Bubbabyte Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share Posted February 20, 2010 Could also be that you have a $200 lens...? There's a reason people shell out $1800+ for the 70-200mm f2.8 IS/VR lenses. could be, but that wouldn't really explain the hit or miss results at 300mm now would it :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 oh, I was under the impression that it was all of your shots at that range are bad. Are you able to reproduce bad quality images? Like with XXXmm FX.X 1/xxx ALL shots are bad, but XXXm FY.Y 1/YYYY shots are good? Or is it completely random? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted February 20, 2010 Author Share Posted February 20, 2010 I think dracionian was on the right track, i think it was a matter of ideal conditions, since it was one of my first outings with the camera I didn't really understand fully how the lack of IS would affect it. I'll test it out in brighter conditions with higher shutter speeds to see how the results are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 XXXmm FX.X 1/xxx ALL shots are bad, but XXXm FY.Y 1/YYYY Say wah! :s Oh wait I get it now :p I think dracionian was on the right track, i think it was a matter of ideal conditions, since it was one of my first outings with the camera I didn't really understand fully how the lack of IS would affect it. I'll test it out in brighter conditions with higher shutter speeds to see how the results are. Of course I am :shifty: Now please my $50 for the consult, credit cards and paypal NOT accepted. Seriously now, I hope I am right, because returning equipment sucks, no matter how easy it is, it's just a hassle. @Crazzy, Wow I wouldn't shell out $1800 only if my lifes work depended on it, but on an amateur level, heck no! I'd buy a tripod and always shoot at 12pm during spring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 @Crazzy, Wow I wouldn't shell out $1800 only if my lifes work depended on it, but on an amateur level, heck no! I'd buy a tripod and always shoot at 12pm during spring! cool..? I did. It's probably the best investment I can make as a photographer. Lenses like that are good for so long. I can easily have this lens for 10 years. That's only $160 a year (I got mine for used for 1600). And considering I make more than that every year USING that lens, it pays for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 cool..? I did. It's probably the best investment I can make as a photographer. Lenses like that are good for so long. I can easily have this lens for 10 years. That's only $160 a year (I got mine for used for 1600). And considering I make more than that every year USING that lens, it pays for itself. Wow, $1600 is too much for me :s Though I would consider 70-200mm 2.8 non vr/IS if it was under $1000. Like I said, my photography is limited to prints for me/give away to friends whilst you already do stuff for school paper IIRC? That's already something non-amateur in my book at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I actually don't shoot for the paper any more. I do, however, shoot for my college's sports program. And you definitely need a 70-200 at the very least for sports. Nikon has an 80-200mm f2.8 for $1000. Canon has a 70-200mm f4.0 for like $700 and an IS version of the F4 for about $1000. Don't forget sigma and tamron. Each has a 70-200mm f2.8 for about $700. Lots of options in the 70-200 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I actually don't shoot for the paper any more. I do, however, shoot for my college's sports program. And you definitely need a 70-200 at the very least for sports. Nikon has an 80-200mm f2.8 for $1000. Canon has a 70-200mm f4.0 for like $700 and an IS version of the F4 for about $1000. Don't forget sigma and tamron. Each has a 70-200mm f2.8 for about $700. Lots of options in the 70-200 range. Still you shoot for "insert X", which is grades above amateur IMO, other people will see your work ( Probably more people than those who see my shots at flickr too :s :p) , therefor it needs to be teh best and that = teh best glass = $$$. I do see myself getting fast glass down the road, it's just the way to go, but glass under $1000, over that is just to much for any amateur, at least for me :s Though F4 is too slow for $700 :s on the canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Go for the tamron/sigma lenses then. F2.8 for $700. I think the Sigma is the better one? I'm not 100% sure. They're both pretty good, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbabyte Posted February 21, 2010 Author Share Posted February 21, 2010 I'm not looking to spend that kind of money, but how's the Canon 55-250 IS lens? Decent, or better than the sigma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts