[Sticky] Digital Camera FAQ

227,070 Views | 3079 Replies | Last: 11 yr ago by Ag CPA
Josepi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:38a, 9/21/12
I have a lens question for the board. I am wanting to add a zoom to my bag, and am looking at the Canon 70-200mm lenses.

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom Lens is $2200

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens is $1300

and

The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Lens is $1200.

Which one would you recommend for the money? Is the IS on the 2.8 really worth the extra $900 (Is so, I will need to save a little bit longer), or would it be better to get the IS and the 4 instead of the 2.8?
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56a, 9/21/12
What are you using it to shoot
Reply Quote
labmansid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:50p, 9/21/12
Just for general use, I would say for the money go with the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. I have heard great things about that lens. If using it mostly in good light, the extra dollars for f/2.8 are mostly wasted. Also it would be much lighter than either version of the f/2.8 lens.
If you are shooting sports or other fast action in low light situations, go with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. You will need high shutter speeds anyway to stop the action, negating any real benefits from the IS system.

If you are shooting low light AND slower shutter speeds, then the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM would be better, not sure if worth the extra money. Only you can decide that.
Reply Quote
Josepi
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:35p, 9/21/12
I take my camera just about everywhere, but I am strictly amateur, nothing professional. I already have a wide angle, a prime, and a medium zoom, I am just looking for a long zoom to round out my bag, and I heard the 70-200 was a great lens.

I will mostly be using this lens to take pictures of the family kids playing sports (outdoors). I will also take it hunting, and on trips as the wife and I travel a lot. I imagine I will use it on occasion indoors, but probably not very much.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:41p, 9/21/12
The non-IS should work if you aren't using it indoors much. Just decide between 2.8 and 4.
Reply Quote
FincAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:12p, 10/9/12
Without going through this whole thread, could someone recommend a wide/ultra-wide lens?

Mostly for shooting architecture and landscapes.

It's for a Canon T2i

I was looking at this one, it has a bunch of good reviews. Does anyone here own this lens?

http://www.adorama.com/TN1116EOS.html

Looking to stay in the $500-700 range.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:13p, 10/9/12
That Tokina or the Canon 10-22mm are my two picks.
Reply Quote
labmansid
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:39p, 10/9/12
I have heard good things about the Tokina, but don't have personal experience with it.

I have the Canon 10-22mm, and have been really pleased with it when I need it. Highly recommend it. It has a wider range than the Tokina, but does not go to f2.8, if that is important to you. I have shot with the Canon in some really dark rooms without any problem.
Reply Quote
FincAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:51p, 10/9/12
Cool, thanks. Without doing any research on it I was a little concerned that the Canon had a variable aperture range, and that it was only 3.5-4.5. But after reading a lot of reviews it sounds pretty good. They both have their pros and cons I guess.
Reply Quote
defroach
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 10/10/12
I was in the same market as you back in June. I ended up with the canon and have no regrets. However, there is a new version of the Tokina that has just come out...or is about to...that is an updated version of the old model. I'd be tempted by that, but I like waiting for reviews first.

If it wasn't for the 2.8, I would say canon without hesitation.
Reply Quote
Sully99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:14p, 10/10/12
I have been using a D3100 with the 18-55 mm and 70-200 mm kit lenses for the last couple of years, and just upgraded to a D7000 and am loving it.

I bought my first camera to shoot animals mostly livestock, but don't seem to have many chances for that anymore.

I usually windup taking pictures in poor light and purchased the Sigma 70-200/ f2.8 and nikkor 50 mm/f1.8.

I am thinking about getting faster zoom lenses on the wider end to take pictures of friends and family (mostly inside) and possibly play with architecture/landscape photography. I have considered the Tokina 11-16 mm and Sigma 17-50 mm/f2.8. I'd consider the Nikon versions, but most of them seem to be out of my price range.

Does anyone have thoughts on these or other lenses in similar ranges?

Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:17p, 10/10/12
The 17-50 is going to be better for people. TOo much distortion that would be unflattering on the 11-16.

