I first started this thread as I had borrowed a neighbours Canon camera and lens and I was so impressed that I wanted advice from the forum members on what lens I should buy. I now have 2 choices that I want to have a look at. The thread has now evolved to include everyones favourite lens be it Nikon, Canon, Sigma or any other lens not mentioned. So if you would like to tell us all about your favourite lens just post away.
In the next couple of weeks I would like to head up to one of my local camera shops to have a look at Canon lenses and bodies. I have not wanted to go to a shop until I learn more as I really don't know what I am talking about and I think I will get lost in the lens jargon and leave the shop more confused. I am between the 7d and the body below but that is not really the problem as it will depend if I like the feel of them. I held the Nikon 7000 through the week which I did not like at all. I want to go for Canon simply because of its popularity and the resell value if I want to upgrade later in life!.
Anyway I was spoiled using the Canon EF Ultrasonic 35-350mm 3.5- 5.6 that I had on loan for a few days so I thought I would look in the lenses and see what my choices are available. Remember I am a complete novice and I am going to take my time learning and choosing the right lens. My gosh there are so many to choose from and the prices vary quite wildly. I have decided on what I want my new camera for and what I would really use the lens for giving me shots like the ones below. Not great but I want to practice this more. I have my fuji big zoom and that still gives me the faraway shots and I could not afford the lens that gives me the equivalent in canon terms. My budget on a lens is £1500 but if I can find a lens less I will obviously be pretty happy. I have also decided I would like to stick to a prime lens as I want quality of detail, sharpness and I really want a lens that will give me lovely "Bokeh!" hope I have the terminology is right. I was hoping that someone could point me in the right direction and suggest a few lenses that I could look at in the camera shop. I would like to have the Canon 350mm that I borrowed but maybe one of you experts could suggest a lens that I would like. I don’t really want to go below 300mm so that might mean a second hand lens. Forgot to add that I want that f. number quite high ie 3.5 ish. "Not asking for much eh!"
EF200ml f/2.8L IIUSM £600
EF200ml f/2L IS USM £1400
EF300mm f/4L IS USM £920
EF 300mm f2.8L IS II USM £4589 sadly cant afford this one!
The prices are just a guide and I am sure if I shopped about I could get them cheaper!
Thanks
Just as a point of information : pre-digital , macro was always taken to mean the subject was lifesize (or larger) on the negative ie 1:1 ratio. With most digital sensors being somewhat smaller than 35mm film the term has lost its' original meaning. Camera manufacturers now regard macro as anything lifesize or larger on a 6 x 4 inch print. Quite a difference.
My gallery here
Checkout the forums' Community HOMEPAGE for lots of interesting posts from other members.
KatyBirdy said: I would love to have been able to see the hairs on its legs and other very small detail, so I guess that's where an actual macro lens would be of benefit. See! more more more ........ LoL!
I would love to have been able to see the hairs on its legs and other very small detail, so I guess that's where an actual macro lens would be of benefit. See! more more more ........ LoL!
Sometimes there's too much detail (cough)
___
Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index
A cheap way into macro is with a Raynox adapter that fits on the end of a lens.
I know most of you will be thinking NOOOO, those filters you screw on the end of alens are rubbish.
They are, the Raynox stuff is an exception though.
I bought a Raynox DCR-250 a few years ago and it's pretty good for the price.
This shot was taken with a Minolta 35-105 (@105mm f/20 1/30sec no flash) with the Raynox on the end. (cropped)
this was using a Minolta 70-210 f4 (beercan) (@75mm f/32 1/125sec off camera flash) with the Raynox on the end (not cropped)
It's never going to be as good as a dedicated macro lens but you can get some decent results.
My favourite lens is my Sigma 100-300 f4 EX, it almost always has a 1.4 TC stuck on it.
Next is a Minolta 50mm f1.7.
The lens that gets the most use is a Sigma 18-250 HSM-OS, it's an excellent walk about lens and pretty sharp to boot.
