|
Questions for serious photographers
#313536 - 08/27/13 06:29 PM
|
|
|
first, what's your opinion on this lense?
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO OS
Second, What's the best big(ish) camera out there that's Less than or close to $1000? I'm thinking of grabbing a Canon T5i or Nikon D5200. I tend to see a lot more kinds of Nikon lenses and stuff than I do Canon, so I'm kind of leaning towards the D5200...
My *big* camera is currently a Rebel EOS XTi, with the original lens. I find myself wanting more...
If it helps, I am always most disappointed with night shots on any camera I've had, and I like zooming in as much as I can on bugs and stuff (but I don't own a macro lens). On the other hand, I also enjoy taking landscape pictures, even from far away and I'm stoked about taking my own pictures of the moon with that lens listed up above...(comes in Sony, Nikon, and Canon flavors at my local NEX right now). Oh, and of course portrait pics. I guess whatever camera I get, I really should have at least 3 different lenses, huh?
|
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
|
|
|
Re: Questions for serious photographers
[Re: URherenow]
#313548 - 08/27/13 11:25 PM
|
|
|
> first, what's your opinion on this lense?
> Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO OS
It's not very practical. It's longer than you'd want from a tele zoom most of the time, and it's a slow lens (small aperture. You'd be better off with a 70-300mm lens. On the bright side the optics are pretty decent, and it has a nine-blade diaphragm. The stabilisation on that lens is pretty decent, too
> Second, What's the best big(ish) camera out there that's Less than or close to $1000?
> I'm thinking of grabbing a Canon T5i or Nikon D5200. I tend to see a lot more kinds
> of Nikon lenses and stuff than I do Canon, so I'm kind of leaning towards the
> D5200...
I seriously wouldn't bother with a Canon T5i - it's overpriced. The Canon equivalent to the D5200 would be the 60D or something. But I'd be wary of the Nikon D5200 as well. It has relatively poor low light performance, and it won't autofocus with lenses that don't have an integrated focussing motor. This means you won't get autofocus on either the DC-Nikkor portrait lenses, the 50mm f/1.8D, or many older lenses. The D90 is still in production. It's cheap, can autofocus on the older lenses, and has great low-light performance. Or maybe you should consider stepping up to a full frame camera like the D600.
> My *big* camera is currently a Rebel EOS XTi, with the original lens. I find myself
> wanting more...
> If it helps, I am always most disappointed with night shots on any camera I've had,
> and I like zooming in as much as I can on bugs and stuff (but I don't own a macro
> lens). On the other hand, I also enjoy taking landscape pictures, even from far away
> and I'm stoked about taking my own pictures of the moon with that lens listed up
> above...(comes in Sony, Nikon, and Canon flavors at my local NEX right now). Oh, and
> of course portrait pics. I guess whatever camera I get, I really should have at least
> 3 different lenses, huh?
Well the general rule is you buy a shitload of lenses, but carry no more than three overlapping ones at a time: wide zoom, fast normal, tele zoom. If you really want to photograph bugs, the Canon 100mm macro lens is better than Nikon's 105mm macro. The lens you're talking about is really too slow for taking pictures of the moon, though. You need a stupid expensive fast tele for doing that.
|
|
|
|
Re: Questions for serious photographers
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#313556 - 08/28/13 02:21 AM
|
|
|
Thanks for the input.
Poor low light performance is a turn-off  . OTH the D90 is old and the D600 is out of my price range (considering the lenses I would want to buy with it).
I was just thinking that huge lens I mentioned would have been great for taking landscape pictures from Iwo Jima and from the top of Mt. Fuji. From your comment though I guess a pic of the full moon with that lens and a D5200 wouldn't turn out that well. Guess I need to wait for a miracle sale or something.
|
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
|
|
| RATMNL |
|
Patron Saint of the Totally F*cked
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 02/02/13
|
|
Posts: 425
|
|
Loc: 026, NL
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Questions for serious photographers
[Re: URherenow]
#313567 - 08/28/13 11:54 AM
|
|
|
with Sigma though, Go to a retailer and ask them for EVERY unit of a Model and try them ALL! Sigma imho is a bit Hit & Miss per item (even if they are supposed to be the same!)
|
"Those voices in his head might not be real, but they have really good ideas!"
|
|
|
Confused after a reread of your post
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#313583 - 08/29/13 01:48 AM
|
|
|
> lens you're talking about is really too slow for taking pictures of the moon, though.
> You need a stupid expensive fast tele for doing that.
This part in particular. Why a fast lens? I would think you need a slower one for more exposure or more light or something. I clearly need to read more about this stuff...
|
Just broke my personal record for number of consecutive days without dying!
|
|
| Sune |
|
Connected
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5648
|
|
Loc: Lagoa Santa, Brasil
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Confused after a reread of your post
[Re: URherenow]
#313584 - 08/29/13 02:04 AM
|
|
|
> > lens you're talking about is really too slow for taking pictures of the moon,
> though.
> > You need a stupid expensive fast tele for doing that.
>
> This part in particular. Why a fast lens? I would think you need a slower one for
> more exposure or more light or something. I clearly need to read more about this
> stuff...
lol I was about to ask the same thing. Vas please enlighten us.
S
|
|
|
|
Re: Confused after a reread of your post
[Re: URherenow]
#313585 - 08/29/13 02:12 AM
|
|
|
> > lens you're talking about is really too slow for taking pictures of the moon,
> though.
> > You need a stupid expensive fast tele for doing that.
>
> This part in particular. Why a fast lens? I would think you need a slower one for
> more exposure or more light or something. I clearly need to read more about this
> stuff...
Fast lens (e.g. f/1.8) = lets in more light at a time
Slow lens (e.g. f/5.6) = lets in less light at a time
The dimmer the subject or the slower the lens, the longer the exposure time you need. The longer the exposure the more you get affected by heat shimmer, poor seeing conditions, vibration, etc. Also, longer lenses like that super-tele suffer more from these effects than shorter lenses.
It's probably OK for shooting scenery from a distance, but be prepared to have poor detail. The atmosphere is a bitch. The further you are from the subject, the more water haze, particulate pollution, dust, and heat shimmer affect you.
Double the f/ratio = one quarter the light gathering ability
i.e. an f/5.6 lens needs four times the exposure time an f/2.8 lens needs for the same subject in the same light.
Higher f/ratios increase diffraction, too. Above f/8 you can definitely see diffraction blur on a good digital camera. This is worse on smaller sensors, so going to a 35mm sensor lets you push the f/ratio higher if you have wicked bright light or you need massive depth of field.
Basically you can't win. You end up spending a fortune on lenses, and you're unhappy with something about every single one of them. Deciding which three to carry with you is agonising, too.
|
|
|
| Sune |
|
Connected
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5648
|
|
Loc: Lagoa Santa, Brasil
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Thanks
[Re: Matty_]
#313586 - 08/29/13 02:16 AM
|
|
|
> Basically you can't win. You end up spending a fortune on lenses, and you're unhappy
> with something about every single one of them. Deciding which three to carry with you
> is agonising, too.
Such is the burden of a 1st world dweller. Throw away everything and go live in a cave and see how you like that....hmm..which rock do I use to sharpen this stick?
S
|
|
|
|
Re: Confused after a reread of your post
[Re: Sune]
#313587 - 08/29/13 02:17 AM
|
|
|
> > Basically you can't win. You end up spending a fortune on lenses, and you're unhappy
> > with something about every single one of them. Deciding which three to carry with you
> > is agonising, too.
>
> Such is the burden of a 1st world dweller. Throw away everything and go live in a
> cave and see how you like that....hmm..which rock do I use to sharpen this stick?
The geek's dilemma, trying to choose the perfect tool for a job rather than just an adequate one 
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
oh c'mon, that lens is perfect for moon shots. there's not a single body on the market right now that can't do moon shots at f/8 on near-native isos that would be too slow. i appreciate the enthusiasm, but let's keep it honest.
here's a moon shot i took recently at 420mm. f/8, 800ISO, at 1/500s. you can play with it a stop or 2 to even it up, but if you use a tripod, there's not a camera and lens combo alive that is "too slow" to take a good moon picture.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Questions for serious photographers
[Re: URherenow]
#313593 - 08/29/13 06:36 AM
|
|
|
1) what are you wanting to shoot mainly?
2) what's your total budget (body & lens, accessories, etc)?
3) regardless, don't buy the d5200.
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
Questions for serious photographers
Reply
[Re: 
. OTH the D90 is old and the D600 is out of my price range (considering the lenses I would want to buy with it).