I Prefer the Tamron version to the Sigma version of the 17-50mm 2.8 lenses.
Reply Quote
Sully99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:23p, 10/10/12
Several reviews of the Random complain about the autofocus and vibration reduction. Is this really a problem with that lens?
Reply Quote
Sully99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:24p, 10/10/12
Several reviews of the Random complain about the autofocus and vibration reduction. Is this really a problem with that lens?
Reply Quote
Sully99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26p, 10/10/12
That should have been Tamron not random.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:05p, 10/10/12
I have no clue. They didn't make a virbration reduction lens when I had a Tamron.
Reply Quote
Sully99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:21p, 10/10/12
How big a concern is VR? Most of the lenses I have have it. I don't really know how much it is doing for me.

I'm not the steadiest guy around, so I assumed it would be best to have it. If I got one without it, would I really regret it? I know non-VR is quite a bit cheaper.

Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:30p, 10/10/12
I mainly use prime lenses that don't have VR. I don't think it is a big issue. If you are using flash, it is a non issue because flash freezes the subject.
Reply Quote
heddleston
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:32a, 10/11/12
i have the tamron 17-50 vr. its been pretty useful for indoors with low lighting. been able to keep the iso down a little bit and still get good shots, as long as the subject is still
Reply Quote
jballow
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20p, 3/31/13
Guitarsoup, I appreciate the tremendous amount of time you have invested in this thread (and thanks to other regulars as well). I noticed you last updated the first page in 2009. Any new recommendations on lenses?

Thanks.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:27p, 3/31/13
Lenses pretty much stand the test of time. There are some higher end ones if you are looking to spend a lot of bank, but my general recommendations stay the same.


Are you looking to do something in paticular?
Reply Quote
jballow
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:55p, 3/31/13
I got my wife a Nikon D7000 for Christmas. Had kit lenses, an 18-105 and 55-200(I know, but store had a misprint ad which they honored that included the lenses for the cost of the body). We are thinking a 70-200 lens of better quality would be good for some wildlife, as well as softball and horseback riding for my daughter. Eventually a macro lens and possibly a 50 prime for portraits. I have a sigma 70-200 that I got with my d50 7 years ago, but it is feeling the wear of lots of rough trips.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:07a, 4/1/13
Upgrading the 70-200 would be good.

I would suggest a minimum of 85mm 1.8 for portraits. I'm not a big fan of the 50mm, except for the fact that it is really cheap. The 70-200 is a portrait lens of choice for many pros and is a great all-around lens.
Reply Quote
jballow
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:09a, 4/1/13
Thank you. And the Sigma is still a decent choice for the money for the 70-200?
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16a, 4/1/13
New Sigmas or new Tamrons are solid.
Reply Quote
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:27a, 4/1/13
Nikon 70-300 VR is a solid zoom for outdoor stuff.
Reply Quote
jballow
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:47a, 4/1/13
Thanks to you both. Have a trip to Hong Kong coming up in June so would like to be ready.
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:55a, 4/25/13
so i'm getting a wandering eye towards a new camera. i currently have a 30D which i bought used and have had about 3 years. it's taken some great pictures. i'd like to move up to something that takes video and has improved low-light shooting. i have a 50mm 1.8 lens that is nice, but it's restrictive both with its smaller field of view and the shallow depth of field it requires for fast shooting. something with a better sensor would help.

i've been looking at the 60D which i hear has better performance, but i've also read that they've taken it downmarket somewhat (smaller size, no more metal frame, removed some ease of use for example: no dedicated white balance button, no more AF joystick). what are the thoughts towards this? is it worth also looking at the 7D? or the 6D for the full-frame?

i really only use the camera for vacations and travel and pictures of the kiddo. is it worth stepping up and over the 60D? or will i see real quality improvements in just moving to the 60D from my 30D? obviously cost is a factor. i've found used 60D's online for around $550, but 7D's are more like $900. haven't looked to see if there are used 6D's out there.

i figure i could get $150-$200 for my 30D which would offset some of the cost.
Reply Quote
Guitarsoup
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02a, 4/25/13
I would wait. The 60D and 7D are both due for a replacement.

The 7D is a much better camera than the 60D and I think it is worth the upgrade.
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:10a, 4/25/13
ok, i'm not in a hurry, i can wait. i saw that the canon fan boards were hoping they'd announce the 70D this week, but they didn't.

is it worth trying to step up to a full frame? or is something like the 7D going to give me most of the bang i'd get from that? i don't really care so much about the added zoom factor from a smaller sensor.

the 6D looked like it was working with the form factor of a 50D or so, so it wouldn't be as huge as the larger full frame cameras.
Reply Quote
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:11p, 4/25/13
quote:
i'd like to move up to something that takes video and has improved low-light shooting. I have a 50mm 1.8 lens that is nice, but it's restrictive both with its smaller field of view and the shallow depth of field it requires for fast shooting. something with a better sensor would help.

i really only use the camera for vacations and travel and pictures of the kiddo. is it worth stepping up and over the 60D


For video, unless you are shooting static subjects or staged scenes where you know where the focus needs to be at all times, forget the video feature of a DSLR. It will not focus fast enough for you get the kids playing in the house or sports.

For camera, if all you shoot is kids and vacation, I'd suggest examining what are your real limitations of the current camera you own? The 50/1.8 does not require fast shooting if you are careful with your focus on subjects.

A new camera with a zoom lens at F5.6 is not going to give you better results if your technique is poor (not criticizing). If your technique is poor, that new camera will just piss you off b/c more MP means your mistakes are captured at higher resolution. So examine your shot discipline before you spend more money.

Also, why not an external flash? You can bounce it off the ceiling, put your lens at higher f-stop (more DOF) to get nice indoor photos.

Again, not criticizing, but if you're not getting good photos with a 60D and 50/1.8, something is wrong ant it's not the camera.

I had a Nikon D50, 50/1.8, 80-200/2.8 for many years and got tons of good photos with those. That's OLD technology compared to the 60D. My kids got older and started playing schools sports so I got a D7000 b/c I wanted better low light performance for gym/stadium lights, faster FPS for sports, iTTL wireless flash control built-in, and needed a screw drive for my 80-200 lens.

For the first few months I was frustrated as hell b/c my photos were 'soft'. After examining my old and new photos, I realized it was ME that was the problem. The 10mP jump in resolution was showing my mistakes.
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:23p, 4/25/13
i don't have a 60D, i have a 30D. it's approximately 6-7 years old now. the ISO only goes up to 1600 (which is pretty sketchy) and 3200 which is just bad. the 50mm 1.8 lens i have is fine, but wide open the DoF is too shallow, and if i try to up the ISO, things get noisy real quick. i'm not against a nice external flash, but when out and about on vacation, i'm not going to be lugging that around with me as well. also, the 30D is only 8mp so if i want to do a little selective cropping, things get pixelated quickly.

i was asking if i'm getting a new camera anyway (newer than my 30D), if it's worth jumping past the 60d to get a 7d or 6d, and get more capability.

Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:29p, 4/25/13
quote:
For the first few months I was frustrated as hell b/c my photos were 'soft'. After examining my old and new photos, I realized it was ME that was the problem. The 10mP jump in resolution was showing my mistakes.



i am curious in what your mistakes were. i'm not above learning from the mistakes of others to improve myself.
Reply Quote
agracer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:08p, 4/25/13
sorry, I misread your post. Their has been a big gain in sensor tech in the last 3-4 years. The 60D is far above the 30D in that regard. The 7D, IIRC, is similar to my D7000.

My problems were my shot discipline. I was lazy with how I held the camera IE: making sure I had a stable platform - arms against chest, eye at viewfinder, hold breath while shooting, etc. Those little mistakes meant my camera was 'shaking'. So that shake along with poor AF focus selection (both how and where) added to soft photos at 16mP vs. 6mP where the shakes didn't show up so much.

I also bought a mono-pod for the sports stuff and that helped even more.

Can't tell what to do with Canon though. I'm a Nikon shooter.

[This message has been edited by agracer (edited 4/25/2013 3:09p).]
Reply Quote
schmendeler
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:13p, 4/25/13
thanks, yeah, i try to be as still and "stable" as possible when shooting, too. i guess i'll wait and see what comes out in the next months. i have a trip to SF in October, so i may want to pull the trigger by then.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.