newbie buying d60 needs lens advice

[SoxPadresFan]

Well, I am buying a d60 - still looking for a place that can get it to me sooner rather than later. I am an amatuer but eager photographer who hopes to greatly increase my skill level over time. Right now, however I am new at all of the lens decisions. I have read tons of these threads and some sinks in but some goes over my head. After reading for an hour, I had made decisions, thenm I read more and changed my mind and now I have changed it again - very confusing. So I will burden you all with this task - if you think you are upto the challenge.

Let me try and put it all down and you can choose to help in zero or all areas of my message. Thanks in advance:

Assuming my most frequent photo ops are
sports (baseball, football, and golf) and nature (zoo, parks, scenery)
for sports I would be in press areas at times and in spectator seats at times

I might occasionally do indoor sports, but very rare - in other words - low light is less relevent in decision
I'd obviously also like to take photos on vacations, in museums, of family, etc.

With that said, I'm trying to figure out these lens options. Money is a consideration, but I will be able to take the philosophy that I don't want to compromise now - if in the future I will constantly say - I should have gone with the more expensive lens.

What are the pros and cons in the following lens comparisons - which would be better for me:

1) Now I know I need a 28-70 type lens - I guess these would be my options:

canon 28-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens ($1299)
canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Lens ($399)
canon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens ($190)
canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III Lens ($129)

is the f/2.8 and the fact that its an "L" really make $900+ in difference

2) next, I want a good zoom lens and it is important to me that I can get really close - I'd love to get close enough to see beads of sweat on a pitcher. Considering that I may be taking shots not only from photo boxes on the field, but also from the stands (though I'm not even sure they would let someone take a lens that size thru the security at the turnstiles anymore) should I be trying to get up to 400mm (which I understand is 640mm after the digital multiplier of 1.6). Should I be fine with the 200 mm? Do these converters that turn a 200 into a 400 work? With this size lens - how important is the 2.8 vs. 4.5 issue - in other words what is the sacrifice I'm making to get to 400mm? From everything I read - I definitely want the Image Stabilization here. I guess I'm trying to decide between these - unless someone knows of a more reasonably priced option:

canon ef 70-200 L IS 2.8 Lens ($1999)
canon ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens ($1599)

3) next I guess I need something like the 16-35. I would think that this would be my least frequently used lens - and feel pretty confident (though remember I have very little experience with SLR lenses) that I could skimp a little here. By skimp, I mean - try and get under $1,000. Is that right? So for arguments sake lets throw these 3 lenses in the mix:

canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1499)
canon ef 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens ($544)
canon ef 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM Lens ($199)

or can I just get a prime lens like:
canon 20 mm f/2.8 USM EF Lens ($529)

but if I got the 28-70 above - how important will it be to get down to 20-22mm?

4) finally I have more of a general question about ways to save $. I think I understand the "L" lenses are just much better quality. and that buying canon vs. something like a sigma - is a quality issue also. I'm not sure however if that matters at my level of skill - does it? should I be looking at prime lenses. It seems like adding a canon ef 50mm f/1.8 II prime lens for $99 to the collection seems worth while - whats $99 more dollars if I spend $1k-4k on all of these lenses?

In the end, I guess I am partailly wondering if maybe I should just go with something cheap like this package I saw at Ritz "Sigma - Two Lens Zoom Kit with 28-80 & 70-300 plus Gadget Bag for Canon AF" - for $280. Then use those until they fall apart on me and/or I get annoyed with the quality and/or I get to be a better photographer. Hopefully better technology and/or lower prices in 12 months will make my wait worth while - thoughts on that?

ok - I know that was tons of stuff, but maybe you can give me a quick general response - thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Robert F. Tobler]

I am in a similar situation, and I
decided to go for Canon L lenses.
So I intend to by the following
set:

canon 28-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens ($1299)
canon ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens ($1599)
canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1499)

The rationale is the following:

• these lenses hold their value

and can be sold without too much
of a loss

• I won't get into a situation where

I will regret not buying the better
lens

To paraphrase another saying:
Camera bodies come and go, but
lenses accumulate ;-)

Greetings,

--Robert F. Tobler http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/

 

[Amac]

Hi Sox,

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. I would imagine that some will give irritated responses to your post (if they answer at all)because these questions have all be asked before very recently and addressed at length.

But you say you've researched the forums and I have ten minutes spare- so here goes.

