The sickness worsens...

gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
edited December 29, 2004 in Cameras
Guys i have a very old (but perfect working cond)

Tamron 1:3.8
1:4/210
80mm-210mm
CF TELE MACRO
BBAR MC THETA 58
30 DEG - 11.3 DEG

Also says on barrel...1:2,8
1:1,4 2x conv

Also....32 down to 3.8/4


Well thats whats written on it anyway. Piece of cheap junk or will it fit & work well on a rebel ??.


AND ...I have a

Focal 28mm F2.8 Multi-coated Automatic Diaphram Wide-angle Lens (75 deg) for a canon (my old AE-1)

Again..is this stuff rubbish or will it fit & do ok on a rebel ?



Thats it..ive asked the question a day after i said i dont want a DSLR !!
«134

Comments

  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    Oh god help me....im in Ebay looking at DSLR's !!











    And those long long white canon lens's...you know the ones..creamy cloured & smooth with a few black lines to throw a dangerous animals camoufage signal to keep clear.


    i think im gone....
  • StanStan Registered Users Posts: 1,077 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    Merry Christmas, so on Santa's sleigh there is ef600f4lisusm.jpgeos20d.jpg and you may as well have converter_ef2II.gif

    That will be £7357 in English

    Have you been looking at the lens envy thread rolleyes1.gif
  • John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    Stan wrote:
    Merry Christmas, so on Santa's sleigh there is ef600f4lisusm.jpgeos20d.jpg and you may as well have converter_ef2II.gif

    That will be £7357 in English

    Have you been looking at the lens envy thread yelrotflmao.gif
    Down with the sickness gerg.gif
  • patch29patch29 Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 2,928 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    And those long long white canon lens's...you know the ones..creamy cloured & smooth with a few black lines to throw a dangerous animals camoufage signal to keep clear.

    Don't worry you can get real camo for those lenses here. Let us know when you get one or two. naughty.gif
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    four canon bodies since april
    'gus, i know the feeling.

    april 2004 - bought a rebel
    june 2004 - bought 10d
    sept 2004 - bougth 20d
    dec 2004 - bought 1ds mk2

    don't worry, after a while you are numb to the disgustingly high prices of all the gear. lol3.gif
  • John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    andy wrote:
    'gus, i know the feeling.

    april 2004 - bought a rebel
    june 2004 - bought 10d
    sept 2004 - bougth 20d
    dec 2004 - bought 1ds mk2

    don't worry, after a while you are numb to the disgustingly high prices of all the gear. lol3.gif
    I know the feeling Andy.
    4 camera within a year.Picked up the 1D MKll 2 weeks ago and now figuring my finance for the 1DS MKll and I want another 10D
    What can I trade or sellne_nau.gif
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    it gets worse ...
    MHJS wrote:
    I know the feeling Andy.
    4 camera within a year.Picked up the 1D MKll 2 weeks ago and now figuring my finance for the 1DS MKll and I want another 10D
    What can I trade or sellne_nau.gif

    when i bought the 1ds mk2, i said to self, i'll sell the 20d. one consideration now is that i keep the 20d for long work :D

    dunno if that's a luxury i can afford though... we'll see. i'm giving the ff camera a workout and if i like it, it'll stay. if not, out it goeS!
  • GREAPERGREAPER Registered Users Posts: 3,113 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    If I allowed the sickness to take me down Andy's path bankruptcy would have cured the sickness for me....
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    Will the len's i mentioned fit a rebel though ?
  • John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
    edited December 11, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Will the len's i mentioned fit a rebel though ?
    My guess is no.It has to be an EOS mount.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 11, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Will the len's i mentioned fit a rebel though ?



    'gus, I think those lenses were for pre-EOS cameras, but I would not swear to the correctness of my answer. If they will fit the Digital Rebel they must say they fit EOS system Cameras somewhere. Look at the base of he lens that inserts into the camera and look for four electrical contacts.
    I just took a quick shot of the rear end of an EOS lens for you to examine and compare with yours...
    12577066-L.jpg

    Regarding the Digital Rebel - I would not buy a new one now unless you get a smash-up deal on price. Buy a good used 10D, of hold out and get a 20D. You will be much happier in the long run, if you insist on going down the DSLR route. You know from the poor "L" glass addicts here how dangerous that can be to your finances.

    "I am an L glass addict and I promise to reform" :cry
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • MainFraggerMainFragger Registered Users Posts: 563 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    No lens...
    andy wrote:
    'gus, i know the feeling.

    april 2004 - bought a rebel
    june 2004 - bought 10d
    sept 2004 - bougth 20d
    dec 2004 - bought 1ds mk2

    don't worry, after a while you are numb to the disgustingly high prices of all the gear. lol3.gif
    no matter how well it is made, is worth the price of a new Chevy Cavalier. Unless of course, it can bend reality and bring you to the sites to see them up close and personal instead of just making them seem closer. That way a telephoto lens can let me meet the girl getting undressed in the window across the street! Then it might be worth it..

    MainFragger
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    Thanks all...looks like its a paper weight then. Thats cool.

    I think i am going to have to get a DSLR the more i think about it.

    I really (i dont know how or why the typeface just changed !!) want to do surfing shots & anything under 400mm aint going to cut it. The FZ-20 has got that but i am concerned that if i grow out of it in 12 months then thats the price of good glass wasted. (do people on crack think like this ?)

    Another question i cannot find an answer too...at least in laymans terms.

    What is the REAL difference in a $2000 canon 400mm & a $400 sigma 400mm ? I understand glass quality but is that it ?

    Im just going to go & curl up in the fetal position in the corner now & attempt to get that pic of the long white canon lens from my minds eye.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:

    What is the REAL difference in a $2000 canon 400mm & a $400 sigma 400mm ? I understand glass quality but is that it ?

    Im just going to go & curl up in the fetal position in the corner now & attempt to get that pic of the long white canon lens from my minds eye.

    the glass is so much better - resulting in better color, saturation, contrast & sharpness.

    but can the $400 400mm take good pics? sure, you bet. but you'll be able to shoot in more adverse conditions with the canon L - it's faster and also has i.s.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Thanks all...looks like its a paper weight then. Thats cool.

    I think i am going to have to get a DSLR the more i think about it.

    I really (i dont know how or why the typeface just changed !!) want to do surfing shots & anything under 400mm aint going to cut it. The FZ-20 has got that but i am concerned that if i grow out of it in 12 months then thats the price of good glass wasted. (do people on crack think like this ?)

    Another question i cannot find an answer too...at least in laymans terms.

    What is the REAL difference in a $2000 canon 400mm & a $400 sigma 400mm ? I understand glass quality but is that it ?

    Im just going to go & curl up in the fetal position in the corner now & attempt to get that pic of the long white canon lens from my minds eye.


    For surfing shots I suspect you will want at least 400mm in length,'gus, and at least f4 if possible. Auto focus works much much better with f4 lenses than f5.6 or f6.3. I like the Canon 400mm f4 DO IS quite a bit - no larger than the 300 f2.8 and no heavier.

    You may find you want 500mm also. Sigma does make some zooms around that length I believe.

    The Canon long glass if frighteningly expensive - but solid, sharp, and reliable and re-saleable if in decent condition. The mechanicals in the iris and the lens barrels are quite different than the cheaper lenses. You know the difference between a first class tool and a cheaper tool. The Canon L glass teles can be shot WIDE open - full aperature f2.8 or f4 and are sharp and crisp at those aperatures. Most of the Sigmas and Tamrons do not have IS and it is worth the cost for sharper pictures.

    If you really want first rate telephoto shots be prepared to purchase a good tripod and ball head as well. The tripod and head suitable for long glass will cost more than the DMC-FZ20 though. I figure 1K USD
    You may be able to hand hold a 400mm lens for a while, but not when you add telextenders or go to a 500mm prime. This is a whole new world and requires new skills. Think of looking through a 6x rifle scope and trying to keep it on target from a standing position - You WILL need support of some type, and the type is a good tripod.
    I looked and looked last year for a more inexpensive way for real long glass and I have not found an acceptable alternative yet. I can find cheaper lenses and cheaper hardware - but the results are not the same and generally you can see the difference.
    I told you it is a sickness, 'gus - You were warned! rolleyes1.gif

    An additional thought occured to me also - Anoher way of getting really long glass is called digiscoping - where you attach a standard digital camera to the eyepiece of a spotting scope ( I am not sure if that is the term in Ozzie - it is a telescope used to look at rifle targets from the shooters postion on a rifle range) - just google - digiscoping - You probably could use your curent Oly camera that way which would decrease the cost substantially. Won't compare to L glass and a 1D, but still prettty good and might work for you.

    Another thought about long glass is that it is one of those things you dream about ( Me too - I own several long lenses ) When you really need one for sports or birds there are no real substitutes - but you really don't use them that much. My normal range zooms shoot 10 or 20 times more images for me than my teles -

    Really long glass 400 and up - are very special tools and not walk around lenses. They end up being a lot of money that is used only sometimes for special activities - normal range lenses get a lot, lot more use. It can end up feeling likeyou spent a lot of money for an expensive lens to store in your closet much of the time unless you have a specific need and plan to do it often. Rental is the way to go otherwise. No such rental in my community unfortunately or that is the route I would go. You might see if rental is available in Perth or Sidney or somewhere. I know there are photographic tours of Ozzie that suggest lens rental is available. Just a thought.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    andy wrote:
    the glass is so much better - resulting in better color, saturation, contrast & sharpness.

    but can the $400 400mm take good pics? sure, you bet. but you'll be able to shoot in more adverse conditions with the canon L - it's faster and also has i.s.
    Thanks andy...thats what i needed to know.

    Ive just slipped my foot in the door so you cant run for a min....

    When they talk about faster like f1.8 ..now thats a wide ap but this also lacks depth of field so why is it dear ?

    I assumed that a lens with good depth of field would be the dear one. If i know the basics i will read more but i dont know how this is all tied in.

    I can see the jigsaw on the floor but cant see it together if you know what i mean.

    ta
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    I told you it is a sickness, 'gus - You were warned! rolleyes1.gif
    That was a good read PF....ta. Is there someplace we can all go when this becomes too much for our familys ?

    My name is Humungus & im a lens addict.

    At first i picked up a Kodak 2.1 mp cx 4230 3 years ago...there was no apparent problen back then... just point & shoot.

    I then convinced my self that the 5 mp Olympus could juuuuuuuust help that little bit more with low light shots & the family backed me 100%.

    Things went down hill from there...i said over & over that i didnt need a DSLR or any fancy shmancy lens's to go with it. I was talking in a News Group & someone posted photos of those long white canon lens's.

    Now i find myself loitering daily through glass manufacturers sites & clearing my search history before the family come home. I keep the curtains drawn & now believe that the people downstairs have listening devices & cameras in my unit....Im not eating & my skin is turning a pasty white...
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Thanks andy...thats what i needed to know.

    Ive just slipped my foot in the door so you cant run for a min....

    When they talk about faster like f1.8 ..now thats a wide ap but this also lacks depth of field so why is it dear ?

    I assumed that a lens with good depth of field would be the dear one. If i know the basics i will read more but i dont know how this is all tied in.

    I can see the jigsaw on the floor but cant see it together if you know what i mean.

    ta

    The beauty of long teles with wide aperature IS that the offer very shallow DOF with a very nice bokeh of the background isolating the subject very nicely. You can always stop a tele down ( except for mirror teles - but you can find 500 f8 mirror teles from B&H for under $300 USD) and get the larger DOF. But you cannot open to a larger aperature than the lens has. But larger aperature lenses f4, f2.8 f1.2 mean that the front objective lens is very large and that generally means it is expensive also if it is to be sharp and crisp optically.

    2848986-L.jpg

    On of the reall differences between P&S cameras with 2/3 sized sensors and DSLRs with APS sensors ( twice the size of the 2/3s sensor ) or a full-frame sensor like Andy's 1DMkll, is that the bigger the sensor the more shallow depth of field at the photgraphers disposal. P&S cameras can be very sharp, but it can be very hard to create the shallow depth of field for artistitic purposes.
    This is why the FZ-20 may not create images like a DSLR at long tele ranges. Andy can tell you more about the DOF available with the Sony 828 at the long end of the zoom versus his 1DsMkll.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    That was a good read PF....ta. Is there someplace we can all go when this becomes too much for our familys ?

    My name is Humungus & im a lens addict.

    At first i picked up a Kodak 2.1 mp cx 4230 3 years ago...there was no apparent problen back then... just point & shoot.

    I then convinced my self that the 5 mp Olympus could juuuuuuuust help that little bit more with low light shots & the family backed me 100%.

    Things went down hill from there...i said over & over that i didnt need a DSLR or any fancy shmancy lens's to go with it. I was talking in a News Group & someone posted photos of those long white canon lens's.

    Now i find myself loitering daily through glass manufacturers sites & clearing my search history before the family come home. I keep the curtains drawn & now believe that the people downstairs have listening devices & cameras in my unit....Im not eating & my skin is turning a pasty white...

    Rental 'gus rental. Think how much cheaper in life things could be if you only could rent instead of buy.
    :D:D
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    The beauty of long teles with wide aperature IS that the offer very shallow DOF with a very nice bokeh of the background isolating the subject very nicely. You can always stop a tele down ( except for mirror teles - but you can find 500 f8 mirror teles from B&H for under $300 USD) and get the larger DOF. But you cannot open to a larger aperature than the lens has. But larger aperature lenses f4, f2.8 f1.2 mean that the front objective lens is very large and that generally means it is expensive also if it is to be sharp and crisp optically.



    On of the reall differences between P&S cameras with 2/3 sized sensors and DSLRs with APS sensors ( twice the size of the 2/3s sensor ) or a full-frame sensor like Andy's 1DMkll, is that the bigger the sensor the more shallow depth of field at the photgraphers disposal. P&S cameras can be very sharp, but it can be very hard to create the shallow depth of field for artistitic purposes.
    This is why the FZ-20 may not create images like a DSLR at long tele ranges. Andy can tell you more about the DOF available with the Sony 828 at the long end of the zoom versus his 1DsMkll.
    That cleared the mist...ta PF. I was wondering about the fz-20 & low f stop...but now i see what its about. I really like that blurred background which i think translates to "i like expensive stuff".
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    how about this one!
    pf answered ya perfectly.

    i shoot my long lenses wide open most of the time. i want that shallow depth of field.

    here's one lens i've got my eye on iloveyou.gif
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    Rental 'gus rental. Think how much cheaper in life things could be if you only could rent instead of buy.
    :D:D
    Mate sure...but imagine turning up at the same beach at the same insane time always waiting for that one shot & paying rental for the privilege.

    I can get a new sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 for about $1300 0z...shame is that i like the speed the D70 can run at but its wasted with these smaller apatures i assume.

    No-one told me it would get this bad.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    andy wrote:
    pf answered ya perfectly.

    i shoot my long lenses wide open most of the time. i want that shallow depth of field.

    here's one lens i've got my eye on iloveyou.gif
    Pull the trigger man...that new camera is wasted without a long white canon lens.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    That cleared the mist...ta PF. I was wondering about the fz-20 & low f stop...but now i see what its about. I really like that blurred background which i think translates to "i like expensive stuff".

    :D:D:D I shot the snow goose with a 10D and a 400mm DO IS last spring. One thing about good glass is that it does not wear out and will be good for years, long after the 10D is passee'
    What you can't see from the image is that it was shot from a tripod and a nice Arca-Swiss ballhead. With long glass, technique - tripod, mirror lock up, high shutter speed etc - are much more important. That is why handholding 400mm+ lenses does not usually lead to the quality of image that you are hoping for.

    Andy is already noticing that the 16-35 L form Canon does not seem as sharp on the 1DsMkll as it seemed on the 20D in the corners of the frame. Full frame cameras are much more demanding optically. Micheal Reichman has written extensively about how higher quality digital sensors place increasing demands on the technique of the photographer and the optical quality of the lenses.

    That is maybe one more reason to buy the best lenses you can, because as we upgrade our camers, previous interchangeable lenses may no longer be satisfactory. In the end, that is why I bit the bullet and bought the 400mm DO IS last year.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 12, 2004
    andy wrote:
    pf answered ya perfectly.

    i shoot my long lenses wide open most of the time. i want that shallow depth of field.

    here's one lens i've got my eye on iloveyou.gif


    Andy - Canon no longer makes the 200 f1.8 do they? You would have to find a used version then?

    You are a wide angle close in shooter - I really thought you would prefer the 85mmf1.2 - Now there is a lens that will give shallow DOF and has a nice bokeh. And it is nice and black, and not as off- putting of candid subjects as the white teles are...... Just a thought. Comments?
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,693 moderator
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Mate sure...but imagine turning up at the same beach at the same insane time always waiting for that one shot & paying rental for the privilege.

    I can get a new sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 for about $1300 0z...shame is that i like the speed the D70 can run at but its wasted with these smaller apatures i assume.

    No-one told me it would get this bad.


    Like I said 'gus - the problem with long teles no faster than f5.6 is that they tend to be slow to AF, and they usually not really good quality at their maximum aperature - so they may be f5.6, but need to be stopped 1 or 2 stops to f11 for really good image quality. This is a far cry from a lens that is f2.8 and can be shot at f2.8 - MUCH brighter in the viewfinder and much heavier to hold and much heavier to have to pay for. BUT once paid for, no doubt which lens you will prefer to shoot with.

    What you will find is no matter which choice you make - you will want both. The Canon 100-400 is a very handy piece of glass because it can zoom. So I usually have it in my kit somewhere on a 2nd body. You'll notice that Andy has at least 2 bodies and an 828 as well. I'd venture to guess that you have more than one wrench in your kit too.

    Most of the surfing shots I have seen seem to be shot with a 500mm f4 or a 600mm f4. Now these are big honking pieces of glass. And yes, they cost more than a nice used car - about the price of a new 650cc bike more or less. So many choices - so little time .......
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    Like I said 'gus - the problem with long teles no faster than f5.6 is that they tend to be slow to AF, and they usually not really good quality at their maximum aperature - so they may be f5.6, but need to be stopped 1 or 2 stops to f11 for really good image quality. This is a far cry from a lens that is f2.8 and can be shot at f2.8 - MUCH brighter in the viewfinder and much heavier to hold and much heavier to have to pay for. BUT once paid for, no doubt which lens you will prefer to shoot with.

    What you will find is no matter which choice you make - you will want both. The Canon 100-400 is a very handy piece of glass because it can zoom. So I usually have it in my kit somewhere on a 2nd body. You'll notice that Andy has at least 2 bodies and an 828 as well. I'd venture to guess that you have more than one wrench in your kit too.

    Most of the surfing shots I have seen seem to be shot with a 500mm f4 or a 600mm f4. Now these are big honking pieces of glass. And yes, they cost more than a nice used car - about the price of a new 650cc bike more or less. So many choices - so little time .......
    Ahhh..the penny just dropped mate ! Thanks for explaining that, really.

    I can see the issues that evolve as the best surf shots are late evening or early morning so you HAVE to have the fast stuff in that light.

    What a terrible terrible addiction. I dont want to spend 1/3 of that new bikes value to realize i would be better of with normal stuff.

    My fav bike saying is.."its much more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow"

    Now i see why so many like the Sony F717.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    pathfinder wrote:
    Andy - Canon no longer makes the 200 f1.8 do they? You would have to find a used version then?

    You are a wide angle close in shooter - I really thought you would prefer the 85mmf1.2 - Now there is a lens that will give shallow DOF and has a nice bokeh. And it is nice and black, and not as off- putting of candid subjects as the white teles are...... Just a thought. Comments?

    the 85 f/1.2 is nice - but heavy, and slow on the af - so i opted for 85 f/1.8 which i just ordered today, having shot with it a couple weeks ago (borrowed it from steve cavigliano). the 85 f/1.8 is universally liked, and for the money, it's a great value.

    yeah, the 85 f/1.2 is superbly creamy in the bokeh dept - it's a specialty lens that i would consider after owning the 85 f/1.8 for a while, and if i find myself shooting that fl much, i'll upgrade mwink.gif

    the 200 f/1.8 - yeah they don't make it anymore, so it'd have to be a used purchase - but i do have my eye on it!

    i'm slowly drifting into wanting primes. i have the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.4, and now the 85 f/1.8. at a minimum i'm considering the 200L f/2.8 - also a really good bargain (relatively speaking)! but damn - that 200 f/1.8 whooo boy lol3.gif
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    Ahhh..the penny just dropped mate ! Thanks for explaining that, really.

    I can see the issues that evolve as the best surf shots are late evening or early morning so you HAVE to have the fast stuff in that light.

    What a terrible terrible addiction. I dont want to spend 1/3 of that new bikes value to realize i would be better of with normal stuff.

    My fav bike saying is.."its much more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow"

    Now i see why so many like the Sony F717.

    yeah 'gus - i can 100% guarantee that you won't be happy with any f/5.6 - 6.3 lens, becuase you're right - not only are the best shots taken during the "magic hour" and so light is low, but you also need fast shutter speed, so light gathering ability is paramount in for this type of shooting. additionaly, the faster glass (f/2.8 or f/4) would allow you to put on a 1.4x converter for yet more reach, still losing only 1 stop.

    save your pennies, you'll be glad you invest in the better glass. and, as pf says, the glass will outlive any camera you buy :D
  • SeamusSeamus Registered Users Posts: 1,573 Major grins
    edited December 12, 2004
    Humungus wrote:
    I think i am going to have to get a DSLR the more i think about it.

    QUOTE]

    I decided to buy a dslr this year to take better shots of Motorbike racing. I bought a Canon 20d. I had an Olympus C-300, 3mp with 2.8 zoom. I took a lot of pictures with that camera ( even some good ones:D ).

    Now I have a camera and lens ( Sigma f2.8 70 - 200 ) that exceed my capabilities.

    Shot of garden with olympus.

    12627794-L.jpg


    I was playing with the focus on the d20, alternating focus between the vine and the birdhouse in the background. When I examined the pictures I found that I had got this

    12564119-L.jpg


    If I had set the shutter speed higher I might have got the fly in focus. I could never get this type of photo with my point and shoot.

    Go for it.

    Shay.
Sign In or Register to comment.