your hard earned cash what you will and won't be able to do with the equipment you're buying


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 12:39 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I agree with you, John-

However, if soulman is only a sometimes or ocassional shooter (at most about 10% of his shooting) of outdoor sports only, he might be able to get by with something like a Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm lens.

It's just a thought.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 12:51 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
However, if soulman is only a sometimes or ocassional shooter (at most about 10% of his shooting) of outdoor sports only, he might be able to get by with something like a Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm lens.
That's why I asked the question first. I think too many people on this forum jump in with an answer without getting to the specifics. Sometimes expectations can't be met at all. Sometimes they can be met very easily and inexpensively and sometimes they can only be met by spending a good bit of $$$. It's all about specific needs and specific expectations for level of quality you want to achieve.

But without more specifics from Soulman, it's impossible to make a good recommendation. No sense "buying a porsche when what you really need is a pick up truck".



JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 4:40 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
However, if soulman is only a sometimes or ocassional shooter (at most about 10% of his shooting) of outdoor sports only, he might be able to get by with something like a Tamron or Sigma 18-200mm lens.


Good point guys, excuse my ignorance I am a real novice when it comes to DSLR camera's.



Back to specifics, I will be as you said take 5-10% pics of sports i.e. football(known to the yanksas soccer):lol:, martial arts, or boxing. Mostother pics will be day to day family/holidays/scenery/landscapes etc. The reason I said all in one is I just didn't want to change the lens all the time. Also I would like to add that I will be going on holidayto Kenya on Safari (yes, lucky me) and would like to take great pics ofanimals, scenries and of course sunset/sunrise.

So if the standard lensthatcomes with the Canon 400D and sayanother lens to cover the above.

Which one would you recomend? I have seen that the canon 75-300mm EOS lens is that good or could you recomend an alternative?

Thanks from raining and coldLondon



The Soulman

soulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 4:55 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

soulman wrote:
Quote:

Back to specifics, I will be as you said take 5-10% pics of sports i.e. football (known to the yanksas soccer):lol:, martial arts, or boxing.
Quote:
Ok, martial arts and boxing - assuming they are indoors, neither the kit lens nor the 18-200 will be good enough. If you are at the ring for these sports you can invest $70 USD in the Canon 50mm 1.8 and you'll be able to get some shots. If you're not right at the ring, then you're going to have some major issues getting decent shots. If that's the case, you might have to accept the fact you won't get many (if any) usable shots of these sports until you can afford another lens in the future.
Quote:
Football - the challenge here is reach. A 200mm lens mounted on the 400D will give you usable sports photos for about 25 yards. A 300mm lens will give you good sports shots for about 40 yards. So, again, you need to be right up by the touchline to get decent photos.If you aren't shooting from that close, then quality will slide very quickly.
Quote:
Mostother pics will be day to day family/holidays/scenery/landscapes etc. The reason I said all in one is I just didn't want to change the lens all the time. Also I would like to add that I will be going on holidayto Kenya on Safari (yes, lucky me) and would like to take great pics ofanimals, scenries and of course sunset/sunrise.

So if the standard lensthatcomes with the Canon 400D and sayanother lens to cover the above.

Which one would you recomend? I have seen that the canon 75-300mm EOS lens is that good or could you recomend an alternative?

Thanks from raining and coldLondon
Quote:
The Canon 75-300 is really a poor lens. The Sigma 70-300 (<$200 USD)is a better lens and the Canon 70-300 (not 75 but 70 for $540 USD) is a very nice lens. Either of these two lenses would also double as your soccer lens. 200mm I feel is too short for wildlife shooting.
Quote:
So, I would suggest a general purpose walk-around lens - something in the17-85mm range and then either the Canon 70-300 or Sigma 70-300 for yourwildlife/soccer photos. Just one opinion.


The Soulman
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 30, 2007, 6:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

That sounds like an excellent answer, JohnG-

By the way the Tamron 18-250mm lens arrived today. I have only had time to take just one handheld shot thus far at the 100mm mark and it looks pretty good. It was taken with my Canon XTi. So, here is what shot #1 looks like:

MT/Sarah
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2007, 2:44 AM   #18
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I agree with John,

I think the 400D+ 17-85 IS USM + 70-300 IS USM is a very good all-round combo.

Both lenses have a fast focus motor, both lenses have good Image Stabilisation. Neither is particularly fast (has wide maximum aperture), but that means they are fairly light and easy to take with you too.

The 400D is fine at 1600 ISO if you need to, which combined with the IS will give you a lot more keepers than you might expect from f4-5.6 lenses.

In 35mm equivalent it gives you a focal length coverage of 27-480mm in just 2 lenses.

IMO those 2 lenses with the 400D is the best all-round package for general photography that Canon do (taking into account cost, weight, image quality, etc). As you grow and your interests specialise you will doubtless find yourself lusting after various specialist lenses.

In fact if you look at http://www.warehouseexpress.com they are advertising a kit package with precisely that combination.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?/ph...onEOS400D.html

Scroll down to the bottom of the page.





peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2007, 11:52 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I certainly agree with JohnG's recommendations on lenses-

The Tamron 18-200mm lens is attractive only as a travel or a snapshot lens where you are shooting in a well lighted environment, or using a good external flash.

Sarah
mtclimber 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 5:49 AM.