What is my next lens?

OK, if the wide side is covered (for now), 70-200 + teleconverter would make sense, and probably use most, if not all of the budget. There *might* be enough budget left for a half-way decent tripod - I haven't priced teleconverters recently.

A slowish (f/4) 70-200 with teleconverter attached would almost necessitate a tripod though. And may prove too slow for wildlife once you factor in the stop or two you lose due to the teleconverter... I don't shoot wildlife, so I don't know how big of a deal that would be in the real world...

See, that's the thing, you just blew the OP's entire budget and we have him shooting with a 300mm 5.6(70-200 f/4 with TC). That's exactly where he is at now except with $2000 less in the bank account.

I guess if I was really going to give advice on spending his budget, I would say a Sigma 150-500 for around a grand and a good manfrotto tripod and ball head, around $500.
 
Yeah, good point about the 70-200 w/ teleconverter. Still, I think it would be optically better than the 75-300.


Assuming that the kit 18-55 lens is good enough for now, I guess I would say 70-200 + tripod. Maybe a filter or two with what is left. Or some other accessory like a remote.
 
Yeah, good point about the 70-200 w/ teleconverter. Still, I think it would be optically better than the 75-300.


Assuming that the kit 18-55 lens is good enough for now, I guess I would say 70-200 + tripod. Maybe a filter or two with what is left. Or some other accessory like a remote.

And now I think you are starting to see why there were more 'shoot a bit longer' opinions than actual answers.

There was nothing elitist about it. It's just tough to spend up to $2000 of the OP's money without having to make some compromises and we don't have enough info to know what compromises should be made. It would be different if he posted some examples and we could see the types of shots he is currently taking.
 
I don't think it's as much of a "shoot a bit longer" situation as a "save a bit longer" situation.

Double the budget, and a lot of doors open.

That, or start slower. You're not going to get a complete kit for $2000 (it just ain't going to happen), but if you were willing to dedicate the entire budget to one lens - that would be a very nice start, and a noticeable jump in image quality.
 
I don't think it's as much of a "shoot a bit longer" situation as a "save a bit longer" situation.

Double the budget, and a lot of doors open.

That, or start slower. You're not going to get a complete kit for $2000 (it just ain't going to happen), but if you were willing to dedicate the entire budget to one lens - that would be a very nice start, and a noticeable jump in image quality.

So now you want somebody who has had a DSLR for all of one month to spend $4000 on lenses? I'm thinking we should probably work on the skill part before we start spending that kind of money. And we still don't know where the OP is at in the skill department. We've talked about tripods, flashes, lenses, filters, but we still haven't talked about memory cards, back up harddrives, editing software, aftermarket straps, camera bags, etc. Put simply, we have no idea what the OP actually needs.
 
Last edited:
meh

Not so different from what I did.


I bought a cheap body with (surprisingly) the same two lenses the OP has, figured out that I liked this photography stuff, did a little research, then dropped close to $6000 on lenses. I haven't regretted it once. It was probably the best decision I made, photographically.

I have since spent much more than that, and haven't regretted that either.

IMO, the skill part will come faster with the right equipment. You do have to be sure that this is something you are serious about though. Crappy gear will just make the learning curve that much harder.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top