Assuming my most frequent photo ops are
sports (baseball, football, and golf) and nature (zoo, parks, scenery)

Answer: You need a quality telephoto. A zoom would be best. The maximum aperture isn't an issue. Therefore: 100-400 L would be the absolute best lens for you.

I'd obviously also like to take photos on vacations, in museums, of
family, etc.

The Canon 28-135 IS is a very popular general lens for the D30 and D60. It sound like that's the one for you.

It's $430 at B & H with a US warrantee. It will give you a range of approx 45-216mm. Nothing wide at all, but very handy for general shooting situations.

Money
is a consideration, but I will be able to take the philosophy that
I don't want to compromise now - if in the future I will constantly
say - I should have gone with the more expensive lens.

This is definately the right attitude. You should always buy the BEST GLASS YOU CAN AFFORD. It's an investment. If you buy L's you'll only buy them once.

What are the pros and cons in the following lens comparisons -
which would be better for me:

1) Now I know I need a 28-70 type lens - I guess these would be my
options:

canon 28-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens ($1299)
canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Lens ($399)
canon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens ($190)
canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III Lens ($129)

is the f/2.8 and the fact that its an "L" really make $900+ in
difference

Yes, in terms of color, contrast and sharpness the L glass is worth $900 more. The other lens you list are not even close in quality. Don't even consider them. If you want this range get the 28-135 IS.

2) next, I want a good zoom lens and it is important to me that I
can get really close - I'd love to get close enough to see beads of
sweat on a pitcher

Get the "canon ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens ($1599)" Expensive, but you can't go wrong for want you want it for.

3) next I guess I need something like the 16-35. I would think
that this would be my least frequently used lens - >
canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1499)
canon ef 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens ($544)
canon ef 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM Lens ($199)

Have you looked at the 15-30mm Sigma EX? This is a very well regarded lens that people use on digitals for a wide angle lens. Best of all, it's $549 at B & H Photo. The Canon L is a great lens, but $1500 for a lens you wouldn't use very often??????? The other two listed don't really cut it.

4) finally I have more of a general question about ways to save $.
I'm not sure however if that matters at my level of
skill - does it?

Yes it does matter. As you develop you'll quickly start to see the limitations and flaws of a cheap lens. Then you'll have to go to the expense of buying your lenses for a second or third time. If you get an L lens of a particular type, you will not buy another one of that type. You won't need to.

should I be looking at prime lenses.

Using prime lenses means carrying around a bag full of lenses and having to make frequent changes of lenses. It's a pretty poor option really. Many speak well of the Canon 50 mm 1.4 for low light indoors work. That might be worth considering. But why do you need it? You shouldn't get lens unless you have a specific purpose. That's just a waste of money.

In the end, I guess I am partailly wondering if maybe I should just
go with something cheap - Sigma -
Two Lens Zoom Kit with 28-80 & 70-300 plus Gadget Bag for Canon AF"

• for $280.

These lenses are GARBAGE. Don't waste your money.

Then use those until they fall apart on me and/or I get
annoyed with the quality

This shouldn't take more than a few weeks )

Hopefully better technology and/or lower prices in 12 months will
make my wait worth while - thoughts on that?

Wrong, lens prices are pretty stable really, particularly the L lenses. Waiting will get you nowhere

thanks in advance for your help.

No problems. If you want to check out some user reviews of the lenses you're looking at see the len section at http://www.photographyreview.com

--RegardsAndrew McGregor'We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.' -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

 

[SoxPadresFan]

Andrew-

thanks a lot for taking time to go through and answer me directly.

I know that all of these things were answered one way or another on other threads - I just became so confused reading so many different opinions and answers that I hoped by posting my own situation - someone like you and hopefully some others would be able to address my issues directly.

If I may follow up with one of my confusions - I read on another thread - how important it was to stay at 2.8 or "faster" in order to help the AF issues of the D60. However, your choices all went against this theory - do you think that this previous statement in untrue/irrellevent for me? Is that because of my "intended use" of the lenses or just because you think zoom (in the case of the 400mm) and/or price outweigh the speed?

Thanks again for your previous and hopefully future help.

Evan

But you say you've researched the forums and I have ten minutes
spare- so here goes.

Assuming my most frequent photo ops are
sports (baseball, football, and golf) and nature (zoo, parks, scenery)

Answer: You need a quality telephoto. A zoom would be best. The
maximum aperture isn't an issue. Therefore: 100-400 L would be the
absolute best lens for you.

