Beginning into photography

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
PhotoTeach2 Senior Member • Posts: 8,253
Re: The ILC trap

Leonard Migliore wrote:

Hight Fly wrote:

I'm slowly getting to a conclusion.

Either I get a Sigma 17-50, or a Nikon 16-85.

On Top of that I can get a very nice telephoto lens 70-300m, from Nikon maybe.

The problem is that I keep changing my mind over and over! At the beginning I thought: "we'll go for the 16-80" then I realised it was too much money to begin photography with and it would be better to spend it carefully so I thought about other things... And now I'm there. Who knows what I'll buy at the end?!

I would say the only thing that stops me from taking those options is that I wonder if I'll have sharp portraits or not. Nevertheless, I think I will be totally satisfied the first months and then I'll probably know what focal length I want for Christmas and get a 50mm or a 85 (if I have the money haha).

That's one of the joys and dangers of having a camera with interchangeable lenses: You always want to buy a new lens that does something your existing lenses don't quite do.

The good news is that those lenses exist. The bad news is that they cost money. You will eventually figure out what lenses suit your individual style and use them. With my D300, I typically carried a 10-24, a 16-85 and a 70-300 for landscape photos. I used a 35mm f/1.8 for party pictures, an 85mm f/1.8 or a (manual focus) 105mm f/2.5 for portraits, a 55mm f/2.8 for close-ups and copy work and a 300mm f/4 for wildlife. But that's a whole bunch of lenses...

Now Joe is probably going to jump on this and say that the magic FZ1000 covers all that range with its fixed zoom and takes movies and has WiFi too. And well it might. It may even make toast.

Do you prefer white/wheat or French bread ??? (buttered ???)

But I would be very surprised if the FZ1000's 16X zoom is as sharp as a 16-85.

It is a LEICA lens and probably is. There have been posters who were long time Canon/Nikon professionals, (like I), who felt it was sharper than their prior Canon/Nikons.

It certainly can't duplicate the sharpness and focus selectivity of an 85mm f/1.8

It is definitely sharper than my Nikon 85mm, (and 70-200 f/2.8).  BUT ... I can't duplicate f/1.8, (or f/2.8 @ 200mm but that was a @ $2000+ lens)

or copy artwork like a Micro Nikkor.

I could use a Raynox "macro" adapter, (but have not done so).

So the D300 allows you to get lenses that do exactly what you want, and to do those things with professional quality. I have found this to be a great advantage.

I suggest that 50% of the general-public who buys a dSLR never gets more than their standard "kit" lenses.

I agree that does not apply to DPR users, but I suggest that not more than 50% of "beginners" here never get more than their "kit" lenses.

So WHY should they PAY more and have the inconvenience of having to carry/CHANGE lenses if a FIXED lens can provide more speed/convenience with a "continuous" zoom that is wider/longer and FASTER than those "kit" lenses.

So the FZ is absolutely not for someone who seriously intends to get a "fast" prime lens.

But they can get UWA and Macro with (Raynox, etc.) adapters.  I use Raynox 3062 @ 5072 for 12mm-EFL.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow