Lens on a Budget

No, it is a 70-300mm. It is effectively 105-450mm on a 1.5 cropped frame camera in terms of its field of view.
 
Well, since I'm purely a hobby photography, I just like shooting anything, So maybe 300 was a little much. I mean, is there any other lens you would recommend as like, an all around lens?
 
I second the used tokina 80-400, amazing quality lens. I've had the pleasure of shooting with it a few times.
 
What about the Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG IF Macro lens?
 
too much focal range -28-300mm is a lot of change - heck 28-100 is a lot!
in this price range a lens like that would be very soft at the 200mm or greater lengths. Its a lot of compramise for price. I would decide if its the shorter or longe end that you really need and go for a lens which covers that range.
 
Well, I feel like i need more zoom than 50mm, because I like taking photos at the zoo and such, but i feel like i need less than 50mm because i have to move back quite often taking pics inside
 
then what you have is a choice
you either go for one lens which will let you do both, but will be very limited in image quality and also have a small max aperture (not that helpfull for indoors shots or fast action shots at the zoo).

Or

you pick longer or shorter and go for a lens that lets you get better results in one of those subject areas.

at the end of the day the power of the SLR/DSLR system is that it lets you take the latter option - to have a lens specificaly for a certain shooting condition and get the best result possible.
 
Don't forget that a 70-200mm F4 is the equivalent of a 105-300 on a cropped body, and used you can find it for ~500. If its not long enough, the 70-200 will maintain a reasonable amount of sharpness with a TC. It is also a professional lens, unlike the Canon 70-300 and 100-300.
 
Well, I went out the the Houston Camera Exchange today, and ended up getting the 75-300mm. I really like it so far, and for $200, i thought it was a great deal. Thanks everyone for your input.
 
I use the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 as well for wildlife and its served me very well so far, and I got mine for $125. Good choice for a nice, cheap, starter lens!
 
Thanks everyone, I'm actually returning it today, because I didn't realize it wasn't a macro lens, which is something I really wanted. Im thinking Tamron 70-300 Di LD?
 
Logan = non of the zoom lenses are proper macro lenses (I don't know of a proper zoom macro lens barring the canon MPE65mm).

what they have is a close focusing element (usually around 0.5m min focusing distance for a 70-300mmish lens) which will allow you 1:2 macro - that is half proper macro magnification and means that you can very well take a shot of something like an opened flowerhead or a butterfly (wings open) but true macro like flies are still going to be too small for the lens.
 
so is 1:2 Macro necessarily bad? I mean, I'm by no means looking for top of the line, especially with a $300 budget :/ I guess I just don't know what I want.
 
oh no its by no means bad (my experience of the sigma 70-300mm macro was that its macro was its strongest shooting area - it did very well in this area of shooting considering its price). I would consider it a good option to have.
Just pointing out that its not "true" macro so you won't be getting the super close images that a lens like a canon 100mm macro (for example) is able to get.


also macro can be like a drug to some people - so be very carefull when approaching it - 1:2 is the softstuff, but it can lead to the hardstuff (like 1:1 and beyond!) ;)
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top