DSLR Pr0N - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Jayems · 09-20-2010, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickerjones

My passion is in sports and would love to shoot baseball ,football, and hockey.. The lenses required for these are the expensive ones I believe!

Not necessarily. When I started out, I was shooting almost exclusively (for indoor sports) with a Nikon D80 and prime 50mm 1.8.

Not the best set up in the world, by any means, but you can get good shots.

I'm pretty excited to be shooting Hitmen and some Flames this year. Hitmen on Friday, Flames vs. Tampa this saturday. Good weekend

pylon · 09-20-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickerjones

My passion is in sports and would love to shoot baseball ,football, and hockey.. The lenses required for these are the expensive ones I believe!

This is a great lens to start with if you are shooting canon. No IS so you'll have a few more throw aways, but I got some awesome shots with mine. Order from B and H and its about half what you'll pay here. Works out to about $250 shipped. I have an ef 100-400L but I still use my 75-300 ultrasonic when I just don't wan't to risk damaging my $1700 L lens. A cheap tripod / monopod and this lens would work excellent for sports.

edit: also on any entry / midrange SLR the 1.6 crop factor essentially takes this lens up to 480mm.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6_III_USM.html

Jayems · 09-20-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickerjones

My passion is in sports and would love to shoot baseball ,football, and hockey.. The lenses required for these are the expensive ones I believe!

But to add to that, the 50mm probably would suck for football and baseball in that it wouldn't be a long enough lens.

VladtheImpaler · 09-20-2010, 10:23 PM

Pylon, thanks for the advice re T1i zoom lens - so, you suggest going with the 75-300 ultrasonic over the slightly more expensive 55-250 with IS? Just an amateur, so, while price is not a big issue, a fancy lens is probably wasted on me...

pylon · 09-20-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Pylon, thanks for the advice re T1i zoom lens - so, you suggest going with the 75-300 ultrasonic over the slightly more expensive 55-250 with IS? Just an amateur, so, while price is not a big issue, a fancy lens is probably wasted on me...

I have both lenses actually. If you plan on doing more handheld shooting. go with the 55-250 IS, I actually use that lens as my everyday walkaround. If you have a tripod / monopod, and want to shoot the kids ballgame or wildlife... the extra reach is nice on 75-300.

If i had to choose the 55-250IS would be a better all around lens though. It is just on the cusp of being usable in an average sized room.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html

And its only 30 bucks more at B & H.

nickerjones · 09-20-2010, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayems

Not necessarily. When I started out, I was shooting almost exclusively (for indoor sports) with a Nikon D80 and prime 50mm 1.8.

Not the best set up in the world, by any means, but you can get good shots.

I'm pretty excited to be shooting Hitmen and some Flames this year. Hitmen on Friday, Flames vs. Tampa this saturday. Good weekend

Well I will be honest I have a Nikon d3000 which is pretty much the D40. You cant find a cheap autofocus lens for these cams right? I guess I could buy a manual focus.

dissentowner · 09-21-2010, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon

I have both lenses actually. If you plan on doing more handheld shooting. go with the 55-250 IS, I actually use that lens as my everyday walkaround. If you have a tripod / monopod, and want to shoot the kids ballgame or wildlife... the extra reach is nice on 75-300.

If i had to choose the 55-250IS would be a better all around lens though. It is just on the cusp of being usable in an average sized room.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html

And its only 30 bucks more at B & H.

If you look on Kijiji you might be able to find a 70-300 USM IS for slightly more then a 55-250IS new. The 70-300 is a great lens for the price and many say it takes L-lens type quality pictures. You can check out examples of pictures at www.pixel-peeper.com

afc wimbledon · 09-21-2010, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickerjones

Well I will be honest I have a Nikon d3000 which is pretty much the D40. You cant find a cheap autofocus lens for these cams right? I guess I could buy a manual focus.

I use a D40, great little camera, auto focus is for wimps anyway, I have an old soliger 35mm lens I swear by, the 50 f1.8 and an 18-55 it came with mostly use the 50, just got a 30 year old 200mm fixed for 50 bucks and am having fun playing with it.

Real photographers just use the 'M' setting anyway!!

VladtheImpaler · 09-21-2010, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pylon

I have both lenses actually. If you plan on doing more handheld shooting. go with the 55-250 IS, I actually use that lens as my everyday walkaround. If you have a tripod / monopod, and want to shoot the kids ballgame or wildlife... the extra reach is nice on 75-300.

If i had to choose the 55-250IS would be a better all around lens though. It is just on the cusp of being usable in an average sized room.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._4_5_6_IS.html

And its only 30 bucks more at B & H.

Thanks - now I know what Mrs. Impaler is getting for Xmas! One more question - what do you recommend as the standard everyday filter?

DownInFlames · 09-21-2010, 06:57 AM

You'll find differing opinions but I don't use filters on my lenses, other than ND or polarizers. Camera stores push them to increase their margins. Digital camera sensors have UV protection built in, and if you're worried about scratching the front of a lens make sure you always use a hood and you'll be fine.

Thor · 09-21-2010, 07:30 AM

Dammit, Iceland has such amazingly clear skies in the winter with aurora borealis quite intense here. But I'm stuck with using the stock T2i lens, which is pretty solid but damn I crave a great lens now.

Oh well I'll do my best, should get some great shots this winter.

SebC · 09-21-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Digital camera sensors have UV protection built in, and if you're worried about scratching the front of a lens make sure you always use a hood and you'll be fine.

That's fine, except if you don't have a strobe and you're using your pop-up flash.

VladtheImpaler · 09-21-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

You'll find differing opinions but I don't use filters on my lenses, other than ND or polarizers. Camera stores push them to increase their margins. Digital camera sensors have UV protection built in, and if you're worried about scratching the front of a lens make sure you always use a hood and you'll be fine.

Thanks. So, I shouldn't bother with just a piece of glass on the end to protect from scratching?

Tiger · 09-21-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Thanks. So, I shouldn't bother with just a piece of glass on the end to protect from scratching?

I agree with Vlad. I make a mistake and scratch a lens and that is an expensive mistake. If I screw up and scratch a filter I'm out $60. I do everything I can to make sure I don't do anything stupid. But the basic UV filter is more of an insurance policy for me.

VladtheImpaler · 09-21-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiger

I agree with Vlad. I make a mistake and scratch a lens and that is an expensive mistake. If I screw up and scratch a filter I'm out $60. I do everything I can to make sure I don't do anything stupid. But the basic UV filter is more of an insurance policy for me.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. So, I should get a basic UV filter? I am really curious - is that the consensus - I should always have that on the lens? Or do people think a lens hood is sufficient? I see on BH a Hoya 58mm Ultraviolet UV(0) Haze Glass Filter for $14.85 or a Cannon ET-60 Lens Hood for $22.95 - would either of those work?

Cowperson · 09-21-2010, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. So, I should get a basic UV filter? I am really curious - is that the consensus - I should always have that on the lens? Or do people think a lens hood is sufficient? I see on BH a Hoya 58mm Ultraviolet UV(0) Haze Glass Filter for $14.85 or a Cannon ET-60 Lens Hood for $22.95 - would either of those work?

Yes, you should have something covering the lense, particularly if you are a camera basher like me . . . . and UV is the most common thing to use but not the only thing.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ns-filters.htm

Cowperson

DownInFlames · 09-21-2010, 02:20 PM

The big reason I don't use a UV filter is because it can cause lens flare and degrade the image quality.

If you're set on using one make sure it's multi-coated, like Hoya Pro or B+W.

SebC · 09-21-2010, 06:06 PM

I know for my lens, the front element comes off. I have no idea how much it costs to replace, but presumably if I scratch it, at least it's not ruining the whole lens. All that said, I have a UV filter on it.

Ramsayfarian · 09-22-2010, 12:05 PM

Here's a good example of why one shouldn't buy a cheap UV filter.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=34206309

VladtheImpaler · 09-22-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Here's a good example of why one shouldn't buy a cheap UV filter.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=34206309

OK, so back to my question, if I get the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens for my T1i, which filter should I get for everyday use, or is the balance of the consensus that a lens hood would be sufficient for protective purposes?