Looking for DSLR selection recommendation

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
Le 04/07/2013 05:00, Alex M a écrit :

Thanks again to everyone for recommendations! I am leaning to Canon
(maybe SL1, maybe a somewhat larger 70D / 7D). Now I would appreciate
recommendations and opinions on a superzoom lens.

I have a 24-105 F/4L, which I love, but would like to have something
with more reach, especially on long end (no urgency, since 24-105
would work most of the time). IS is highly desirable. I realize that
with a superzoom I will be compromising several things, but still
like a convenience of having an occasional "one lens for all" setup.
The 18-200 that was stolen was working great in this mode.

* Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, weight ~600g, $700
* Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3, ~450g, $420
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3, ~480g, $400

I have the same feelings about the super-zoom set-up.
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.
I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.
Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

Image quality (sensor size)
Choice (change lenses on occasions where it matters)
Focussing speed (PDAF)
Seeing what you shoot (Optical viewfinder)
Expandability

-Wolfgang

Le 07/07/2013 17:04, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :
J. Clarke wrote:

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

Image quality (sensor size)
Choice (change lenses on occasions where it matters)
Focussing speed (PDAF)
Seeing what you shoot (Optical viewfinder)
Expandability

As concerns the Nikkors 18-200 and 18-300, fuzzyness is unknown to me,
my photographs are crisp even at long end and full aperture.
(The 18-200 Canon is good, too, they say).
The 18-300 goes down to 0.45 meters. One can shoot a butterfly full
frame. For closer distances, I just screw my Olympus close-up lens on it.
Autofocus is really fast and reliable : here see-gulls were fighting for
food, I could not follow them, the 39-point autofocus could and chose
the right thing :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGgovAUYvxs_d...1515_1-001.jpg
Sure enough, 80% of my photographs coud have been taken with a good
bridge, not the remaining 20%.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:58:58 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: Wandering a little further OT, I think Canon's product line could use a
: 50-150mm f/2.8. I'd make it an EF "L" lens, to fit FF cameras,
:
: What does it have for FF that the 70-200 doesn't have?
: And you can always add a 50mm for little enough money, and
: they're much faster than f/2.8.

Not much for FF, but that's not the point. A FF 50-150 is well within Canon's
design capability, so why not? Then at least the lens is still available if I
buy it for my 7D's but decide later to go FF. As a potential FF wannabe, I
made a conscious decision to stop buying APS-C lenses, and I doubt that I'm
alone in that.

: but it would be intended mainly for the 7D.
:
: That would mean EF-S, and probably 40-125mm or thereabouts, as
: a 70-200-in-crop. And there's already a 28-135mm, a 55-250mm
: and a 28-300mm (and the 18-200mm), albeit all of them slower
: than f/2.8.

And they're not constant-aperture zooms. One can usually live with that for
landscape and architecture photography, but for indoor event photography it's
a deal breaker.

: I love my (well, my employer's) 70-200 f/2.8, but
: it's very heavy
:
: A 50-150 would be much the same.

It could (and should) be noticeably lighter.

: and a bit long for the small-hall event photography that I
: usually do.

Which is the real reason I'd like a 50-150. It wouldn't leave a gap above my
17-55 (Canon's standard APS-C walkaround lens), like the 70-200 does.

: In which case a 18-135 should work well as a focal range ---
: not only has it enough reach, it also goes to wide angle.
: Oh, 480g for the new STM variant should help.

Besides not being a CA lens, it has a bit longer range than I prefer a zoom to
have. I'm already resigned to carrying two cameras at events (I've been doing
it for several years), and ideally the two lenses should overlap, but only by
a little.

: Alternatively --- since the 70-200 is too long anyway --- use
: the 24-105

I've thought about it, but I need the extra stop.

: or even the 24-70 f/2.8,

If I could afford it. But anyway, neither of those lenses is wide enough on a
7D. At the events I do, there's always a group picture to be taken, and that
means going below 24mm.

: and switch to the 70-200 only when needed.

My events (awards ceremonies and the like) usually don't offer many
opportunities to change lenses.

: Alternatively, put a 50mm on your 7D and have a 85 or 100 or 135
: in the bag. (as well as e.g. the 10-22mm and/or the 17-40mm)
: Then you have much better than f/2.8, too.
:
: Sigma is back in the game with a stabilized 50-150; but it isn't
: cheap, and I'm pretty sure it's not in the same league with Canon's L's.
:
: As you point out, there's the 70-200. A 50-150 only add 20mm
: downwards. Just use a 50mm already ...

I already use a 17-55. The issue is what do I carry that's longer.

: I can see many things that could be done for high end crop
: cameras, but a 50-150 doesn't appear there. A 60-200 may
: happen some day, though --- back then they were 80-200mm.

Let's face it: I don't expect Canon to pay much attention to my argument for
the 50-150 (and certainly not as a FF lens). But I thought I might as well
throw the idea out there.

Bob

On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
[...]
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.

I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.

Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

I'm interested because I have a D5100 and Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200
zooms. Closest focus on the latter is about a metre, so I was
considering getting some kind of macro add-on. Proper Nikkor
macro lenses are quite expensive and out of budget at the mo.

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
[...]
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.

I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.

Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

I'm interested because I have a D5100 and Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200
zooms. Closest focus on the latter is about a metre, so I was
considering getting some kind of macro add-on. Proper Nikkor
macro lenses are quite expensive and out of budget at the mo.

Those are no sharper than can be done with a decent bridge camera.

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
[...]
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.

I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.

Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

The 18-300 Nikkor costs close to a thousand bucks. You can get a good
superzoom bridge camera for 1/3 of the price, and I am not aware that
the 18-300 and the like have superior optical performance to the
superzooms on the bridge cameras, so I don't see the value.

On 7/7/2013 12:38 PM, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
[...]
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.

I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.

Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

I'm interested because I have a D5100 and Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200
zooms. Closest focus on the latter is about a metre, so I was
considering getting some kind of macro add-on. Proper Nikkor
macro lenses are quite expensive and out of budget at the mo.


If you add an extension tube to your lens you will get much closer
focusing distance, for a reasonable price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Kenko%20Extension%20Tubes&N=0&InitialSe arch=yes

--
PeterN

Le 07/07/2013 18:38, pensive hamster a écrit :
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

I'm interested because I have a D5100 and Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200
zooms. Closest focus on the latter is about a metre, so I was
considering getting some kind of macro add-on. Proper Nikkor
macro lenses are quite expensive and out of budget at the mo.

It's a long story. I used to have an Olympus E10 with the MCON-35 macro
add-on. It's a 2.85 diopter achromatic lens. I never used it much but
when I got my D90 and the 18-200 I screwed it to my new zoom and saw the
results were much much better than experts would say.
So I decided I would go into the macro world with an 18-200 Nikkor zoom
and an Olympus 2.85 diopter close-up lens ! Sometimes I put 2 and even 3
of those lenses on top of each other (I got them used on e-bay because
they were discontinued ages ago which is a shame considering their quality).
When I got my 18-300 I put my Olympus close-up lens on it and you can
see the results. The maximum magnification ratio I get with one lens is
0.91, that's very close to 1. I get 1.52 with 2, and 2.62 with 3 but
that's difficult to use.
I am aware a good f2.8 105 mm Micro Nikkor lens would be better, but who
wants to spend 800 $ when you can get away with 80$ ?
http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/e10/mcon-35.html
Apart from the Olympus MCON-35 which is hard to find (I bought them all)
I know that Canon made two of such lenses : the 250D and the 500D which
have a very good reputation. Nikon does not make such close-up lenses. I
also have a 5D Marumi but it's rubbish.
One of my good friends, (D90 + 18-200, not reframed) :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhtAadJJAe_d90_12288_1-001.jpg
Another one of my good friends, although they don't like each other much
: (D7000 +18-300, not reframed) :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhtFx8rqkB_d...5697_1-001.jpg

In article ,
says...

On 7/7/2013 12:38 PM, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
[...]
I used to use a D90 with a Nikkor 18-200 and was delighted with it.
Now I have a D7000 and a Nikkor 18-300. I neither have nor want any
other lens.

I do everything with it, including close-ups with an Olympus MCON-35
macro add-on.

Examples :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkFp9JMjS_d...5366_1-001.jpg
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhkYlQMUdQ_d...6238_1-001.jpg
So, if you want to shift to Nikon, you know where to set you eyes. ;-)

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

I'm interested because I have a D5100 and Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200
zooms. Closest focus on the latter is about a metre, so I was
considering getting some kind of macro add-on. Proper Nikkor
macro lenses are quite expensive and out of budget at the mo.


If you add an extension tube to your lens you will get much closer
focusing distance, for a reasonable price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Kenko%20Extension%20Tubes&N=0&InitialSe arch=yes

Those aren't actually an awful lot cheaper than a 40mm DX Micro-Nikkor.

On 7/7/2013 1:35 PM, Ghost-Rider wrote:
Le 07/07/2013 18:38, pensive hamster a écrit :
On Sunday, 7 July 2013 14:38:41 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:

But if your setup is going to be a fuzzy superzoom with no built in
macro, why not just use a bridge camera?

You consider the above linked images fuzzy? They seem fairly
reasonable to me, maybe not super-sharp or super-high
magnification, but certainly not fuzzy.

I'm interested because I have a D5100 and Nikkor 18-55 and 55-200
zooms. Closest focus on the latter is about a metre, so I was
considering getting some kind of macro add-on. Proper Nikkor
macro lenses are quite expensive and out of budget at the mo.

It's a long story. I used to have an Olympus E10 with the MCON-35 macro
add-on. It's a 2.85 diopter achromatic lens. I never used it much but
when I got my D90 and the 18-200 I screwed it to my new zoom and saw the
results were much much better than experts would say.
So I decided I would go into the macro world with an 18-200 Nikkor zoom
and an Olympus 2.85 diopter close-up lens ! Sometimes I put 2 and even 3
of those lenses on top of each other (I got them used on e-bay because
they were discontinued ages ago which is a shame considering their
quality).
When I got my 18-300 I put my Olympus close-up lens on it and you can
see the results. The maximum magnification ratio I get with one lens is
0.91, that's very close to 1. I get 1.52 with 2, and 2.62 with 3 but
that's difficult to use.
I am aware a good f2.8 105 mm Micro Nikkor lens would be better, but who
wants to spend 800 $ when you can get away with 80$ ?
http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/e10/mcon-35.html
Apart from the Olympus MCON-35 which is hard to find (I bought them all)
I know that Canon made two of such lenses : the 250D and the 500D which
have a very good reputation. Nikon does not make such close-up lenses. I
also have a 5D Marumi but it's rubbish.
One of my good friends, (D90 + 18-200, not reframed) :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhtAadJJAe_d90_12288_1-001.jpg
Another one of my good friends, although they don't like each other much
: (D7000 +18-300, not reframed) :
http://cjoint.com/13ju/CGhtFx8rqkB_d...5697_1-001.jpg



No matter how much you spend, there is away better. The key is that
it's working for you, There is no need to defend your choices.



--
PeterN