Why is it so hard...

[manaheim]

Well, they were limited by their equipment ... but they chose their subjects so they could perform within their limitations.

Thank you.

 

[RyanLilly]

The primes that Battou listed, seem to be a very good set of focal lengths, although prepare to spend some money for a 400mm

Also you will probably want something wider than, assuming your shooting on a crop body, battou shoot film.

The tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a very good upgrade from your kit, or if you want the best of the best, the cannon 17-55 f/2.8, which comes in at about $1100.

If you want something longer any of the canon 70-200L series are nice. There is also a very good sigma 70-200.


...Err..I guess I assumed you shoot canon, but If you shoot Nikon, just replace the word canon, with Nikon, I pretty sure that it all still applies.

 

[Battou]

The primes that Battou listed, seem to be a very good set of focal lengths, although prepare to spend some money for a 400mm

I also keep several 135's handy (but not carry ons) just incase. I also keep a 2X teleconverter and a set of magifying filters in my briefcase. That was where I was going with that, Primes. Quality over flexability is in my oppinion the best way to go.

battou shoot film.

Not only do I shoot film, I also shoot an obsolete Canon mount, that aids in wallet impact.

 

[Mav]

It's so hard to choose lenses because people have a zillion different styles, a zillion different things they want to shoot, and a zillion different budget ranges, all of which leads to a zillion different lenses. And the manufacturers don't exactly make it easy for you to understand their lens lineups either. They're purposely cryptic with all of the stupid acronyms and counter-intuititive f/numbers in the hopes that you don't buy the right thing, in which case you'll have to buy TWICE!

Now here's a serious question. What is really so bad with the CANON kit lenses, like the 18-55? I'm a Nikon guy so I honestly don't know. I hear Canon people complaining about their kit lenses all the time, but not really Nikon people. Is the build quality on these things really that lousy? Is there a ton of sample variation? Is it common for them to literally fall apart? Is it not possible to get sharp photos out of them? I've had all three versions of the Nikon 18-55 kit lenses (18-55I, 18-55II, 18-55VR) and have not had any real complaints on any of them. Samples here. The newest VR version is even better. Stopped down at daylight apertures it's just as sharp as my $1200 17-55DX f/2.8 professional zoom is. And at night the VR system makes up for its lack of speed vs the f/2.8. It also seems to be a bit sharper than the previous versions. I posted some straight off the camera samples from the 18-55VR (along with some other lenses so read the caption) here. I walked all around Paris with my old 18-55I and D80 which is the only camera and lens I had at the time and got a ton of great photos, even in the dark, and with no IS/VR! So what is it with the Canon kit lenses? Are they really not as good as the Nikon ones, or am I wrong? If you go over to the Nikon forums which do tend to be over-focused on gear, not too many people are sporting 18-55's in their signatures, but I think most of them know that they're perfectly good lenses even if they don't admit it or shoot with them.

I've never been unable to get good results from any lens I've ever owned, and the prices have ranged from $100 to over $1000. A lot of times the more expensive lenses are no better than the cheaper ones if you're using them in decent light. Most lenses look about the same stopped down at f/8 during the day. I also love primes and learned how to shoot mainly with those. The fixed focal lengths force you to find other angles and perspectives to capture things with and teaches you a lot about composition. It's too easy to get lazy with a zoom and get a lot of boring photos. I don't really shoot with primes anymore, but I try to shoot my zooms with the same eye for the shot and discipline as I did with my primes.

 

[Mav]

...can you get a reall solid picture of a night-time city skyline without a tripod? No.

yes!

Sony DSC-P100 P+S, f/2.8, ISO 100, 2s, no tripod, no IS/VR! :mrgreen:

aaaahh, Singapore!

 

[manaheim]

^^^ HHAHAHAHAHA...

Holy CRAP, dude. NICE picture.

Ok, fine, so not every example I had was a good one... leave it to you to call me out... but can you get a picture of a Hawk in a tree 300' from you with a 50mm lens?

*Manaheim waits for Mav to pull a shot out of his ass for that one.* :lmao:

Is that pic sharp when you look at it at 100%? Did you put the camera down on something?

 

[Battou]

^^^ HHAHAHAHAHA...

Holy CRAP, dude. NICE picture.

Ok, fine, so not every example I had was a good one... leave it to you to call me out... but can you get a picture of a Hawk in a tree 300' from you with a 50mm lens?

*Manaheim waits for Mav to pull a shot out of his ass for that one.* :lmao:

Is that pic sharp when you look at it at 100%? Did you put the camera down on something?

I have a Cardnal.... and it does in fact suck, does that cound


I alco have a cardnal at around a thousand feet with a 400mm that sucks equally.

 

[Mystwalker]

I guess ideally it will be 10mm to 300mm covered between three lens.

You can probably get close with $1500 total - especially if you are willing to consider Sigma/Tamron.

Too bad you do not like your 18-55 because that plus a 55-250 with a TC will cover most of the 10 to 300 range.

Sigma/Tamron have some nice FAST (f/2.8) walkarounds. They are like 17-50, 28-75, 24-60, etc ... do a search on B&H (I think Adorama has bigger selection) for Sigma or Tamron and a bunch of them will pop up.

Canon has a new 55-250 which I read have nice IQ. I'm sure Sigma/Tamron also have lens in the 250mm to 300mm range. Canon has a 70-200 f/4L that is a little over $500 ... this falls close to right in middle of your range requirement.

For daily (indoor) use I have a 17-40 with flash. Outside when not shooting scenery, I use 70-200.

 

[Mav]

^^^ HHAHAHAHAHA...

Holy CRAP, dude. NICE picture.

Ok, fine, so not every example I had was a good one... leave it to you to call me out... but can you get a picture of a Hawk in a tree 300' from you with a 50mm lens?

*Manaheim waits for Mav to pull a shot out of his ass for that one.* :lmao:

Is that pic sharp when you look at it at 100%? Did you put the camera down on something?

There just happened to be a beam and a bit of a ledge going across my all glass hotel wall facing the city, which just happened to be just barely big enough to set my little P+S on, which I was just smart enough to know there was a night mode that turned off flash and would do a long exposure at base ISO, and got all sorts of fantastic photos. Check out my Singapore at Night album. I walked all over at night setting the camera on all sorts of things where a DSLR would never fit. Precariously perched on some railing right at the edge of the waterway of the famous Boat Quay, traffic signal control boxes, street signs, propped up on a plate at a restaurant, or just flat on the ground. It never even occured to be to bring my mini tripod for this trip (business) so I had to improvise. :mrgreen: Yes the pictures are sharp at 100%, or at least as sharp as they get on a P+S.


For the bird photos with a 50mm, that's a rhetorical argument. Only AMATEURS try to shoot birds from 300 feet! The real pros learn to get much closer, as in tens of feet, and know all the tricks like camoflage, proper scent neutralizers, staying upwind, not making any sound, the best time to shoot, how to avoid disturbing the birds visually, etc. And then they still use 300mm+ lenses. Nobody shoots birds with a 50mm. If you want to have a better "gear doesn't matter" type discussion how bout this. Compare a cheap $450 beat up used 300mm f/4 prime with no VR to a $4500 brand spanking new 300mm f/2.8 VR with or without teleconverters. Now take two people. An experienced birder that knows what they're doing, knows how to get super close without disturbing the birds, knows when and where to shoot, and compare that to a regular Joe who spent 10x more on the 300mm f/2.8 VR and I'll even let them have the 2x TC to boot. Guess who I'd put money on coming back with the better photos?

Obviously if you put the 300/2.8 + 2x TC in the hands of the experienced professional birder they'll come back with even more incredible photos, but it just goes to show that experience, creativity, ingenuity, and the quality of the person standing behind the camera counts for a lot more than the gear itself does.

Lastly, I'm not a birder, but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express last night!

Nikon D80, 55-200 non-VR, which hardly cost anything more than a 50mm prime

This is kinda rhetorical too, but if you have a press pass and can get past the "Police Line Do Not Cross" tapes because you're with the press, or can attend baseball practice sessions where they'll actually let you on the field and stand right next to the pitcher's mound or right off of homeplate, I bet my D40 and 18-55 will smoke your D300 and 300VR sitting back in the bleachers. The gear does not matter. :mrgreen: For that stuff your main limiting factor is access, not your gear, hehe.

 

[D-50]

Sp the railing was your tripod.. there is no way to get a shot that clear hand held for 2 seconds

 

[Mav]

Here's that beam in my hotel window. I shoved my little P+S up there and snapped away at all hours of the day, LOL.

 

[makulay]

The difficulty prolly lies in the price but any who


My every dayers are as follows

400mm 5.6 Vivitar
85mm 1.8 Canon
50mm 1.4 Canon
28mm 2.8 Canon

yes to this.
______________
[FONT=&quot]Affordable San Diego wedding photography[/FONT]

 

[Mav]

Sp the railing was your tripod.. there is no way to get a shot that clear hand held for 2 seconds

He said tripod. I didn't have a tripod.

And never say never. :mrgreen: With a prosumer P+S for no other reason than that you can grip it better that's also equipped with IS/VR, I bet you could pull off a sharp 2s shot if you needed to. Do the prosumer ones do f/2 at the wide end of their lenses? Then I'd only have needed a 1s exposure which would make it even more doable. Or just crank the ISO up to 200 and clean up the noise later. I can already handhold my D80 and 18-55VR for 1s at night. I can get about 1 shot in 5 sharp that way.

 

[icassell]

Agree with Mav. I did a bunch of bird photography a couple of weeks ago with my 300mm f4 and teleconverters. At 150ft, they don't look great. A bird is a small target. The trick, even with a longish lens, is getting up close (and not getting eaten alive by insects in the salt marsh). The ones I took at well under 100ft are much nicer.

 

[manaheim]

Good points, all, Mav.

I've never argued that you can't be creative and clever and get some really great shots with some equipment that is limited in a certain way. Really, you can boil down my entire thesis to the following:

"Yes, you can bang a nail in with a rock, but people make and sell hammers for a reason."

It's exaggerated and trite, and certainly a 50mm 1.8 is far from a rock, but I assume you see my point.