Oh- you mean I have to pick a lens too?

[JustJazzie]

I'm thinking I need a 50 1.8, and a 70-200 to start out with. Will I regret not getting an IS lens? At the moment I'll be shooting dirt bikes. Outside in good light. so I figure It should be pretty easy to use a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake. But I'm not sure what the kids will be getting into in the future. There is obviously a HUGE price difference. Should I spring for what I need now- or just plan for the future?

 

[480sparky42 41]

IS (or OS or VC or VR or whatever acronym the maker uses) is nice to have, but it's no substitute for good technique. If you can afford it, get it. But realize it's merely a tool to be used when needed.

 

[Mike_E]

Which body are you going with?

If a FF then 50mm might be wide enough. If you can't go wider though you'll likely miss quite a few shots.

 

[JustJazzie]

Which body are you going with? If a FF then 50mm might be wide enough. If you can't go wider though you'll likely miss quite a few shots.

*sigh* nothing is set in stone until it's on a truck to my house. I am leaning towards the mkiii....my heart is still with that damn DF. I keep telling myself that "a good photographer can use any camera" ;-) and then I realize I'm only upgrading because I say my nex7 can't shoot sports. Can they both be true? And then I read all the experts here say it's not worth it to get FF, and better to buy better glass....:Banghead:

Anywyas, I have a 50 on my aspc camera and it's too long so I was hoping it would be perfect on a ff.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Start with a 24-70 2.8 if you go with a FF camera. You're outside, no need for a fast prime here, a fast, quality zoom will be far more useful.

 

[blackwingphotography]

I have a 70-200 not IS and I would suggest getting the IS. Its a wonderful lens either way, don't get me wrong, but I have found that because of the zoom (of course I'm on a crop body so it's zoom is enhanced on mine, not sure what you're on) it shows any movement. I tend to move slightly back and forth with my mono pod and blur some of the best shots. In all it's completely up to you. Here's one of the ones I'm talking about. If you aren't shakey to begin with then go for it.

 

[KmH]

Canon's cheap EF 50 mm f/1.8 II is an OK lens but it has build quality and image quality issues. Because of the low grade build quality the lens also does not well tolerate being dropped.

 

[gsgary]

Which body are you going with? If a FF then 50mm might be wide enough. If you can't go wider though you'll likely miss quite a few shots.

*sigh* nothing is set in stone until it's on a truck to my house. I am leaning towards the mkiii....my heart is still with that damn DF. I keep telling myself that "a good photographer can use any camera" ;-) and then I realize I'm only upgrading because I say my nex7 can't shoot sports. Can they both be true? And then I read all the experts here say it's not worth it to get FF, and better to buy better glass....:Banghead:

Anywyas, I have a 50 on my aspc camera and it's too long so I was hoping it would be perfect on a ff.

Someones going to get a cheap secondhand camera in a few month time when you are moaning about it being too heavy to carry round

 

[goodguy]

IS (or OS or VC or VR or whatever acronym the maker uses) is nice to have, but it's no substitute for good technique. If you can afford it, get it. But realize it's merely a tool to be used when needed.

The fact you will shoot stuff that is moving means OS,VR,VC/IS will not come in handy at all!!!
The only way to freeze a moving subject is fast shutter speed.
VR is nice but really not a big deal, I own a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 without OS and its really not a big deal to me.

 

[astroNikon]

I think you need to determine which body you are going to get first.

 

[manaheim]

I have the 70-200 2.8 VR2. (Nikkor) It's an amazing lens, but I'll warn you... especially on a FF camera... there is NOT as much zoom there as you might expect.

 

[480sparky42 41]

I have the 70-200 2.8 VR2. (Nikkor) It's an amazing lens, but I'll warn you... especially on a FF camera... there is NOT as much zoom there as you might expect.

Lemme guess..... It goes from 70mm to 200mm.

I'll also guess it goes from 70mm to 200mm on a DX body.

 

[manaheim]

hahah... well, yes. My point was that it was much more ZOOMY on a partial frame camera. I find it to be lacking a good bit of the time. I still love it to death, but it can be frustrating at times.

 

[astroNikon]

I have the 70-200 2.8 VR2. (Nikkor) It's an amazing lens, but I'll warn you... especially on a FF camera... there is NOT as much zoom there as you might expect.

In that case you need to use the 80-200 2.8 :mrgreen:
or 80-400

 

[manaheim]

There can be only one.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500...id=1401670485&sr=1-6&keywords=sigma+200-500mm