I'd obviously also like to take photos on vacations, in museums, of
family, etc.

The Canon 28-135 IS is a very popular general lens for the D30 and
D60. It sound like that's the one for you.

It's $430 at B & H with a US warrantee. It will give you a range of
approx 45-216mm. Nothing wide at all, but very handy for general
shooting situations.

Money
is a consideration, but I will be able to take the philosophy that
I don't want to compromise now - if in the future I will constantly
say - I should have gone with the more expensive lens.

This is definately the right attitude. You should always buy the
BEST GLASS YOU CAN AFFORD. It's an investment. If you buy L's
you'll only buy them once.

What are the pros and cons in the following lens comparisons -
which would be better for me:

1) Now I know I need a 28-70 type lens - I guess these would be my
options:

canon 28-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens ($1299)
canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Lens ($399)
canon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens ($190)
canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III Lens ($129)

is the f/2.8 and the fact that its an "L" really make $900+ in
difference

Yes, in terms of color, contrast and sharpness the L glass is worth
$900 more. The other lens you list are not even close in quality.
Don't even consider them. If you want this range get the 28-135 IS.

2) next, I want a good zoom lens and it is important to me that I
can get really close - I'd love to get close enough to see beads of
sweat on a pitcher

Get the "canon ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens ($1599)"
Expensive, but you can't go wrong for want you want it for.

3) next I guess I need something like the 16-35. I would think
that this would be my least frequently used lens - >
canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1499)
canon ef 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens ($544)
canon ef 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM Lens ($199)

Have you looked at the 15-30mm Sigma EX? This is a very well
regarded lens that people use on digitals for a wide angle lens.
Best of all, it's $549 at B & H Photo. The Canon L is a great lens,
but $1500 for a lens you wouldn't use very often??????? The other
two listed don't really cut it.

4) finally I have more of a general question about ways to save $.
I'm not sure however if that matters at my level of
skill - does it?

Yes it does matter. As you develop you'll quickly start to see the
limitations and flaws of a cheap lens. Then you'll have to go to
the expense of buying your lenses for a second or third time. If
you get an L lens of a particular type, you will not buy another
one of that type. You won't need to.

should I be looking at prime lenses.

Using prime lenses means carrying around a bag full of lenses and
having to make frequent changes of lenses. It's a pretty poor
option really. Many speak well of the Canon 50 mm 1.4 for low light
indoors work. That might be worth considering. But why do you need
it? You shouldn't get lens unless you have a specific purpose.
That's just a waste of money.

In the end, I guess I am partailly wondering if maybe I should just
go with something cheap - Sigma -
Two Lens Zoom Kit with 28-80 & 70-300 plus Gadget Bag for Canon AF"

• for $280.

These lenses are GARBAGE. Don't waste your money.

Then use those until they fall apart on me and/or I get
annoyed with the quality

This shouldn't take more than a few weeks )

Hopefully better technology and/or lower prices in 12 months will
make my wait worth while - thoughts on that?

Wrong, lens prices are pretty stable really, particularly the L
lenses. Waiting will get you nowhere

thanks in advance for your help.

No problems. If you want to check out some user reviews of the
lenses you're looking at see the len section at
http://www.photographyreview.com

--
Regards

Andrew McGregor

'We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.' --
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

 

[Ulli]

hi,

seems like you are only looking for zooms, but i think for your type of shooting you should also consider some primes. maybe a mixed setup like the following can match your needs? all CANON:

20/2.8
50/1.4
-- 24-85/3.5-4.5 (if you need a zoom in that range)
-- 100/2.8 MACRO (if you need one)
70-200/2.8 (IS or none-IS?)
300/4 (IS)
TC 1.4 II

my (very personal) experience in the last years was: if you can afford it, go CANON, go 'fast', go 'L' ... you won't regret it.
just my 0.02 €

ulli.

 

[Amac]

Hi again,

If I may follow up with one of my confusions - I read on another
thread - how important it was to stay at 2.8 or "faster" in order
to help the AF issues of the D60.

I have not read this. In low light, you need a fast aperture in order to have a quick enough shutter speed to freeze the action. Whether or not it will give the AF more light to work with is not something I can confirm. Perhaps a local camera store person would be best to ask how the D60 gets an AF lock froma technical perspective..

However, your choices all went
against this theory - do you think that this previous statement in
untrue/irrellevent for me? Is that because of my "intended use" of
the lenses or just because you think zoom (in the case of the
400mm) and/or price outweigh the speed?

Well, the impression I got is you weren't going to do much low light shooting, so I reasoned that you should go for a longer zoom instead. If you are going to do a lot of low light stuff, then you;d definately need a 2.8 zoom.

As I understand it, the D60 AF will be usuable in most situations. It's just that when the light is low and/or the action is really fast, the D60 just can't cope. It's pretty clear that if you want the best sports results from this camera, you should focus on daylight sports where there's plenty of available light.In this case, the 100-400 IS would be your best bet.

--RegardsAndrew McGregor'We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.' -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

 

[whitt]

...lens prices are pretty stable really, particularly the L lenses. Waiting will get you nowhere

I am of the opinion (from lurking on this forum), that some L lenses have recently seen a price drop. example 300 2.8 IS L, I believe that I was surprised to see that the price dropped on that one circa $500? I have seen several other postings indicating that as well.

I am not sure that this would be a reason to wait on lens purchases...

whitt

 

[Richard Newton]

I've just ordered a D60 and the 16-35, 28-70 f2.8s and 70-200 f4 L lenses. From my previous experience the top of the range kit is miles better. I'm mainly landcape and wanted to save weight hence the f4 70-200. I'm told that digital demands very high quality to give of it's best - why it should any more so than film is interesting - perhaps because of the smaller sensor size? I'd be interested to hear others' opinions of the need for this. Thanks

hi,

seems like you are only looking for zooms, but i think for your
type of shooting you should also consider some primes. maybe a
mixed setup like the following can match your needs? all CANON:

20/2.8
50/1.4
-- 24-85/3.5-4.5 (if you need a zoom in that range)
-- 100/2.8 MACRO (if you need one)
70-200/2.8 (IS or none-IS?)
300/4 (IS)
TC 1.4 II

my (very personal) experience in the last years was: if you can
afford it, go CANON, go 'fast', go 'L' ... you won't regret it.
just my 0.02 €

ulli.

 

[Timothy Schaffer]

Definately agree here, I'm not a big fan of primes. I have noticed a lot of people on this forum saying "Just get a 50mm worst case you might actually have to walk forwards or backwards". Maybe I'm just reading the wrong books and have been wrongly informed but the 50mm f1.8 II has a 46 degree angle of view no matter how close you are to something. You can walk around all day and the only difference you will notice is that your tired.

You might also want to consider the 24-85 3.5-4.5 and the 70-200 f4 L, total price around $950. Also if you want something a little faster. In the Sigma line up is the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 for around $1150 total. Althought I can't comment on Sigma quality personally I have read that the new both the 24-70 and 70-200 are really good lenses. I'm not sure if the 200 would be enough for your application though, someone else might be able to help you out there.

Ditto on the photographyreview.com, lots of great reviews. They have reviews for all four of the lenses I mentioned. Enjoy.

Tim

should I be looking at prime lenses.

Using prime lenses means carrying around a bag full of lenses and
having to make frequent changes of lenses. It's a pretty poor
option really. Many speak well of the Canon 50 mm 1.4 for low light
indoors work. That might be worth considering. But why do you need
it? You shouldn't get lens unless you have a specific purpose.
That's just a waste of money.

 

[SoxPadresFan]

Thanks again for feedback so far.

I'm beginning to form a little more clear idea of what I want, but it still leaves my head spinning a little.

I've decided I definitely need 3 lenses and and I wans to try and answer yes to as many of these as possible:
is it canon
is it L glass
is it "fast" (2.8 or better)
does it have Image stabilization

so, let me know what you think of this:

the first lens I should buy should be in the 28-70 or 28-135 range. Let me debate between the
canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS EF USM ($430) and the
canon 28-70 f/2.8L EF USM ($1100)

this spins thru my head:
I understand the 135 can be soft. - I want crisp
If I get L glass "I won't regret it"
I can get the higher end of the range (70-135 with the telefoto lens)
IS would be nice

questions for people with more experience:

1) Wiill 70mm be good enough in most 'everyday' cases or am i going to wish i had a better telefoto without switching to the bigger lens?

2) Assuming I will use this camera indoors on occasion at museums, etc. will I regret going 3.5 over 2.8?
3) will the IS compensate some for that 3.5/2.8 difference?

