Completely New

After some time I finally bought a SLR camera. Up until now, I have only used "point and click" type camera. My last one being a Fuji S5100. My new camera is on it's way (shipping), I bought a Rebel 300D. I feel really over whelmed right now reading all the stickies and posts here! The lenses are really confusing to me, but I have narrowed it down by doing some reading. Here is the lens I think I'd like to get:

http://www.dpchallenge​.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=​1213

My question for now is:

I notice that some of the telephoto lenses have 'macro' and some don't. I understand what macro lenses are, but how does that relate to the telephoto lenses and is there a downside to having it? I like to take action shots and I hope this is a good choice?

Thanks!

Walter


Edit: I just realized I put this in the wrong section

Welcome to DSLR world

As for the macro feature on telephoto lenses, it just means they can focus closer than normal, its a good cheap way of getting macro shots (although not true 1:1), my Sigma 17-70 lens focusses as close as actually touching the front lens, so it does pretty decent macro, it saves buying a macro lens if you dont do much of that kind of stuff.

I have heard good things about that Sigma 70-300 APO lens, but I have also heard its quite soft (not sharp) at 300mm, but then its probably best to not use it fully extended, its only the edges that are soft, so if it was a photo of a bird in dead centre you wouldnt even notice the softness.

What lens are you going to get to cover the wider area? as that one starts at 70mm which is quite long.

Oh & dont be bewildered by all the posts here, if you get stuck we are all here to offer help, thats the whole point of this forum.

Nick

Welcome to emptywalletland!

You can say that again!!

that is a great starter telephoto lens.

Thanks! My camera came with the 18-55mm lens so I would imagine that could cover the wide area for now? I like doing macro shots and close up's. I got some really great shots with my old camera at the zoo recently. I'm looking for lens(es) to cover what I had already but in a better way

I also would like to take some shots at some NHL games, I'm hoping this would do a decent job of that too?

I hate asking questions that have been asked soooo many times, but this is all so new and alot of info to absorb!

Thanks again for the welcome

Walter

Nick_C wrote:
Welcome to DSLR world

As for the macro feature on telephoto lenses, it just means they can focus closer than normal, its a good cheap way of getting macro shots (although not true 1:1), my Sigma 17-70 lens focusses as close as actually touching the front lens, so it does pretty decent macro, it saves buying a macro lens if you dont do much of that kind of stuff.

I have heard good things about that Sigma 70-300 APO lens, but I have also heard its quite soft (not sharp) at 300mm, but then its probably best to not use it fully extended, its only the edges that are soft, so if it was a photo of a bird in dead centre you wouldnt even notice the softness.

What lens are you going to get to cover the wider area? as that one starts at 70mm which is quite long.

Oh & dont be bewildered by all the posts here, if you get stuck we are all here to offer help, thats the whole point of this forum.

Nick

I know.. add that to my other expensive hobbies! and it doesn't leave much left

Walter

Congrats on the 300D. Welcome to POTN! & Ditto what AngryHampster said.

Yep, the 18-55 kit lens is ok for a starter lens, the only problem I can see that you may have with the Sigma 70-300 at NHL games is light levels, I know absolutely nothing about NHL so I dont know if its indoor or outdoor, but if its outdoors in plenty of sun you should be perfectly ok & be able to get well over 1/500th, but if its indoors then you might run into problems.

If you shoot at lets say 300mm, 300mm x 1.6 (crop factor on 300D) = 480mm! now for that focal length you will need in excess of 1/500th shutter speed, easy to do outdoors in daylight, but harder in low light, the only lens that I wouldnt say suffers from this too much is the Canon 70-300IS, but that is twice the price of the Sigma.

One thing you will notice with the DLSR is a much better experience, they are faster & have better image quality overall than P&S cameras, but remember you are in "Pro world" now, so what that means is you will have to do a lot more post processing, P&S cameras tend to do all that in the camera, delivering a sharp vibrant image time after time, with a DSLR the images need editing, YOU have to put the time in & process them, but I find that part of the fun, you can get them just how you want them, not what the camera says is perfect.

Nick

I must say..your reverse take on the quotes is quite intriguing.

Sorry Habit. I tend to do it that way a lot. I always found it annoying to have to scroll all the way down to see a response from someone if the quoting gets long.

Nick_C wrote:
Yep, the 18-55 kit lens is ok for a starter lens, the only problem I can see that you may have with the Sigma 70-300 at NHL games is light levels, I know absolutely nothing about NHL so I dont know if its indoor or outdoor, but if its outdoors in plenty of sun you should be perfectly ok & be able to get well over 1/500th, but if its indoors then you might run into problems.

If you shoot at lets say 300mm, 300mm x 1.6 (crop factor on 300D) = 480mm! now for that focal length you will need in excess of 1/500th shutter speed, easy to do outdoors in daylight, but harder in low light, the only lens that I wouldnt say suffers from this too much is the Canon 70-300IS, but that is twice the price of the Sigma.

One thing you will notice with the DLSR is a much better experience, they are faster & have better image quality overall than P&S cameras, but remember you are in "Pro world" now, so what that means is you will have to do a lot more post processing, P&S cameras tend to do all that in the camera, delivering a sharp vibrant image time after time, with a DSLR the images need editing, YOU have to put the time in & process them, but I find that part of the fun, you can get them just how you want them, not what the camera says is perfect.

Nick

Thanks for the information! NHL is played indoors. From what I have read, the white ice surface reflects alot of light for cameras, I'm not sure if that is the case or not?. And, that's assuming I can get sneak a camera in there A Canon 70-300IS for twice the price? Where do I find that? The Sigma is only $189, I'd take a Canon for $400!

whaase wrote:
Thanks for the information! NHL is played indoors. From what I have read, the white ice surface reflects alot of light for cameras, I'm not sure if that is the case or not?. And, that's assuming I can get sneak a camera in there A Canon 70-300IS for twice the price? Where do I find that? The Sigma is only $189, I'd take a Canon for $400!

The white ice surface could fool the metering on the camera, I would guess the ice would be perfectly exposed but the players could be a little darker, but if you shoot in M mode you can compensate for this.

Over here (UK) the Sigma is £160, the canon IS is £360, so my maths was a tiny bit off, so thats twice the price + a little bit more, lol..

If you have the money & are serious about getting decent shots, then I guess my advice would be go for the 70-300IS, it would be far better than the Sigma, mainly due to the IS, I hear you can do 300mm handheld shots at 1/50th, where as the Sigma would have to ideally be at least 1/400th, now that is a MASSIVE improvement.

At the moment my photography doesnt require much telephoto, im mainly into landscapes, im considering just a cheap Tamron 55-200, but I know that if I wanted to do a lot more telephoto shots I would want the Canon.

US prices are usually a lot cheaper than UK prices, so you should get that Canon cheaper than us.

Nick

make sure you (wink wink) "upgrade" your firmware.

Welcome, you dont want advice from me, as I will work for gear!!!