d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Graphic Design > Photography > People With Knowledge In Digital Reflex Cameras
Prev12346Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 788Replies: 55Track Topic
Member
Posts: 13,788
Joined: Jun 14 2006
Gold: 11.00
#11
Mar 22 2011 08:31am
Quote (Soxtonic @ Mar 22 2011 02:28pm)
Hmm Nikon d90 and canon 40d... many photographers have recommended me nikon d90... just wanted to know more opinions :) but canon 40d looks much good and so cheaper... hard choise

e/
I have seen offers of 700euros with just body so... dunno


yeah.. but then you need a lens.. but I would go for the d90 as well if I had the money
Member
Posts: 8,492
Joined: Sep 21 2008
Gold: 750.00
#12
Mar 22 2011 08:38am
Okay, then after you guys recomend me... I'll look for a d90, and, after it, I'll look for a lens, but not in a hurry of them by now.
Thanks everybody for help :)
Member
Posts: 6,029
Joined: Sep 23 2007
Gold: 0.00
#13
Mar 22 2011 08:42am
Quote (Antichrist- @ Mar 22 2011 07:28am)
he wants a macro lens


Cheapest way to shoot macro is to get a cheap prime like a 50 1.8 and reverse ring it. Or even buying extension tubes. I seriously doubt he/ she will be shooting true 1:1 macro anyway...
Member
Posts: 29,057
Joined: Aug 3 2005
Gold: 13.37
#14
Mar 22 2011 08:42am
Quote (Bundy3 @ 22 Mar 2011 17:30)
He never said he wanted a macro.  He said it is one of the many things he plans to shoot.  He also wants to shoot everything else.


you can use macro lens for other than macro objects, models, animals and some sight seeing. since the budget is so low he cant afford good wide angle, thats why i recommended cheap kit lens for wide angle
Member
Posts: 29,057
Joined: Aug 3 2005
Gold: 13.37
#15
Mar 22 2011 08:43am
Quote (CitizenScuba @ 22 Mar 2011 17:42)
Cheapest way to shoot macro is to get a cheap prime like a 50 1.8 and reverse ring it. Or even buying extension tubes. I seriously doubt he/ she will be shooting true 1:1 macro anyway...


imo changing the aperture and not having af is too much hassle, especially to someone whos just getting into photography
Member
Posts: 11,567
Joined: Sep 11 2008
Gold: 205.00
#16
Mar 22 2011 09:33am
just use the 50mm as a marco lens (yes i know its not right) it would work for the time being (min focus distance is not too bad) till he figures out if he will continue and then upgrade
that 50mm can do alot, even for portraits in the beginning
Member
Posts: 17,322
Joined: Apr 29 2007
Gold: 26.00
#17
Mar 22 2011 10:21am
get a sigma 17-70 lens. It is Macro, wide angle, and has some zoom too. If you can afford the newer version it has images stabilization as well.
Member
Posts: 29,057
Joined: Aug 3 2005
Gold: 13.37
#18
Mar 22 2011 10:25am
Quote (jayandnix @ 22 Mar 2011 18:33)
just use the 50mm as a marco lens (yes i know its not right) it would work for the time being (min focus distance is not too bad) till he figures out if he will continue and then upgrade
that 50mm can do alot, even for portraits in the beginning


depends on your purposes.. its not even close to being an macro lens

Quote (ace07 @ 22 Mar 2011 19:21)
get a sigma 17-70 lens. It is Macro, wide angle, and has some zoom too. If you can afford the newer version it has images stabilization as well.


its not an macro lens, they just say so that newbies would buy it thinking its a macro. it has closer than regular focus distance of new lenses, but its no macro. it might be close enough for his uses tho. canon 24-105 has "macro" focus distance(thats pretty much equilevant to this fake macro of sigma), but still my zeiss 135mm 3.5(that doesent say anything about macro) has better magnification on shortest focus distance
Member
Posts: 17,322
Joined: Apr 29 2007
Gold: 26.00
#19
Mar 22 2011 10:30am
Quote (Antichrist- @ 22 Mar 2011 17:25)
depends on your purposes.. its not even close to being an macro lens



its not an macro lens, they just say so that newbies would buy it thinking its a macro. it has closer than regular focus distance of new lenses, but its no macro. it might be close enough for his uses tho. canon 24-105 has "macro" focus distance(thats pretty much equilevant to this fake macro of sigma), but still my zeiss 135mm 3.5(that doesent say anything about macro) has better magnification on shortest focus distance


have you checked his budget?

Sigma 17-70 can focus to 20cm distance. That should be enough for most circumstances. I use one and I like it.
Member
Posts: 11,567
Joined: Sep 11 2008
Gold: 205.00
#20
Mar 22 2011 11:14am
Quote (Antichrist- @ 22 Mar 2011 20:25)
depends on your purposes.. its not even close to being an macro lens



its not an macro lens, they just say so that newbies would buy it thinking its a macro. it has closer than regular focus distance of new lenses, but its no macro. it might be close enough for his uses tho. canon 24-105 has "macro" focus distance(thats pretty much equilevant to this fake macro of sigma), but still my zeiss 135mm 3.5(that doesent say anything about macro) has better magnification on shortest focus distance


so as far as you are concerned everyone must be an automatic pro and spend obscene amount of money on camera gear!!!
get real and offer some helpful advice to the guy
we are not saying that any of this is the correct gear, but it will get him started and if he enjoys photography then he can obv take it further
Go Back To Photography Topic List
Prev12346Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact