Lens advice

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Crazy_Legs, Aug 1, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Right, currently using a D90 with a Nikorr 18-70 attached most of the time, but am looking for something a bit longer.

    Options are getting the 70-300 and still carry two lenses or go for the 18-200 and sacrifice a bit of length on the zoom. I mainly use the camera for portrait work but occasionally want to do some sports photography, hence the need for a greater zoom.

    Any thoughts??
  2. Slight warning. MrsPlume bought a Nikon as she just doesn't like Canons, so therefore couldn't share my lenses.

    She then got a zoom (not sure of the size, but I think in the 70-300 range) & went for Tamron. While this has worked well in normal conditions when she was photographing out Sevens tournament the other weekend the extremes of zoom & the light levels have made for some fairly so-so pictures when blown up.

    I know the Tamron lens was about a third the price of the equivalent Nikon, but if you're going to want to do any sports photography be aware that you can scrifice a lot of quality.
  3. A mate of mine has an 18-200, rates it well. But at full zoom the max app is f/5.6 which may be a bit limiting if you're after fast shutter speeds for sport. But as a portrait lens it's superb.

    I'd go for the 70-300 as a single lens. I shoot portrait at about 105-150 with a nice tight app to throw the background out of focus.

    One option may be rent one from somewhere like Calumet for a weekend and see how you get on.

  4. No matter what make, all zooms loose light as you go further down the range. If you have to have a zoom, try and get the one with the smallest aperture number at the wide end, as it will be relative when you loose a couple of stops at the narrow end.

    Standard sports lens is 300mm F2.8 fixed.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Appreciate the light-loss issue, leveller, I use a Canon 80-200 on my battered old wet-film EOS! I think, however, this issue was exacerbated by the cheaper lens.

    Yer pays yer money & yer takes yer choice. Luckily MrsPlume doesn't need to take a lot of relatively fast-moving (we're talikng about me playing Sevens here) stuff at long distances very often. She might have had better results if she'd got out of her deckchair & closer to the pitch, mind :wink:
  6. The build quality difference between the old manual lens, and the modern AF is massive, they feel like they're about to disintegrate in your hand from new.
  7. The 18-200 is a cracking lens for general use.

    I'd say, that and a 50mm f/1.8, and something wide-aperture around the 100-135 area, would cover most of what you need.
  8. My EOS was bought in a PX in about '91 & still does good service. The 35-80 that came with it has a small crack in the zoom band thing (whatever it's called, the bit one twists to zoom) but is otherwise unscathed - not bad considering the camera used to live in resi case on my webbing if we went on an NBC-free exercise & that i's travelled round the world with me, including into jungles, across the Atlantic & up mountains albeit by this stage in a Lowe Pro waist pack job.

    I bought a Canon Ultrasonic 80-200 in Tokyo when working in the Far East in about '98, and again this is doing well. Happiest of all is that both fit on & work with the new Canon bodies (although the older 35-80 is a bit slow) so when I can justify it to myself I may invest. If my trip to NZ to see MrsPlume's family at Christmas hadn't cost so much I might have done so before then.

    I'm also quite tempted by the 16-35 (or some similar) that's being quite heavily advertised at the moment. Anyone used it?

    Edit to add:

    Just looked at the Canon website at the wide angle jobs. At £900-1,100 they can use their lenses as proctological instruments!
  9. The longer the zoom the more you will sacrifice image quality at the top and bottom ends, own make will have less of a problem than Tamron and Sigma. I have the 70 - 300 Tamron and on the 7DS the quality is very noticeable, to the point where I hardly use it now and am saving for a prime lens.
  10. Captain Plume is absolutely correct, you get what you pay for, whilst there are plenty of cheap plasticy lenses around modern Af lenses are actually far better in terms of build quality and imagery due to improvements in materials - particularly glass that contains exotic minerals such as fluorite to prevent chromatic aberration and is incredibly clear and engineering that allows for huge apertures - f2.8 in a 70-200mm lens! Unfortunately to get the benefit from those improvements you have to part with plenty of cash. If you want something that feels and acts like a top quality lens look at Canon's L series, if you use a Nikon consult a crystal ball because they have decided on a lens marketing policy that relies on the purchaser believing they get what they pay for with no formal reassurance by way of clear identification, so expensive Nikon lens = probably good.
  11. I think leveller & I are both right - he was pointing out the inherent problems with losing light with a long lens, I (as I had not explained myself properly) was on about how this was made worse by using a Tamron. As neither MrsPlume nor I plan to make a living out of photography we can cope with the loss of quality!
  12. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    I'll echo that, the 18-200 lives on my D90.
    I had a 70-300 for a while but got rid of it.

    The 50mm f/1.4 is great for portraits and low light, cheap too.
  13. Any views on the Canon EOS 1100D? It's about the price range I can afford & would work with the lenses I have. Am actually wondering if getting body-only is worth it bearing in mind the kit with 18-55 included is only £30 more expensive at Jessops & actually seems to cover the range I want (I think).

    IIRC the focal lengths on DSLRs are different - bearing in mind I currently have (on wet film) 35-80 & 80-200, would keep the 80-200 & am after a wide-angle as I find the 35 a bit restricted would the kit above suffice? Sorry for novice questions & if this has been covered elsewhere, but was after up-to-date advice...
  14. Personally I think you'd be better of with a second hand 50D, there are plenty around on flea-bay for sub £400, they originally retailed at around £1100 just a couple of years ago, magnesium body, 15,5 MP, 6fps what more do you need? I have a 5D and a 50D (very expensive but full size sensor for landscapes), I find myself using the 50D just as much, if not more for wildlife stuff, than the 5D because the 1.6 crop factor on the sensor extends my L series 70-200mm to over 300mm and my sigma 120mm-400mm to over 500mm.

    I don't have any experience of the 1100D but having handled it I think it feels too small in my hand, the 50D is a full size SLR.
  15. Already have the 50mm 1.8 so think I will go with the 18-200 and ditch the 18-70.