Brian.
My Flickr
My own humble photo site
I've always quite fancied the Sigma 100-300mm f4. And if I was going to ditch my handholdable 300mm f4 and invest in a bigger but faster 'tripod lens' I'd probably go for the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - it seems to give amazing results, including with teleconverters, and is (much) more affordable than Nikon's fast telephoto lenses.
To answer TeeJay's question about the macro pics I posted, the depth of field isn't quite right - but I'm still happy with them all :)
My blog: http://mazzaswildside.blogspot.co.uk/
My Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/124028194@N04/
Oh my! Whistling Joe! I see what you mean about too much detail! LOL ! That really is a cracking shot! :)
aiki said:................and is (much) more affordable than Nikon's fast telephoto lenses.
That's because the nearest Nikon 300mm f2.8 is a full frame lens but the Sigma is DX.
The Sigma 120-300 f2.8 is one of Sigmas EX top end lenses. It's designed for full frame. Sigma denote crop sensor lenses with DC. It's a lens I would like to own.
www.andrewa.zenfolio.com
I know someone with that Sigma 120-300. It does seem an excellent lens, but boy is it heavy! However, I'm sure I read somewhere it's got a replacement coming which might be lighter and also have a focus limiter (which would be beneficial).
aiki said:I've always quite fancied the Sigma 100-300mm f4. And if I was going to ditch my handholdable 300mm f4 and invest in a bigger but faster 'tripod lens' I'd probably go for the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 - it seems to give amazing results
DON'T DO IT AIKI!!!!!!..
I have just purchased the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lens and I'm bitterly disappointed with it especially having spent nearly £1000 on it!!
The old Nikon AF 300mm ED IF prime lens is far superior IMHO. The 120-300 is massive and really heavy so not hand holdable which is a massive negative for me, I thought I'd get used to it!!!.... :-(
If you are happy shooting from a monopod or tripod then the 120-300 is a terrific lens but it isn't for me personally as i am generally very mobile and after wild subjects in open landscape which often only give me one chance shot! this is where a top hand held lens earns it's money for me!....
The old 300f4 is sooooo usable it's unbelievable and this ease of use is what makes it my every day lens!....
I now use it on a Nikon D7000 and this gives me about 400mm at f4!!! If I put on a 1x4TC I get even more length at f5.6 and on a tripod can use a x2 TC for over 600mm! At f8 this still gives good results because of the DX sensor.
Now that the D7100 is out with a DX sensor and 24.1mp this is what I'm aiming towards and I will happily sale the 120-300mm to raise the necessary money to put my old battered 300f4 prime on that new modern body!!!....
Anyone want to buy a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 lens!!?? LOL
Best
Higgy
Hi Lolly
I and many others have agonised over which camera /lens etc together with Either cannon or Nikon.I decided on Cannon camera and lens because of the number of cannon lens on the market and most sport professionals all seem to have the cannon lens.
I would start by looking at the reports in the PHOTO PLUS Magazine.This is an in dependant mag for Cannon users .My choice if I had the money would be the Cannon 500 for wildlife photography. I have the cannon 50d together with 70-200 2.6 is + 100 L macro 2.8 is + cannon 24-70mm L 2.8.All of these lens are brilliant.However sometime the reach is not enough for the 200 + 1.4 converter x by the 1.6 factor. I solved this problem by buying the Sigma 150-500.This gives 500 x 1.6 = 800 This cost approx £800 and I have had good results. I decided to go for the can 70-200 is 2.8 because it was a proven lens used by most professionals .Not just for wildlife.
I am considering the 7d as an upgrade /additional body and the price now under £1000 is very good .The Photo plus Mag rates the 7d as the best for wildlife in its class. It will be interesting to see what the 7d mark 2 will be like when it it introduced in the next few months I believe.
Hope this helps and I will include some shots from today using the Cannon 70-200 is 2.8
Regards
John Hancock