Newbie to SLRs, how much does a good lens cost?

[Rameish 0]

I know 3rd party lenses are a less expensive way to get the lens you want but every time I bought a Tamron, Sigma, etc in the past I have always regreted not coughing up the money to buy the camera manufacturer's lens )I know, I know sometimes it cost double or triple).

[heady 0]

N@Z, it's a manual focus lens but good quality. Photography started as a hobby for me when I started taking clinical photos so I still like macro photography. Sentimental lah, so must keep.

[dundee 0]

ugh u dont know what u r missin... going to nikon and not using the excellent 17-35/2.8.... if you //really// want third party lenses, then canon would have beeen a better choice, better compatibility due to the larger mount. u can even use the zeiss lineup. 21mm distagon in particular.

[Firefox 0]

ugh u dont know what u r missin... going to nikon and not using the excellent 17-35/2.8.... if you //really// want third party lenses, then canon would have beeen a better choice, better compatibility due to the larger mount. u can even use the zeiss lineup. 21mm distagon in particular.

17-35/ 2.8 Nikkor??

 

LOL...

 

The Holy Trinity that will incinerate not just the wallet but the bank vault as well....

 

 

Yea, the Canon EOS mount has greater compatibility with lenses from other manufacturers due to the shorter flange distance..

 

The 21mm Distagon costs a bomb though..

 

 

Edited June 25, 2005 by Firefox

[dundee 0]

yeah, but if u want it cheap then theres always p&s There is no point in saving on the lenses as a system's resolution is a function of the lens and sensor resolution, generally the lens being the limiting factor, expecially with large apertures. (the zeiss looks sweet i've been eying the canon 135/2, any idea how the zeiss 135/3.5 does in comparison?

[Yon 0]

thinking of getting a new lens for my d70, any recommandations? by the way, i'm a newbie to photography.

[dundee 0]

Its not possible for us to recomend something on the fly so to speak. Tell us what lenses you currently have, the kind of stuff you normally shoot ect. For example, i do a significant amount of indoor shooting where flash is normally prohibited. Thats why i use fast wide to normal primes and am looking towards long primes to agument my lineup. You must look at your lenses as a whole and not a singularity. eg: theres no point in a 17-55 if you already have a 17-35. Then theres also a budget to consider...

[Yon 0]

Nature shots. i have the lens that came with the d70 and a sb800. What would be a good reason for one to buy a wide angle lens? By the way, my budget is around 1k plus minus.

[Yon 0]

i also like to take naked women.

[Blues 0]

tokina 12-24 f/4 if u like taking wide angle and landscapes...

around ur budget and pretty good review

 

edit: lol for ur latest post... I think the cheap 50mm will do just fine

Edited July 1, 2005 by Blues

[Firefox 0]

(the zeiss looks sweet i've been eying the canon 135/2, any idea how the zeiss 135/3.5 does in comparison?

The Zeiss Ikon/ Contax 135mm/ 2.8 Sonnar is not particularly impressive.

The Zeiss Sonnar 135mm/ 3.5 has much much better bokeh.. Most people who like bokeh will take the Sonnar 135/ 3.5 over the Contax, Leica & Canon L 135mm lenses..

If you want absolute sharpness, go for a Leica R Asph.

[Rameish 0]

What's this passion over sharpness? If you want absolute sharpnee then go for a manual focus lens and spend money getting the right focusing screen for the right lens.