Got a DSLR – fine, that was a good deal I thought. Except that I need a telephoto lens, of course. Then that wasn't enough so I want another even longer zoom, and none of the lenses have decent macro so I need one of those too.. ARGH!

Does it ever end?

what zoom do you need and what for?

I am looking to buy a long lens soon and am not sure how much will be enough without messing up the iq.

I got the 40-150mm zoom (300mm equiv) when I got the camera (or just after) because it was on stupidly good deal at £99. It's good, but I found that when I saw a bird in the sky or some wildlife, it just wasn't enough. I've got loads of pictures of tiny animals in the distance, even at that level of zoom. I should have bought the longer one at 70-300mm (equiv 600m therefore) in the first place, but they were £300.. I am going to the US soon so I could get one cheaper there, I may sell the smaller lens.

One lens to rule them all kiddo 🙂

yeah, I was trying to take some pics of a mate playing cricket the other day and being on the sideline with only 90mm of zoom was rubbish.

There is a 400mm equivalent zoomer that I have been looking at but it comes in at almost £300. That is no problem but I want a macro lens, a wide angle for landscapes, a prime for everyday duties blah blah. It all gets a bit out of hand really.

I am looking forward to more micro four thirds cameras coming out as the lens selection will bloom, until then, I am gambling a bit incase it goes betamax. I had best get an adaptor for other lenses as it sounds like it would pay for itself in no time.

I really miss the 3cm focusing distance on my compact.

Barnes – that's what, 300mm equivalent? Not enough for wildlife! Plus it's huge and weighs a ton.

For cheap decent tele's if you're on mu4/3 then legacy stuff's the way to go. Got a perfectly usable 70-210 f4 for £15 😀

Obviously I could get better quality spending (a lot) more, but I figure this is the way to go to figure out focal lengths I want etc, and it lets me get the pics ok. Similarly with a WA adapter (£6 ebay win! one that's normally ~£100) that's not designed for my lenses but works fine, I've now got an acceptable 11mm (22mm in full-frame).

Oh and for macro I reverse mount a 50mm/f2:

Barnes – that's what, 300mm equivalent? Not enough for wildlife!

yep!

Plus it's huge and weighs a ton.

wimp 🙂 What camera have you got ?

Seen the new ones simon:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10054-10866

55-300mm VR DX offers a bit more range than your 18-200mm if that suits the OP. Pricey though.

Molgrips, are you on 4/3 or u4/3? (guessing based on your 150=300) Is it the micro or regular 40-150 you have? If you're moving it on I might be interested….

Does it ever end?

yep, when you realise despite all the money you spend, you still take average photos of average things so sell everything and get a camera you can fit in your pocket…

Plus it's huge and weighs a ton.

More weight 😥 = better quality glass 😀 = better photos 😀 = more expensive 😥

Fits the above criteria… 😆

I now have 4 lenses.

Sigma 17-70 f2.8 takes most of my pics from MTB shots like this

(Are You Tough Enough 2010)

And when you said I really miss the 3cm focusing distance on my compact. I went and took this with the same lens as above actually resting on the key!! Well, I was impressed!! That's versitility.
IIRC the 17-70 was about £220

A cheap (£56 off eBay) 55-200 Tamron does me for long shots, but I've only ever used it once in anger

(India this year)

And a £55 (at the time) Canon 50mm f1.8 takes portraits with, IMO, brilliant ease. I love it. 🙂

(DrP at BBB last year)

And I've just bought, yesterday, my most expensive lens, a Sigma 10-20f4 because I need to go w-i-d-e-r 🙂 Not used it yet though…..

I buy most of my lenses from One Stop Digital. Most of their prices are barely more than used prices on eBay, sometimes less…. I ordered the 10-20 on Sunday night and it arrived yesterday, from Hong Kong 🙂

The Sigma 17-70 is only f/2.8 at its very widest and rapidly goes up to f/4.5

I mainly use a Canon 17-55mm IS f/2.8 and occasionally their cheap, but very impressive for the money 55-250m IS
Did have a Sigma 10-20 f/4-f/5.6, but hardly ever used it, sold now and if I did ever buy another wide angle think it would be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Not sure about the jack of all trade zooms, considering a 70-200mm IS f/4 and reckon that would be long enough with the crop factor without being overly heavy

Does it ever end?

Not sure – I think I've got somewhere over 30 at the moment! A lot of those were bought back in my film days (on Pentax so still work fine on the DSLR), and only a fairly small subset of those I use frequently now e.g. 10-20mm, 16-45mm F4, 80-200 F2.8, 50mm F1.4, 50mm macro, 105mm macro, fisheye zoom.

Quite a few of my most exotic lenses (85mm F1.4, 50mm F1.2, 135mm F2, 18-28mm F2.8) seem to very rarely get used now.

For macro stuff I just pop on a Raynox DCR250 close-up filter, they only cost about £40

Bike Chain by Karl33to, on Flickr

That tiger shot is lovely. Really lovely.

Raynox DCR250 – Thankyou, that looks like it will do the trick nicely.

PP, with that key shot, what's the quoted minimum distance for the lens? I'm sure it wasn't 3cm? How did you get the pic?

As for the tiger pic, I dunno how far away you were 🙂 Like I say a 35mm equivalent of 300mm wasn't quite enough for birds.

I reckon those 4 lenses I mentioned would cover it.

yep, when you realise despite all the money you spend, you still take average photos of average things so sell everything and get a camera you can fit in your pocket…

Thanks patronising. I've had cameras I can fit in my pocket for 20 years, on which I've taken my fave photos – and I've still got one. I am interested in what a DSLR offers. However I had only anticipated 2-3 lenses at most.. seems like those 4 would cover what I want nicely and consequently give me more than my compact did.

I like the idea of a macro filter tho – didn't know they existed.

I like the idea of a macro filter tho – didn't know they existed.

it's not a filter, it's a close up lens which fits the filter threads 🙂 AFAIK you can get them in different strengths.

I've currently got an 18-135 which is my everyday lens. It's fine for most stuff.
I've also got the Nikkor 70-300VR lens which is great and is the equivalent of 450mm on my camera, but sometimes still not quite enough. Problem is that it starts getting hard to hand hold if you go much above that, even with image stabilisation.

I keep looking at a fairly long macro lens (Sigma 105 or Tamron 90), but never actually get round to pushing the 'buy now' button.
I also fancy getting the Sigma 10-20mm & the 24-70 2.8, but know I'll never get round to it and can't really justify the limited use I'll get form them.
I've ummmmmed and aaaaahed about a flash too & think I might get one at the end of the month……

So, no I'm not sure it ever ends…..

it's not a filter, it's a close up lens which fits the filter threads

Well clearly. "Filter" then, better?

What would another flash offer me that the built-in one doesn't?

I've got the 18-200 that sfb rates (and it's a flippin good lens and is used most of the time), 50mm 1.8, the Sigma 10-20mm that some others have mentioned a sigma 105mm 2.8 macro, a lensbaby and a monster that is the sigma 50-500

….and yes, I use them all

I have a 18 – 55 DX and a 55 – 200 DX VR. Serves me well

What would another flash offer me that the
built-in one doesn't?

Built-in flashes are pretty close to the lens so when you take a shot the flash is reflected straight back off the subject, which typically looks awful. It can be toned down by lowering the flash power or adding a diffuser, but you'll still be hitting them square on so it still washes out a bit.

An additional flash usually has an adjustable head so you can bounce it off the ceiling or a nearby wall for less direct light. Also you can take it right off the camera to add light from a different direction.

Going to pro level you can hook up the flash to a wireless receiver and hide it in a bush to make sure you can highlight the rider in your typical "mountain biker in a dark forest" type shot.

I still use a proper film camera with a 50mm lens, fits the bill most of the time. The 75-300 lens was great when I went sightseeing but I'm more than happy with a few rolls of B&W film, a 50mm lens and an Olympus OM2 body.
BTW PetterPoddy's pics are just great, way better then mine ever will be.

PP, with that key shot, what's the quoted minimum distance for the lens? I'm sure it wasn't 3cm? How did you get the pic?

Well, I'm not sure what the quoted minimum distance is, but the lens does say Macro on it, so you sort of got me wondering what it would do.
I went upstairs, shone my computer desk light on the key, turned the lens to manual focus and set it to it's minumum distance. Camera was set on apeture priority, 400ISO, and the lowest f stop it would take (f4.5 I think) at maximum zoom. And I just moved the camera until the Ford logo was in focus, which happened to be with the rim of the lens resting on the loop of the key!
It was just an exercise really. 🙂 I do like the odd close-up though.

I can't vouch highly enough for the battering that poor old Sigma 17-70 has taken in my hands, it's a brilliant lens, really well made. At one point I got a hankering for something 'better' but I'm really glad I didn't. If it broke now, I'd just buy another one.

Also if you use an on-board flash with a bigger lens, then the lens can cast a shadow, so you get a semi circle of darkness in the shot

Also if you use an on-board flash with a bigger lens, then the lens can cast a shadow, so you get a semi circle of darkness in the shot

Oh yeah. I've given up with the on board flash now anyway – Vivitar 285HV, fully manual flash, and a set of Cactus wireless triggers is cheap and versitile. I use them a LOT!

Another one for Elfinsafety, being as you liked the tiger shot 🙂

Well clearly. "Filter" then, better?

I think not – it's definitely a lens, and works in exactly the same way a lens in a pair of reading glasses allows the longsighted to focus closer.

What would another flash offer me that the built-in one doesn't?

on camera flash makes the subject look as if you're shining a torch at it (unless set low power just for fill). In general it will look awful.

on camera flash makes the subject look as if you're shining a torch at it (unless set low power just for fill). In general it will look awful.

Oh yeah. Bloody awful. And no control over the power or spread of the light. And you can't bounce it off the ceiling, or backlight stuff. And you get bad red-eye.

150=300 – what SLR do you have?

I thought the general rule about camera lenses was the same as the general rule about the number of bikes:

Number of lenses owned = number of lenses needed – 1

Me, I've only got an 18-200 which pretty much covers most of the photos I want to take. But I really need a new 50mm 1.4, a macro, a 10-20…

But I really need a new 50mm 1.4

Yes, you do. Go and buy one now

And then show me how good it is!

Dribble. 😉

Seriously though, (If you're using Canon) the f1.8 is superb. So, so sharp, with beautiful rich colouring in the pics. I should use mine more. I really should.

Okay, bit of a noob question but…

Why does this lens cost about £300…

… and this one cost about £700.

Sorry if I am asking stupid questions but I am a bit new to this whole affair…

'cos red crosses are expensive 😉

EDIT: …and then you went and fixed it…

can you link to the products, can't see enough from the pics, but it will more than likely be better quality glass in the more expensive one and also be faster (bigger aperture, lower f number). Possibly metal vs plastic body, etc

£233ish

vs

£720ish

Build quality wise they look similar, as just wondering what the major differences would be aside from focal length.

… and this one cost about £700.

Because it's got a min focal length of 14mm (pretty wide angle)

Wide angle lenses are more expensive as the optics need to be of considerably better quality to avoid distortion (eg vignetting/bending in the corners of the frame) distortion.

Okay, bit of a noob question but…

Better quality glass, and more of it, better build quality, faster foucussing motors etc, basically.

Although it has to be said if you read up on kit, it's possible to get some really nice, sharp lenses for not much money. The Tamron I took that tiger pic with above, for example. I did some research into cheaper 200mm zooms and it seems the Tamron is a bit of a bargain optically, but it focusses s-l-o-w-l-y and feels very plasicy next to my Sigmas.

ephotozine is a good website for reviews and tests in language a normal people can understand.