Lens..

[Weaving Wax]

I've been using my lens for a few months now and am feeling the limitations. I can't get as close as I'd like with some shots. I was thinking of buying a telephoto. Is that the same as a regular zoom? I'd either want a zoom or a telephoto. What should I get? Budget is like less than $200. Anything decent for around that price? My gear is in my sig.

 

[Big Mike]

Telephoto refers to longer lenses...anything over 50mm really. Zoom refers to a lens that can change it's focal length...from 75-300mm for example.

That's not much of a budget...but you could probably get a cheap telephoto zoom lens. There are several versions in the 70-300mm range that would fit your budget.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/3result...&A=search&Q=&shs=70-300&ci=8429&sb=ps&sq=desc
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/3result...&A=search&Q=&shs=75-300&ci=8429&sb=ps&sq=desc

This is the one I have, and would recommend for you and your budget.

 

[fmw]

As an alternative why not use your feet to get closer? You may enjoy the perspective. I have a tendency to shoot up close and personal with wide lenses so it is natural for me. Give it a try.

 

[Big Mike]

Fred makes a good point. Your 50mm lens is a much better lens than any of the ones I listed (in your price range)...and you may be disappointed with the image quality of a cheap zoom...in comparison.

On the other hand, lens quality seems to be more of an issue with digital (people zooming in a pixel peeping)...since you are shooting film, you probably won't find the cheap zoom too lacking until you enlarge to 8x10 or more (or until you use is in low light).

 

[RedDevilUK]

why not use your feet to get closer?

does that include climbing trees and cliff faces???

NO... get a telephoto lens

 

[Weaving Wax]

Well, I'll just save up for a really good lens. The 50mm is good for now. I've gotten some great shots with it. I do use my feet fred, but sometimes you can't get close enough!

I'll look into getting a flash next. That're more important.

 

[panocho]

just getting closer is a good idea -sometimes.

other times you just can't, as RedDevil points, or the image you'll get is not precisely what you want.

It's not the same photographing same subject/same space in the frame with, say, a 35mm and a 105mm. The result will be different, and sometimes you just don't want the one that certain focal distance gives you, so getting closer or further away doesn't help.

That being said, I do second the advice of using the 50mm. As much as you can. I've always loved having only a 50mm (plus a fully manual camera) and, together with it, the challenge of having to make the picture with a limitation. Sometimes you end up discovering new ways of looking at the things that you would't notice if you had a big range zoom and could photograph almost anything without moving from one single spot.
Yes, feet are definitely one more "feature" to take seriously into consideration