Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: lenses you used when newbie?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBram
    I am still a newbie (at least I call myself snapshooter and not photographer)

    Used to use 35-70 f/3.3-4.5 with my old F601.

    When went digital, I got 28-80mm G. I found out that being equivalent to 42mm wide is simply not wide enough. I got Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 last week, and found that being equivalent to 36mm is a lot wider. However, now it does not have enough "reaching power". I should have gone for 24-135 or something like that. I still have my 28-80G though.

    Hmmm... some important points to note!

    Thanks

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    desert
    Posts
    363

    Wink

    Canon EF 28-90mm
    Canon EF 75-300mm

    I am still a newbie.
    Though I snap like mad when I was young, that was with a compact idiot 35mm camera. Only started shooting with SLR 3 mths ago.
    Dancing desert scorpion
    :devil:

  3. #23

    Default

    nikon 28-200mm ~~~~ now selling it though ~~

  4. #24

    Default

    shot this avatar of mine with my first EF 28-105 II USM

  5. #25

    Default

    I started off with a Tamron 24-135 but later found it did not have enough reach for those far subjects, like during the Wakefest event.

    Later I got a cheapo 70-300mm f4-5.6G, to extend the reach.

    If you can only afford to start off with 1 lens, a Tamron 28-200mm XR is really a good idea and it is very affordable.
    It gives you the wide to tele in a single lens so you can take part in all kinds of photo outings, from the very close Macros (<1m) and fashion shoots (10-15m?) to the very far subjects abt 200-300m away.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrBram
    I am still a newbie (at least I call myself snapshooter and not photographer)

    Used to use 35-70 f/3.3-4.5 with my old F601.

    When went digital, I got 28-80mm G. I found out that being equivalent to 42mm wide is simply not wide enough. I got Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 last week, and found that being equivalent to 36mm is a lot wider. However, now it does not have enough "reaching power". I should have gone for 24-135 or something like that. I still have my 28-80G though.
    get a 70-300mm G (ard $200+) and you will have coverage from 24mm to 300mm.

    it's probably the 2nd cheapest lens after the famed 50mm f/1.8

    If you need the aperature ring for manual cameras, 3rd party 70-300mm's from Tamron and Sigma are quite affordable too.

  7. #27

    Default

    50mm and 28mm primes

    To date some of my best pics were taken with either prime.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston
    get a 70-300mm G (ard $200+) and you will have coverage from 24mm to 300mm.

    it's probably the 2nd cheapest lens after the famed 50mm f/1.8

    If you need the aperature ring for manual cameras, 3rd party 70-300mm's from Tamron and Sigma are quite affordable too.
    Thanks Winston,

    I actually had a 70-300G for few months and got read of it because of my limited shooting skill forbids me from getting sharp pictures. Anything wider than f/11 was simply not sharp.

    Anyway, what I meant was with 28-80mm the tele end (being 120mm equiv) was very comfortable, and when I changed to my Sigma 24-70mm somehow the 105mm equivalent is simply not enough. I did not realise that those 15mm (equiv) can be a lot of difference. That's why I recommend something like 24-120 or 24-135 (That's around 35-200mm equivalent!) for Helmetbox's Digital SLR when he/she is getting one.

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    119

    Default

    first len was is a 35-70mm zoom by minolta use with a X-300 camera abt 15years ago bought second hand from friend

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveHart
    50mm and 28mm primes

    To date some of my best pics were taken with either prime.
    I am so considering the 50mm 1.8! Everyone tells me its value for money

    How much would a decent 28mm cost?

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HelmetBox
    I am so considering the 50mm 1.8! Everyone tells me its value for money

    How much would a decent 28mm cost?
    The 50mm would range from 130-150 depending on which system you use...the 28/2.8 should cost within the region of 320-350.

    Both are excellent lens....cheap, small, light, and as sharp and contrasty as any 4 figure pro zoom that encompasses the same range.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •