You really only need three lenses.
Ryan7490 Senior Member 264 posts Joined Jan 2009 More info |
hieu1004 Goldmember 3,579 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jul 2010 Location: Seattle More info | Oct 24, 2010 14:03 | #17 |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid More info | Oct 24, 2010 14:07 | #18 AmbientMike wrote in post #11156041 If you can get close, the 135/2.8 canon might be the cheapest with good speed for rugby. Available used for sometimes under US$300. 200/2.8 probably better. i don't know if the focusing speed on the 135mm is going to be any better than something like the 55-250mm...it'll be good if f2.8 is needed, but if it's not, i think the 55-250mm would work out o.k. hieu1004 wrote in post #11156050 The ultimate beginners kit: 18-55mm IS, 50mm f/1.8, and 55-250mm. You can get it all for about $400 or close to $500 new. From here, you can decide what you like and upgrade from there. i think that, and adding a flash is a great set-up Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
A glance at images from a Tamron 18-200mm lens, at the extremes of the unit's focal lengths.
At 18mm.
Around a half-hour later, at 200mm. For this event, the Tamron 18-200mm was used because its wide focal length range made it useful, in an exceptionally dirty and dusty event where changing lenses was not advisable.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Oct 24, 2010 14:27 | #20 CountryBoy wrote in post #11155820 There is no such lens ! I would suggest getting a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC for the landscape and such , and the Canon 70-200mm f/4 for the rugby. Then save your money for a macro . Funnily enough, I already have this lens and was considering selling it along with the G12 which would put my budget upto, maybe 700 UK pounds, for the perfect lens!!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid More info | Oct 24, 2010 14:29 | #21 so you already have the 40D, and tamron 17-50mm?...anything else? Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SiaoP Goldmember 1,406 posts Joined Dec 2009 Location: Bay Area More info | Oct 24, 2010 15:11 | #22 The 70-200 f/2.8 IS or non is what I use a lot. It's a very useful focal range and at 2.8 you can use it to control your bokeh and adjust yourself to difficult lighting situations. The 24-70 is what I find most useful after the 70-200 for general walk around stuff.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
themadman Cream of the Crop 18,871 posts Likes: 14 Joined Nov 2009 Location: Northern California More info | Oct 24, 2010 15:13 | #23 I personally like 70-200 on FF quite a bit. Although I tend to keep a 17-40 in my pocket as well. Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CountryBoy "Tired of Goldmember label" 5,168 posts Joined May 2006 Location: Okie More info | Oct 24, 2010 15:16 | #24 tnebigyin121 wrote in post #11156161 Funnily enough, I already have this lens and was considering selling it along with the G12 which would put my budget upto, maybe 700 UK pounds, for the perfect lens!! Andy Then keep it and add a 70-200mm and you're set to go ! Hi
LOG IN TO REPLY |
watt100 Cream of the Crop 14,021 posts Likes: 34 Joined Jun 2008 More info | Oct 24, 2010 15:38 | #25 just get the 55-250IS and you're set to go !
LOG IN TO REPLY |
fritzk3 Member 240 posts Likes: 1 Joined Dec 2007 More info | Oct 25, 2010 10:27 | #26 I second this advice. It's an excellent lens for its price, and not too heavy of an investment while you try to sort out your hobby. With the 40D, you will have decent enough performance at ISO 800, and maybe even 1250, that you can push it if you need it in lower light. Canon 40D • EF-S 18-55 IS • EF-S 55-250 IS • EF 28-135 IS USM • EF 50/1.8 • EF 85/1.8
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Oct 25, 2010 10:47 | #27 If there was a single perfect lens for everything, then what would be the point of having an interchangeable lens mount? Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
tkbslc Cream of the Crop 24,604 posts Likes: 45 Joined Nov 2008 Location: Utah, USA More info | Oct 25, 2010 10:48 | #28 fritzk3 wrote in post #11160855 I second this advice. It's an excellent lens for its price, and not too heavy of an investment while you try to sort out your hobby. With the 40D, you will have decent enough performance at ISO 800, and maybe even 1250, that you can push it if you need it in lower light. ISO 1250 @ f5.6 is NOT "lower light". That would be like a heavily overcast day outside. The 55-250 is worthless once the sun touches the horizon. Taylor
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JPMPhotography Senior Member 603 posts Joined Apr 2008 More info | Oct 25, 2010 10:49 | #29 hieu1004 wrote in post #11156050 The ultimate beginners kit: 18-55mm IS, 50mm f/1.8, and 55-250mm. You can get it all for about $400 or close to $500 new. From here, you can decide what you like and upgrade from there. +1 60D gripped, T2i gripped, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Pentax SMC 50 f/1.4, Nikon Standard Speed Set: 24, 35, 85, 105, 135, 180, Canon 580ex, Calumet Genesis 200
LOG IN TO REPLY |
AmbientMike Member 50 posts Joined May 2010 More info | Oct 25, 2010 11:00 | #30 If you already have the 17-50, that may be pretty close to the perfect lens! Can you afford a used 300/4 non-IS? that would probably be really good for rugby. Wildlife too Or maybe 200/2.8 or tamron 70-210/2.8 type zoom. I think 500 pounds might be enough for one of these. Don't know how close the 17-50 focuses, but the 18-55 gets close enough for some macro.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Thunderstream 1144 guests, 107 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||