Camera - what lenses

RoamingGnomes wrote:

Looking a new camera so I can change the lenses. Looking to carry 2 lenses and wondering what combo would give me the best ability to cover regular photo taking and long distance wildlife. Any thoughts?

Nikon D3100 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm & 55-200mm DX AF-S Zoom Lens - $496 from Cameta Camera

This gives you a very good Nikon DSLR camera with a decent normal / wide angle lens, and a second Nikon 200 mm zoom lens.

We've got this combination and find it easy to use, reliable, and takes exceptional quality photos.

Bill

Garry&Gayle wrote:
Sigma vs Tamron, who has the best optics?

they both have good lenses, they both have so so lenses. be specific as to the exact lens you are talking about and you can fairly easily do a comparison between them on the web. I own some of both brands. I would not be afraid to buy a new one of either brand.

bumpy

Sigma vs Tamron, who has the best optics?

DustyWV wrote:
My personal choice for a good utility lens 28 - 200 shorty does it all and when you need hang the long lens on it.
You need stabilization on the long lens.

for most of the folks here, they will be buying a camera with an APS-C or smaller sensor so I would recommend starting that zoom at about 18 mm. I have found the tamron 18-270 to be ideal on my Nikon D5100. If they are considering a full frame digital then the 28-?? would work for me.
bumpy

p220sigman wrote:
The answers are really determined by your price range and how much weight you want to carry. You can easily spend thousands and DSLR body and high quality long lenses. The other option and probably what I would go for, is a reasonable body from Canon or Nikon (both have bodies in the $500-$1000) that is comfortable for you and get something like the Tamron 18-270mm lens. That will make for a reasonably compact walking around camera that will allow you to do reasonable zooms. Of course, with the extreme zooms like this, you are sacrificing some quality and speed. If you wanted more reach, you could go with a Sigma 50-500mm, but also more money.

In contrast, if you really want to reach out and take the best possible wildlife pictures, you can always go with a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Lens or a Cannon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens. Of course, one of these lenses would set you back 11K or 13K respectively.

I personally use an older Canon DSLR and an older version of the Tamron lens except in the 18-200mm range. The 18-270mm wasn't out at the time. I previously had some big lenses that were very high quality, but found that I got to where I left them home most of the time because I simply didn't want to carry them around when I was just hiking. Like I said, it is all a tradeoff. I went with one of the super zooms because I only wanted to carry one lens and it has worked reasonably well. Admittedly, I do miss the speed of nicer lenses at times, but overall, I've been very happy with the switch.

X2 on the above.

I spend the past winter in south Texas near Brownsville and South Padre Island with all of the migrating bird routes.

My equip: Canon D60 Refurbished (Canon discounted price with a 90 day
warranty).
150 - 500 MM Sigma lens with stabilization.
Several other lenses that could have been replaced with a 50 - 500 MM.
Downsize is the weight of these on a everyday camera. My personal choice for a good utility lens 28 - 200 shorty does it all and when you need hang the long lens on it.
You need stabilization on the long lens.

liborko wrote:
I would go with a Nikon 7100 and two lenses; 16-85 zoom and 70-300 zoom. These are "best buy" pieces. If money is no object, Nikon has truck load of professional lenses and cameras that are larger, havier and cost more money.

what does that offer over the D5200 which is much less money?
did a quick check on dpreview, didn't see much there to make it worth it to an amateur. JMHO
and I would much prefer my 18-270 than having to carry two lenses.
bumpy

I would go with a Nikon 7100 and two lenses; 16-85 zoom and 70-300 zoom. These are "best buy" pieces. If money is no object, Nikon has truck load of professional lenses and cameras that are larger, havier and cost more money.

When I went to Alaska in 2006 I missed a lot of animal shots with my 3x 5 mp Olympus I bought in 2002. My friend had a nice 300mm lens and got all kinds of close ups. The old Olympus got wet in a rain forest in Costa Rica several years ago and I replaced it with the Cannon S50. It has a 50x zoom and takes incredible closeups for a non photographer like myself. I think they are now under $500.

If buying a DSLR, I would suggest a Pentax because they build the image stabilization into the body. That way the lenses are way cheaper, and (unless they've changed recently) the bodies are backward-compatible with all the old (used, affordable) lenses, too.

vermilye wrote:

Of course, you can go overboard - anyone want to pay $42,500.00 for a 50 MP Hasselblad H5D-60 Medium Format DSLR Camera?

got offered one by a Nigerian prince for $2,000. the check is in the mail. for now I am happy with my 24 mpix Nex 7.
bumpy :)