4) if the 3.5 was a deterrent could I combine it with a second "prime" lens - every one seems to rave about the 50mm/1.4 on this board?
5) can anyone confirm or deny that canon is coming out with a 28-70 IS?

OK Figured that one out - on to lens 2 - super telefoto

as i explained earlier I want to do sports (baseball, football and golf) from press areas and from spectator areas & nature (zoos, parks, etc). And, I'd like to get shots where you can see beads of sweat or kicked-up dirt. I will also have bay vies from my apartment that are maybe a half mile away (boats, etc) - but that is slightly less important. 95% of these pix will be in regular daylight or at least hi-powered stadium lights. This one is hard. The debate is between the
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM ($1900) and the
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L ($1380) IS USM

this spins thru my head:
both great expensive L lenses with IS
if its negligible - I could use the $520 difference

questions for people with more experience:
1) based on my description above, how often will I regret not having the 400?
2) will the 2.8/4.5 difference effect me much in day light situations?
3) Would anyone recommend the 1.4 or 2x teleconverters?
4) will the push/pull on the 100-400 bother me (still inexperienced)?

5) what would I lose in resale/swap if I decided in 6 months to sell one and buy the other?

The 3rd lens is the wide angle - I think that this would be my least used option. So I would like to save some $ here while still buying something that will last me. My amature inexperienced brain seems to think a prime lens may work here and I'm thinking $500 range so lets set the debate as canon 20mm f/2.8 USM ($440) or
Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF AF ($550)

this spins thru my head:
just make a decision already

questions for people with more experience:
1) will I regret not getting a "canon"?
2) do I need zoom in these cases or will 20mm be fine?
3) does the 2.8/3.5 difference matter here?
4) will I grow out of either of these lenses?

ok - I know how this looks - hes posting stuff thats been answered elsewhere - I am really confused and think that more experienced opinions about my direct thoughts can be very helpful.

Thank you again in advance for all of your patience and thoughts

Evan

Assuming my most frequent photo ops are
sports (baseball, football, and golf) and nature (zoo, parks, scenery)

Answer: You need a quality telephoto. A zoom would be best. The
maximum aperture isn't an issue. Therefore: 100-400 L would be the
absolute best lens for you.

I'd obviously also like to take photos on vacations, in museums, of
family, etc.

The Canon 28-135 IS is a very popular general lens for the D30 and
D60. It sound like that's the one for you.

It's $430 at B & H with a US warrantee. It will give you a range of
approx 45-216mm. Nothing wide at all, but very handy for general
shooting situations.

What are the pros and cons in the following lens comparisons -
which would be better for me:

1) Now I know I need a 28-70 type lens - I guess these would be my
options:

canon 28-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens ($1299)
canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Lens ($399)
canon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens ($190)
canon 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III Lens ($129)

Don't even consider them. If you want this range get the 28-135 IS.

2) next, I want a good zoom lens and it is important to me that I
can get really close - I'd love to get close enough to see beads of
sweat on a pitcher

Get the "canon ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens ($1599)"
Expensive, but you can't go wrong for want you want it for.

3) next I guess I need something like the 16-35. I would think
that this would be my least frequently used lens - >
canon ef 16-35mm f/2.8L USM ($1499)
canon ef 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens ($544)
canon ef 22-55mm f/4-5.6 USM Lens ($199)

Have you looked at the 15-30mm Sigma EX? This is a very well
regarded lens that people use on digitals for a wide angle lens.

should I be looking at prime lenses.

Using prime lenses means carrying around a bag full of lenses and
having to make frequent changes of lenses. It's a pretty poor
option really. Many speak well of the Canon 50 mm 1.4 for low light
indoors work. That might be worth considering. But why do you need
it? You shouldn't get lens unless you have a specific purpose.
That's just a waste of money.

 

[SoxPadresFan]

I'm new at these - I apologize for the long winded messages - someone said just post basics:

I know these have been discussed before - I've tried searches, but the discussions take me in circles - I'm hoping some one can blow me away with a solid answer to my specific dilemma:

canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS EF USM ($430)
or
canon 28-70 f/2.8L EF USM ($1100)

canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM ($1900)
or
canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L ($1380) IS USM

canon 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM ($375)
or
canon 20mm f/2.8 USM ($440)
or
sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX ($550)

and should I add this if I settle for the slower 28-135:
canon EF 50 mm F1.4 USM ($150)

if you want more info on my needs and questions - please read my previous message - thanks