this

Great job!
You say you will mostly shoot family shots, you mentioned once that you WOULD BE ABLE to do nature shots.
you dont need it on vacation, it has bad F range in my opinion and trust me you would do shit with that indoors.
you said yourself you could save up for better lens, well do that, meanwhile learn some how to use your current equipment, you did said you are new in this.
I dont really know what lenses you have so far but why not a 50 mm instead? much more fun with that.

Anyway congrats again on your super cheap buy if you did that already.

It's only meant for the daytime. There's very few shots over 200mm I've wanted during the nighttime.



I'd call the 70-300 an impulsive buy. The camera wasn't, though. The 16-85 was an impulsive bump up and I could've gone with the cheaper 18-105 which would've saved me $300, which I absolutely should have done -- but I got talked into the 16-85. The 35mm is something I will never regret -- feels like a godsend to have it.

So the only real impulsive purchase I feel I've made is the 70-300, and it's the 'fun' one. >_<; Idk.



Yes, I could have saved for an 85mm 1.8G for $500. That lens would've been absolutely amazing. If I bought it now, it'd be an impulse buy as well... though I know I'd be using it.

If I did this all over again, I'd probably have gotten the 85mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.8G, and 50mm 1.8G... all for just $300 or so over the price of the single 16-85mm.

I know that during camping I really did want the zoom range of the 70-300, and I just couldn't get it. I missed out on some loon shots as well as some other things that I wanted to get. Ultimately, it's more about the fun for this lens.

Honestly it has similar f-stops to my 16-85 anyway. The 16-85 is f3.5-f5.6.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 7 2013 12:05pm

Every lenses that are over f2.8 are waste of money to be honest. (unless it's like a 600mm f4 then you probably dont have the choice since it's Huuuuuge.)
But other than that, all lenses over f2.8 are really a waste of money.
It's not so bad to use a kit lens (only 1 to start up) but you geared everything with it (which is not a good move)
Shoulved just bought something like :

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
and the
Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8(or the canon equivalence)

With these 2 lenses you dont need anything else unless you want a fisheye (waste of money wide > fisheye).
The only lens that could be really cool is the 85mm 1.8 it's known to be EXTRA sharp for portrait

edit:

But the thing is that you need to be happy with the end result, if you are then there's no problem at all

This post was edited by Deibu on Jul 7 2013 12:13pm

Yeh I woke up today realizing I just spent $400 over what I needed to. It was definitely impulse getting the 70-300. So I'm not buying anything more now.

I really did want a zoom lens that reached far though, and I just won't ever have the cash for anything intense. I guess we'll see now. I could still cancel the order possibly depending on if they've processed it. Regardless, I'm excited about it... but feeling a little... a lot guilty buying it.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 7 2013 12:23pm

Pretty sure some dude name Lithfkn mentioned that in one of your original threads.. haha

Hahaha yes. But it took the purchase to learn.

If I only had the primes I think I'd be frustrated with losing shots. I'd be getting amazing shots, but losing 50% of my shots.

Trade-off I suppose. The zoom feels like it's only a bump up from a point-and-shoot before editing the NEF files.

I think so long as I enjoy photography, I'll end up with an 85mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G in my repetoir within a 12-month span. That's assuming santa is good to me, as well as I manage to retain a job of some sort. I've already spent more than I'll make this summer. My rule is generally to spend 20% of what I make on what I want, and save the 80% for important things.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jul 7 2013 01:09pm

I can imagine, every time you look at that lens now, you will feel a tear rolling up in the corner of your eye



hi

Why would you be losing shots? You should be making shots. It's rare for amazing shit just to happen in front of you. You have to get off your ass and create the image, be in position where the light is, watch what is happening in your environment, study your subjects. Zooms are for tourists. There, I said it

Moving with your feet is the best way to do this IMO because you learn to frame and you learn how focal lengths at a static mm effect the compression in an image.

I only travel with only one camera and two lenses (24mm + 50mm) but the 50 is on the body 90% of the time and depending where I go I would only take a 50mm. If it's job related I bring everything though.

This post was edited by lithfkn on Jul 7 2013 01:21pm

Hello you

+10 to the bold ha

If it's not too late just cancel the order or take it back.

Resale value on all of the lenses is good 80%+ I reckon locally. So not bad.



No longer focal length than 50mm on the full-frame? Thought an 85 or 125 (not sure of the focal length) or whatever would be good on the go?

I'm finding the zoom is just useful. When I'm with family, often times it's just not going to work out moving around a ton. That said... I do feel like I could just walk around with the 35mm on my crop-sensor and be happy. Sometimes though I want to switch between 35mm, 16mm, and 70+mm very quickly in succession.