graduating from digital to digital slr

[patriciaannrees]

I have been using point and shoot digital cams, til my latest which is a Dimage 7, I am now deciding to buy a Canon which when you buy it is classed as body only...and I need to buy the lenses to go with it.

Everyone has to start somewhere with the learning of what is the best (but not necessarily most expensive), and I dont know squat...but I bet there is a so many people who do.

Could someone tell me an example of what would be a basic set of lenses, that I dont have to take out a mortgage to buy but I can take birds flying...and similiar. I appreciate any help anyone cares to give.

 

[Juli Valley]

Do a search for lens choices. You should get many suggestions.

 

[Phredd]

You might want to start with the 28-135 IS ($400). It's a very good all-around lens with image stabilization which is a very useful feature in low light. Since there is a 1.6 multiplier relative to 35mm cameras, this really doesn't cover a wide angle field of view, so if you want a wide angle zoom, the 20-35 ($400) is a good choice. If you want telephoto, the 75-300 IS ($400) is also a great lens.

The "pros" might suggest the 24-70 and/or prime lenses, but you did specify you didn't want a second mortgage... On the other extreme, if you really want to spend as little as possible, there's a 28-200 ($400), but the quality is lower.

Fred

Could someone tell me an example of what would be a basic set of
lenses, that I dont have to take out a mortgage to buy but I can
take birds flying...and similiar. I appreciate any help anyone
cares to give.

 

[patriciaannrees]

Fred

Thanks for the reply, so in your opinion, a basic set of 3 lenses to cover most situations is the way to go...and even in my dollars(Australian) this is a lot of money, at least you have given me something to work on.

Pat

You might want to start with the 28-135 IS ($400). It's a very
good all-around lens with image stabilization which is a very
useful feature in low light. Since there is a 1.6 multiplier
relative to 35mm cameras, this really doesn't cover a wide angle
field of view, so if you want a wide angle zoom, the 20-35 ($400)
is a good choice. If you want telephoto, the 75-300 IS ($400) is
also a great lens.

The "pros" might suggest the 24-70 and/or prime lenses, but you did
specify you didn't want a second mortgage... On the other extreme,
if you really want to spend as little as possible, there's a 28-200
($400), but the quality is lower.

Fred

 

[SLRman]

With all due respect, it all depends on what you are shooting. If for general purpose shooting, I would never buy L series lenses. They are way too expensive for the everyday armature, and unless you were going to shoot war zones or on assignment in Antarctica for a year, you would not need to either.

The 28-135 IS is the real deal for hobbyists/enthusiasts. Sharp and good all round lens with all the right features and good image quality.

If you are looking for optical quality, then nothing beats prime lenses for price and performance.

Let me tell you a short story – last week a friend that was getting serious about photography asked me what camera they should buy, digital? P&S? SLR? But at the end of a long discussion, we came to the conclusion that what he was really asking me was how to shoot better photos and not what camera to buy. He is now happy with a Nikon F80 film SLR and a photography techniques course. Cutting to the chase, is that what you are asking? New camera does not = better pictures. Sorry but I do not mean to offend you or anything… I just want to help…

SLRman

Thanks for the reply, so in your opinion, a basic set of 3 lenses
to cover most situations is the way to go...and even in my
dollars(Australian) this is a lot of money, at least you have given
me something to work on.

Pat

You might want to start with the 28-135 IS ($400). It's a very
good all-around lens with image stabilization which is a very
useful feature in low light. Since there is a 1.6 multiplier
relative to 35mm cameras, this really doesn't cover a wide angle
field of view, so if you want a wide angle zoom, the 20-35 ($400)
is a good choice. If you want telephoto, the 75-300 IS ($400) is
also a great lens.

The "pros" might suggest the 24-70 and/or prime lenses, but you did
specify you didn't want a second mortgage... On the other extreme,
if you really want to spend as little as possible, there's a 28-200
($400), but the quality is lower.

Fred

 

[patriciaannrees]

Just a quick reply, I am certainly am an amateur (or armature as you have put it), but that counts to anyone doesnt it.

I belong to a camera club, and enter into club competitions, and also belong to a very active online club.

I have spent hours studying the basics of the camera, and think my photography has improved, since I first began about 18 months ago.

I certainly know that a better camera does not say automatically better photos, but I am not impressed with the shutter speed of this camera I own at the moment, and was investigating the next step up in cameras, which is is slr.

With all due respect, it all depends on what you are shooting. If
for general purpose shooting, I would never buy L series lenses.
They are way too expensive for the everyday armature, and unless
you were going to shoot war zones or on assignment in Antarctica
for a year, you would not need to either.

The 28-135 IS is the real deal for hobbyists/enthusiasts. Sharp and
good all round lens with all the right features and good image
quality.

If you are looking for optical quality, then nothing beats prime
lenses for price and performance.

Let me tell you a short story – last week a friend that was getting
serious about photography asked me what camera they should buy,
digital? P&S? SLR? But at the end of a long discussion, we came to
the conclusion that what he was really asking me was how to shoot
better photos and not what camera to buy. He is now happy with a
Nikon F80 film SLR and a photography techniques course. Cutting to
the chase, is that what you are asking? New camera does not =
better pictures. Sorry but I do not mean to offend you or anything…
I just want to help…

SLRman

 

[Rob Martin]

a good body is cr@p without good glass (or a better photographer).

Always be thinking glass glass glass... bodies with get better... glass is about as good as it gets...... (unless something radical happens.... like a backward 1.5 crop lens system from Nikon...for example)

Birds flying is a tough one on a budget.......

How about the 50-500 Sigma? Not my choice, but on a budget it's not a bad one.

--

------------------------------

if you take the time to do something urgent, make sure it is important .............................

 

[SLRman]

Hi,

Sorry about my spelling, I am a spellcheck baby

In that case, DSLR is not the ONLY way to go if you are trying to get better pics that your p&s digicam. I belong to a photographic club and we all have film...

If Digital is definately the only way to go, then I would have to say it's an expensive road...

I certainly know that a better camera does not say automatically
better photos, but I am not impressed with the shutter speed of
this camera I own at the moment, and was investigating the next
step up in cameras, which is is slr.

With all due respect, it all depends on what you are shooting. If
for general purpose shooting, I would never buy L series lenses.
They are way too expensive for the everyday armature, and unless
you were going to shoot war zones or on assignment in Antarctica
for a year, you would not need to either.

The 28-135 IS is the real deal for hobbyists/enthusiasts. Sharp and
good all round lens with all the right features and good image
quality.

If you are looking for optical quality, then nothing beats prime
lenses for price and performance.

Let me tell you a short story – last week a friend that was getting
serious about photography asked me what camera they should buy,
digital? P&S? SLR? But at the end of a long discussion, we came to
the conclusion that what he was really asking me was how to shoot
better photos and not what camera to buy. He is now happy with a
Nikon F80 film SLR and a photography techniques course. Cutting to
the chase, is that what you are asking? New camera does not =
better pictures. Sorry but I do not mean to offend you or anything…
I just want to help…

SLRman

 

[Elizabeth Nelson]

I'm new to all this too. I just got my camera on Monday. This is what I've been through since then:

First, I brought home a 50 mm 1.8 because it's supposed to be tack sharp. It was, but when I tried to take pictures of the neighborhood kids, I couldn't fit everything in the frame.

So yesterday, I got a 28-105 3.5. Well, the camera is bigger than I'm used to and when you add on the lens, it was a lot to hold on to. I got some good pictures of my husband, but the pictures I took while out and about were a little shakey. So I took that lens back and got the 28-135 IS lens (today) because I figured the IS will make up for part of my shakyness. Plus this lens will shoot in lower light than a similar lens without IS because the IS makes up for what would have been a slower shutter speed. Or something like that.

: )

Elizabeth Nelson

I have been using point and shoot digital cams, til my latest which
is a Dimage 7, I am now deciding to buy a Canon which when you buy
it is classed as body only...and I need to buy the lenses to go
with it.
Everyone has to start somewhere with the learning of what is the
best (but not necessarily most expensive), and I dont know
squat...but I bet there is a so many people who do.

Could someone tell me an example of what would be a basic set of
lenses, that I dont have to take out a mortgage to buy but I can
take birds flying...and similiar. I appreciate any help anyone
cares to give.

 

[Jon Robichaud]

The 28-135 IS is the real deal for hobbyists/enthusiasts. Sharp and
good all round lens with all the right features and good image
quality.

If you are looking for optical quality, then nothing beats prime
lenses for price and performance.

Let me tell you a short story – last week a friend that was getting
serious about photography asked me what camera they should buy,
digital? P&S? SLR? But at the end of a long discussion, we came to
the conclusion that what he was really asking me was how to shoot
better photos and not what camera to buy. He is now happy with a
Nikon F80 film SLR and a photography techniques course. Cutting to
the chase, is that what you are asking? New camera does not =
better pictures. Sorry but I do not mean to offend you or anything…
I just want to help…

SLRman

Thanks for the reply, so in your opinion, a basic set of 3 lenses
to cover most situations is the way to go...and even in my
dollars(Australian) this is a lot of money, at least you have given
me something to work on.

Pat

You might want to start with the 28-135 IS ($400). It's a very
good all-around lens with image stabilization which is a very
useful feature in low light. Since there is a 1.6 multiplier
relative to 35mm cameras, this really doesn't cover a wide angle
field of view, so if you want a wide angle zoom, the 20-35 ($400)
is a good choice. If you want telephoto, the 75-300 IS ($400) is
also a great lens.

The "pros" might suggest the 24-70 and/or prime lenses, but you did
specify you didn't want a second mortgage... On the other extreme,
if you really want to spend as little as possible, there's a 28-200
($400), but the quality is lower.

Fred

 

[dphilips]

Here is an article I found helpful when starting out:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system

 

[patriciaannrees]

digressing from the original topic, I feel it may initially be an expensive road, but consider the benefits of not having to buy film, and taking as many shots as you like, deleting at will, I am semi retired and its a fun obsession for me..this photography thing, I am out overy day taking shots, could never afford the developing, I also live a good distance from any decent labs, so printing my own at the size i desire is another reason......thanks for your input, any more you wish to add...I like the discussions...

and I am slowly converting some of the film people to digital )

Pat

Hi,

Sorry about my spelling, I am a spellcheck baby

In that case, DSLR is not the ONLY way to go if you are trying to
get better pics that your p&s digicam. I belong to a photographic
club and we all have film...

If Digital is definately the only way to go, then I would have to
say it's an expensive road...