TweetI ONLY USE WALGREENS DISPOSABLES. THEY TAKE GOOD PICTURES AND ARE WATERPROOF

TweetPM Lxorl. I think he's the art/Photo guru.

TweetIf you think you might be interested in photography, check out your local community college or any university... they offer continuing ed class on just about anything including photography. Classes are very inexpensive and are usually one or two nights a week for 4 wks. Plus you can learn a lot from them.

TweetI`m with Dixy on this one. I checked this thread because I took 3 terms of photo classes in HS and thought I`d check out your question.

You can gain or loose so much just by determining frame composition, lighting angles, f-stop & shutter speed... and none of that has to do with the lense.

Plus you`ve got a nice digi, if you need to zoom just crop and zoom on your computer- I bet you`ll still get great resolution. What`s your max pic size?

Recommendation #1 check out a community college photo class, I`ll bet you`ll be happy you did.

Recommendation #2 if you want to look into lenses try filters first. You can really improve pictures using different filters for indoor/outdoor/sunset/mid-day light filters. Plus I`ve heard that one of the most difficult things for the digi cams to do is handle the filtering - plus filters are cheap.

Tweet

Originally Posted by dixiechick

If you think you might be interested in photography, check out your local community college or any university... they offer continuing ed class on just about anything including photography. Classes are very inexpensive and are usually one or two nights a week for 4 wks. Plus you can learn a lot from them.

See, I don't want to actually get into photography, I just want the best lens for walk around shooting, nothing fancy. And, I have no time for something like that, but I do see the point. Knowledge of photography makes all the difference. You could have the best camera and the best lens and still not take as good of a picture as a pro with average equipment because they know the proper settings. I wish I had time to do that, but I don't. I guess if it was one night a week, I would be able to handle that. Thank you for the input, I may just check it out and see if they have a one day class.

Tweet

Originally Posted by superdog

I`m with Dixy on this one. I checked this thread because I took 3 terms of photo classes in HS and thought I`d check out your question.

You can gain or loose so much just by determining frame composition, lighting angles, f-stop & shutter speed... and none of that has to do with the lense.

Plus you`ve got a nice digi, if you need to zoom just crop and zoom on your computer- I bet you`ll still get great resolution. What`s your max pic size?

Recommendation #1 check out a community college photo class, I`ll bet you`ll be happy you did.

Recommendation #2 if you want to look into lenses try filters first. You can really improve pictures using different filters for indoor/outdoor/sunset/mid-day light filters. Plus I`ve heard that one of the most difficult things for the digi cams to do is handle the filtering - plus filters are cheap.

I know what you are saying for sure bro. If I have the time, I may take a class, but I do know that the lens makes a huge difference to some degree. For example, the ones I actually purchased is 'good' for most low light shots, not very good and not excellent, so that will be one of it's limitations. But, to get one that goes down to 2.8 would cost me over a grand and I'm just not going to take enough pics to make that worth while.

I ended up getting one that goes from 28 to 300 and it came recommended by a photographer friend of one of my friends. He basically said the same thing you did, with the SLR camera I have I'm going to get good shots from just about any lens, but I won't get pro quality shots unless I go up to an L series lens. But, he said for what I wan't to do, the one I was looking at was perfect.

Thanks again for the input.

TweetT-Man... I know exactly what you mean about time. There just is never enough. Something else that can enhance you photos is a good photo editing program such as PhotoShop. You can edit, enlarge/reduce and crop pictures to make them look much better... It just takes time to learn the program.

Tweeti dont know a whole lot about digital cameras and lenses.

i would think with a decent resolution camera and maybe a 300-500 lense you would be in good shape.

Originally Posted by angryoldman

PM Lxorl. I think he's the art/Photo guru.

TweetI have several Nikons - I don't use Canon simply because I started with Nikon and once you have some cash invested you tend to stay with that brand.

I have 2 film Nikons - an older one and an N90s
My personal digital is a Nikon D70 but I am considering upgrading to the D200 or D2X for larger format type of prints.
The Nikon I use for work is a D50 and it works fine for most situations.

Now on to your question -
The "GENERAL" rule of thumb is spend money on good glass (lenses)
That of course would be the Nikor Lens for Nikon or the Canon Lens
HOWEVER!!! You need to consider what you're doing with it and what type of quality vs. $$ you want.

For my work photos I got good glass and a slightly lesser camera because I can always pull in one of my better units if I have the need.
The lens I use at work is indeed a Nikon/Nikor lens, I also use a Tamron wide angle for my larger needs.

For home and vacation and all my personal stuff I use Sigma lenses they are very, very good, less expensive and I have no issues with them at all.

I can post a couple of pics I took this weekend from a local bodybuilding show if you like. The pics were taken with a Sigma lens and you can see the quality of the pics.
Let me know -

But the bottom line is need vs. cost. The intended use you describe would not necessarily warrant the higher cost Canon lens but it's not that much more I personally would get that.
Just a little run through of the lens below - they all have very similar F/ #s 3.5-about 6 so they all have roughly the same speed.

Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras Price: $366.71
**Possibly a slightly better quality lens than the Sigma of the same range but it is 140$ more - you will not notice a difference in the two for general photography.

Sigma 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 Compact Hyper Zoom Aspherical Lens for Canon SLR Cameras Price: $229.89
** See note above. You won't notice a diff. but some people just prefer the name Canon to be on the lens. If you were to get into this a little more seriously then consider the better glass. But this lens will work fine for the usage you have listed. On a RARE occasion you'll find some things will not work as well with the "off-brand" lens, though Sigma has been making a huge name for itself so I hesitate to call it off-brand, but things like tele-converters (add on telephotos that attach to the front of the lens) sometimes do not work as well. But I ran into this about 8-10 years ago but have had no problem since.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
Price: $319.75
This lens will give you a slightly wider angle should you need it for larger family pictures or simple more landscape area. The 18 number will allow more into the picture at the same distance away from the subject matter.
As this lens also goes to 200mm (with a digiatal multiplication factor it really has a zoom of 350 compared with a standard 35mm film camera) this may well be the best bang for the buck.

The Tamron I use is an 11-18 for very wide angle shots in a close range. It was close to 700$ for it alone. So there is an advantage to getting something down in the 18 range on the lenses.

I hope this helps some and if you would like to see some of the Sigma lens pictures I will post them but block out the gents head as I don't know him or have his permission to openly post his pics.
But it will show you what the Sigma quality is.

If you have other questions please let me know.
I will do my best to help.

Sal

Tweet

Originally Posted by T-Man007

I ended up getting one that goes from 28 to 300 and it came recommended by a photographer friend of one of my friends. He basically said the same thing you did, with the SLR camera I have I'm going to get good shots from just about any lens, but I won't get pro quality shots unless I go up to an L series lens. But, he said for what I wan't to do, the one I was looking at was perfect.

Thanks again for the input.

Looks like I might have hit this thread just a hair late.
Did you get the lens already?
If so, which brand did you go with?


Sal

Tweet

Originally Posted by Sal Paradise

Looks like I might have hit this thread just a hair late.
Did you get the lens already?
If so, which brand did you go with?


Sal

LOL, I actually like Nikon too. I have a wide angle I use for Real Estate Appraisals but it wasn't fast enough to capture good moving shots of my son playing so I researched the heck out of it and found the Canon Rebel XT SLR digital camera for a killer deal and jumped on it. I paid $200 less than I could find it anywhere else. And it was brand new with warranty and everything. Bestbuy was having a really goos sale on them for a short time.

I went with a Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 XR DI LD lens. I got an email from a friend of a friend who said he just likes the way Tamron shoots versus Sigma. He said it's just his opinion but he found the Tamron to be just a little sharper when equal lenses were used. He did not say which lenses though. I also did some research on this lens and saw dozens of photos taken with it and many of them were taken with the same camera I have and the pics were awesome. So, I've seen what this exact lens can do with my camera and the results were very good.

If I was to take this to the next level, then I would get a Canon L series, but I'm no where near that. That would be like me trying to play golf with Tiger woods clubs hoping they would improve my game. LOL I need to learn how to ue the clubs I have and once I maximize their potential, then upgrade. It's the same thing with photograpy. If I get to where I'm shooting all the time, I may consider the larger investment, but for now, this one will do just fine. The camera I have is really good, so as long as the lens is 'good', the pics will be too.

Tweet

Originally Posted by T-Man007

LOL, I actually like Nikon too. I have a wide angle I use for Real Estate Appraisals but it wasn't fast enough to capture good moving shots of my son playing so I researched the heck out of it and found the Canon Rebel XT SLR digital camera for a killer deal and jumped on it. I paid $200 less than I could find it anywhere else. And it was brand new with warranty and everything. Bestbuy was having a really goos sale on them for a short time.

I went with a Tamron 28-300 3.5-6.3 XR DI LD lens. I got an email from a friend of a friend who said he just likes the way Tamron shoots versus Sigma. He said it's just his opinion but he found the Tamron to be just a little sharper when equal lenses were used. He did not say which lenses though. I also did some research on this lens and saw dozens of photos taken with it and many of them were taken with the same camera I have and the pics were awesome. So, I've seen what this exact lens can do with my camera and the results were very good.

If I was to take this to the next level, then I would get a Canon L series, but I'm no where near that. That would be like me trying to play golf with Tiger woods clubs hoping they would improve my game. LOL I need to learn how to ue the clubs I have and once I maximize their potential, then upgrade. It's the same thing with photograpy. If I get to where I'm shooting all the time, I may consider the larger investment, but for now, this one will do just fine. The camera I have is really good, so as long as the lens is 'good', the pics will be too.

Very good thinking and I agree about the Tamron.
I really like the one I use for work.

I will say this about the fast cameras. Nothing I found in a digital (reasonably priced at less than 1500$) can match the film cameras.
I know it have to do with the buffer rates, etc. but I am a bit old school and wouldn't use digital at all but the conveinence factor can't be beat!

We'll have to talk more about this subject but I have to go eat!!!

Glad you got it worked out.

Sal

Tweet

Originally Posted by Sal Paradise

Very good thinking and I agree about the Tamron.
I really like the one I use for work.

I will say this about the fast cameras. Nothing I found in a digital (reasonably priced at less than 1500$) can match the film cameras.
I know it have to do with the buffer rates, etc. but I am a bit old school and wouldn't use digital at all but the conveinence factor can't be beat!

We'll have to talk more about this subject but I have to go eat!!!

Glad you got it worked out.

Sal

You think a film SLR is a lot faster than a digital SLR even though they don't work the same as a normal digital camera? Well, now that I think about it, yeah, the time it takes to write the image I guess can slow it down some, but not much more than it would take the film camera to capture the image and then move the film. The one thing that does slow down a digital SLR is when you use the multi shot setting. If I hold down the button it will rip off like 19 shots in no time but it does take a second or so for the camera to be ready to go again. It's because of the time to write the image.

But, I guess for what I want to do, I would never even notice the difference. It would be one thing if I was the guy on the side of an NFL game, then I would need that speed.