TP classified sub forum for a start and thats one of many. ebay isnt the centre of the universe you know
Which lens option?
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
TP classified sub forum for a start and thats one of many. ebay isnt the centre of the universe you know
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Well I doubt it unless the 1ds was on it's last legs as the seller would have to be dopey to sell at that price.
Unless the Op has access to TP members market, as it isn't freely open to the public, it's irrelevant anyway.
Unless the Op has access to TP members market, as it isn't freely open to the public, it's irrelevant anyway.
Like I said, one of many such sites. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist lol.
Why is the 55-300mm f/5.6 almost half the price of the 70-300mm f/5.6 despite having a greater zoom range? Simply because it's APS and not 35mm? If so I'd rather go for that now, knowing that it will work on FX cameras anyway, cropped. The lens is more compact and seems to have better if not just as good optical quality up to 200mm, after that it's just contrast that is not as good and that can be easily corrected after the fact, if I'm not mistaken?
Last edited:
Its no where near as good optically. The sharpness as well as the contast are vastly different.
That's not the impression I got here. Not £200 difference anyway.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2
Can anyone recommend any good bags for SLR cameras with 3-4 lenses, flash and mic?
Last edited:
That is a terrible comparison tool, makes no sense at all- they tested a crop lens on a FF body and a FF lens on a FF body - how does one even know what they tested on the FF camera.
The 70-300 is a sharper lens, especially on the wider end. The difference is not vast but noticeable. Furthermore, the Af and build quality of the 70-300 is much better.
Still, the 55-300 is a reasonable lens. It is only about 150 quid cheaper so comes back to priorities. If money is tight you might also consider the 55-200 VR DX. About 100 pounds cheaper again, (so only 160 all in) and compares pretty well to the 55-300 in all areas. The choice comes down to needing the 200-300mm range.
I use http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/ to get UK pricing for reliable UK based retailers that avoids customs or warranty issues.
Even if it needs to go up to ISO-6400 in those bad lighting conitions, I am sure it will look a lot better than the 550D did anyway. The lens is definitely much better than the cannon one, metal rubber sealed mount, decent focus ring and internal focusing for all practical purposes. Can definitely see the sharpness difference. Only thing now is that I can see the 1.4G going for £286. 
The substantial drop in ISO would definitely be appreciated. With that lens the ISO equivalence to my old 550D would be only 3000.
Another thing I've noticed is how much quieter the shutter is on this camera.
With regards to the 300mm, I am now edging towards 70-300 after getting more money than expected selling some other stuff on ebay, and I would have course rather have an FX lens for future proofing. As for Tamron or Nikon I can't quite say yet.
So I'd have:
50mm f/1.8 (maybe f/1.4
)
18-105mm f/5.6
70-300mm f/5.6
That covers walkabout, portraits/low light and telephoto.
The substantial drop in ISO would definitely be appreciated. With that lens the ISO equivalence to my old 550D would be only 3000.Another thing I've noticed is how much quieter the shutter is on this camera.
With regards to the 300mm, I am now edging towards 70-300 after getting more money than expected selling some other stuff on ebay, and I would have course rather have an FX lens for future proofing. As for Tamron or Nikon I can't quite say yet.
So I'd have:
50mm f/1.8 (maybe f/1.4
)18-105mm f/5.6
70-300mm f/5.6
That covers walkabout, portraits/low light and telephoto.
Last edited:
I have got good result from ISO3200 from my GF's D7K that I was very impressed with, nearly a stop cleaner than my D90.
Maybe go Tamron as a middle ground.
One thing with lenses is that good lenses don't really depreciate very fast and sometimes increase in value). I balk at spending £1000 on a lens but then you have to realise you could probably sell it 4 years later for £800 - £50 a year, £1 a week to rent a top end lens- bargain. It is not at all comparable to buying cameras, computers, TVs, cars etc.
Maybe go Tamron as a middle ground.
One thing with lenses is that good lenses don't really depreciate very fast and sometimes increase in value). I balk at spending £1000 on a lens but then you have to realise you could probably sell it 4 years later for £800 - £50 a year, £1 a week to rent a top end lens- bargain. It is not at all comparable to buying cameras, computers, TVs, cars etc.
I think I may go with the Tamron in the end based on price, I have a bad tendency to overspend for better quality items, I bought a £55 leather head collar for my horse after intending to buy a nylon one for £15-20.
After experiencing the great manual override focusing ring and fast, virtually internal, auto-focus of the f/1.8G, the 70-300mm seems much more tempting than it did before. Less overlap too.
So glad I switched to Nikon in the end, worth the extra money for sure.
After experiencing the great manual override focusing ring and fast, virtually internal, auto-focus of the f/1.8G, the 70-300mm seems much more tempting than it did before. Less overlap too.
So glad I switched to Nikon in the end, worth the extra money for sure.
Oh, what do you think about filters and hoods etc? I've obviously never used one before but this more premium lens came with a hood and the other lenses I'm looking at are internal focusing too, so can easily have a filter put on them.
I have to say the flip out screen is really useful, I'm glad I went for this over the more expensive D3200, these features beat a few more megapixels in my opinion. Really helps prevent the screen from being damaged when closed.
I have to say the flip out screen is really useful, I'm glad I went for this over the more expensive D3200, these features beat a few more megapixels in my opinion. Really helps prevent the screen from being damaged when closed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 6,453
- Location
- Oxfordshire
I always use a hood on my lenses. The hood has saved my lens quite a few times from some unsightly scuffs etc.
I don't bother with filters though, although allot use them for protection to. Personally I would rather put the money on a new front element should I ever need to. Touch wood, it would be very unlikely though.
I don't bother with filters though, although allot use them for protection to. Personally I would rather put the money on a new front element should I ever need to. Touch wood, it would be very unlikely though.
With regards to the 35mm and 85mm primes, how do they compare against the 50mm? F/1.8 I'm talking here, I'm thinking of returning my 50mm and switching to the 35mm despite it's DX format, because the 50mm just doesn't work as a jack of all trades indoors, I find myself having to stand way too far back when taking portraits of horses and pretty much anyone in my house for that matter, I think I'd be better off with those 24mm less. Maybe considering getting the 85mm f/1.8 much later on after my purchase of the general 18-105mm lens and 70-300mm lens. With regards to the Tamron 70-300 virtually everyone is saying it is much sharper than the Nikon across all focal lengths and apertures and judging by the comparison pictures they post I am inclined to agree with them. Chromatic aberration is very noticeable on the Nikon I can definitely say as a relative layperson.
Last edited: