Kay 3,709 Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 I would get a canon 55/250 the one i got with my camera bundle was a tamron 75/300 & compared to the canon 55/250 its painfully slow i have had some very nice pics with my basic 1000d & 55/250 ........ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SNAP SHOT 194 Posted October 21, 2010 Report Share Posted October 21, 2010 At the time I couldnt afford the lens I really wanted which was the Canon 100-400mm IS L, so I opted for the Sigma 120-400mm at less than half the price of the Canon but with excellent reviews. I was VERY happy with it, it performed really well, but did require good light to be at its best. I at last could afford the Canon I wanted, so I sold the Sigma, the difference is amazing. The canon knocks it into a cocked hat! Same aperture etc.. but so fast, quiet and lovely!! My advice, get the best you can afford. stunning shots dawn, especially the otter ones... lovely creatures... Snap Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bush Rummager 3,767 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 This is a great site for in depth reviews on canon gear and third party lenses.. plenty of sample images too, if you're not confused already.. you will be after sifting through this lot!.. nice shots by the way Dawn.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dawn B 212 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 stunning shots dawn, especially the otter ones... lovely creatures... Snap This is a great site for in depth reviews on canon gear and third party lenses.. plenty of sample images too, if you're not confused already.. you will be after sifting through this lot!.. nice shots by the way Dawn.. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ Thanks both. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Hi I paid £419 for the AF-S NIKKOR 70 300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G. V R And I still dont have a clue if it was worth it.The guy who sold it to me said it was.Must say its taken a few good pics. Edited October 22, 2010 by Catcher 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J Darcy 5,871 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 The slow lenses that need alot of light are ok through summertime. And, yes, when theres a bit of sun you can get stunnning shots with cheap lenses. BUT in the coming six months as light levels drop the quality of lenses will become painfully apparent. Problem being, we have all got to work to a budget, but it is better to get a second hand f2.8 than a new F5.6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Catcher 1 639 Posted October 22, 2010 Report Share Posted October 22, 2010 Picked this up at Scone Palace this year.Hopefully.it will keep the cold winter chill of me.All so makes a good air gun hide. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Picked this up at Scone Palace this year.Hopefully.it will keep the cold winter chill of me.All so makes a good air gun hide. You can crash in there whenever the mrs chucks you out fatboy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ghillies 209 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 ghillie up theyre luvly and warm, i have a camel pack to wear under mine lol. anyon tried the new Carl Zeiss canon lenses yet? pricey like... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chook Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Personaly if your going to be buying an entry level camera - go for the 350d, and use the money saved to buy a decent lens, theres not much difference between the 350,1000d and 450d. I have the 450d and wish id have just gone for the 350d theres not a hell of a lot of difference between them, except price. http://www.digital-photo-keyrings.co.uk/detail.asp?PID=4218 450d with canon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM lens. You do need good light for the lens - but even in crap light - were its verry over cast, you can still get some decent shots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kay 3,709 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 Out of the models you mention are they all the same the same frames per second .. i think my 1000d is is 3 ? but i agree a decent lens makes a hell of a difference .. the lens i use for the money i paid is excellent .. i do think your better going for canon or nikon lens rather than sigma or tamron unless there fast lens Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest chook Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kay 3,709 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. i think that will be a good all round lens ... seems a sensible choice to me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. I had a look at the 28-300L with a view to maybe only having to carry one lens around all day, but tbh I didn't feel the image quality was all that you'd expect from L glass. It may have just been a bad copy that I tried, but after speaking to several other people they agreed that for an L lens it wasn't quite as sharp as it should be at the extremes... A very versatile lens though, a bit on the heavy side, but not much more than the 70-200 2.8. The 100-400L must be do for a re-vamp soon, might be one to consider? Although you'd still need another lens for the wider view... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J Darcy 5,871 Posted October 23, 2010 Report Share Posted October 23, 2010 They are virtualy the same - except price, thats the difference, the 450d does have 3.5 frames per sec, but its not much. Ive been looking to get the canon 28-300 L, bit expencive, but im hoping for the price of it - it will repay tenfold. I had a look at the 28-300L with a view to maybe only having to carry one lens around all day, but tbh I didn't feel the image quality was all that you'd expect from L glass. It may have just been a bad copy that I tried, but after speaking to several other people they agreed that for an L lens it wasn't quite as sharp as it should be at the extremes... A very versatile lens though, a bit on the heavy side, but not much more than the 70-200 2.8. The 100-400L must be do for a re-vamp soon, might be one to consider? Although you'd still need another lens for the wider view... th e28-300 seems far too much of a focal range for me to go near. In theory it sounds ideal, a one-lens-for-all, type of thing, but in reality, if they were any good we would all have them. I bought a sigma 50-500 with the same view. Frankly it was rubbish and i sold it. It depends on what you require i guess, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.