lenses you used when newbie?

[HelmetBox]

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

 

[jnifur]

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.

 

[West_ray]

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

 

[xmen1977]

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

 

[Winston]

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.

 

[Winston]

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.

 

[BraveHart]

50mm and 28mm primes

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

 

[MrBram]

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.

 

[meng kuang]

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

 

[HelmetBox]

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?

 

[BraveHart]

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.