Ok, it's my turn now...

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Mark Luper
Thanks for the congrats Rip. Your statement about maturing photography could also say:

When your photography matures, so does your ability to use what you have

Since I won't be making my living photographing, 1k for a lens is a bit steep for me.

Mark

1K is cheap for quality glass.  My horizon is looking at glass that runs about $3000, but the wife needs a new kitchen first.  Paying $2700 to the tax man today pushed my dream for a 400mm lens back even further.

Regarding your counter-statement, you'll start noticing glass distortion differences when comparing your zoomed photos to those with better glass, trust me!

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Mark Luper
When your photography matures, so does your ability to use what you have

As you mature as a photographer, you learn there is no substitute for quality glass. You'll either stop using your current telephoto or you'll opt for a better one... especially if you try to take pictures of anything that's moving.

[john9001]

As you mature as a photographer, you learn that most people can't tell the difference between a photo taken with a $3000 lens and a $200 lens.

pros use $3000 lens because they can afford them.

[Mini D]

If everything was well lit and stationary, you might of had a point. As it is, you're so far off base it's kinda funny.

[Fishu]

I would strongly advice against buying a cheap tele lens. IMHO, under $200 teles are really poor. Alot of chromation, softer than a pillow and slower than an eel (and I mean the focus speed). Rather save the money for a tele which exceeds $500.

I'd recommend this lens: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

On a long run you'll find cheap tele lens to be an annoyance. Around 18 to 130mm range it's possible to find several good lenses for relatively cheap, but at the high end (and at the very low end) you'll really need an expensive lens or you'll be wasting your money. Don't buy lenses from 300mm range for under $500. Trust me on this one.


In the other news, I ordered Nikon 18-200mm image stabilized version couple of hours ago from Germany. It'll cost 750 euros w/shipping included (around $975). I've had an order for 680 euros from a local store, but their queue on the lens type is really long and last month they received only 10 units of it. 70 euros doesn't really sound that much after months of waiting

[john9001]

i'll tell you whats funny, i check out the camera forums, if you say it's the camera/lens/etc that made the good shot all the "photographers" say "it's the photographer not the equipment" (it's the writer, not the typewriter), but if you ask about a inexpensive lens or camera they all say "you need good glass" or "upgrade your camera".

thats whats funny.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by john9001
As you mature as a photographer, you learn that most people can't tell the difference between a photo taken with a $3000 lens and a $200 lens.

There's quite a difference between $200 and $500 70-300mm lens. The former only serves to make the photographer annoyed, even if he's a poor amateur. It's just silly to use the cheapest possible lenses on a dSLR - Makes it worse than an equally priced high end consumer camera.

The other downside is that the cheapo lenses resells for less. The higher the price, the better resell value it has.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by john9001
but if you ask about a inexpensive lens or camera they all say "you need good glass" or "upgrade your camera".

thats whats funny.

High end consumer cameras are better for photographing if you don't want to spend a nice sum of money into the hobby. You'll be also happier

You might get cheap deals for dSLR's, but the entry level is really at $2000. That includes the body, +1 Gb memory card (10mpix = +2 Gb), mid range and tele zoom lenses, tripod + head, camera bag and a flash. Otherwise you'll just end up with an expensive camera that is subpar compared to a cheaper high-end consumer camera.

...after that you'll want to buy smaller accessories, like extra memory cards and a battery or two.

To be clear: dSLR's are like women.

Mine still lacks the tripod and tele

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Mini D
As you mature as a photographer, you learn there is no substitute for quality glass. You'll either stop using your current telephoto or you'll opt for a better one... especially if you try to take pictures of anything that's moving.

Werd.

But as Mark says, he's not doing it "professional" (aka for income) and john has a point as well, most people will settle for an inferior photo of whatever the subject matter is, rather than spend the $$ for an outstanding photo of same subject matter.

I've discovered that the more you shoot, the higher your personal "bar" raises for what you consider a good photograph. Stuff I've trashed others have asked "why did you toss that?"  When you tell them things like "under exposed, over exposed, incorrect framing, violation of 1/3's rule" they look at you funny.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by john9001
i'll tell you whats funny, i check out the camera forums, if you say it's the camera/lens/etc that made the good shot all the "photographers" say "it's the photographer not the equipment" (it's the writer, not the typewriter), but if you ask about a inexpensive lens or camera they all say "you need good glass" or "upgrade your camera".

thats whats funny.

They're both true. A bad photographer with $5000 in gear will still take bad photos. Little of it will have to do with the equipment. But if you sit two good photographers down with each end of the spectrum in camera gear, you'll get very different results.

I'm going to show you two pictures. One was take with a cheap lens using a tripod and a remote shutter, the other was taken using a lens with bigger and better glass and with IS:


ISO: 400
Shutter Speed: 1/400
Aperature: F/8
Focal Length: 300mm
Tripod
Remote shutter


ISO: 200
Shutter Speed: 1/320
Aperature: F/5.6
Focal Length: 400mm
Freehand

Both of these pictures were the best of the series. The first actually had better lighting than the second. There is absolutely no way I could have taken the second photo with the lens I used for the first picture. Coincidently, the lens used for the first picture is the exact lens mentioned above (75-300mm F4/F5.6 III USM).

The real question is what someone is planning on doing with a lens.  With the macros, it doesn't really matter because they're all good. But with everything else, it does. If digital hand held quality is all you're looking for, no need to buy any other lenses. If you're looking to capture motion and get low light high quality pictures, you're going to need a good lens.

The lens matters. Experience matters. Experience you can get with practice. You're lens will be the same ole piece of glass no matter how much practice you give it.

[Ripsnort]

Excellent example Mini.  Exactly what I discovered going from Nikon "G" glass to "D" glass (at 3 times the cost)

[Fishu]

Yeah, clearly different lenses

The bokeh is bad on the first picture, but nice on the second. The first picture is also alot softer. Very much similar to my Nikon 70-300G (w/o ED) lens, which I don't even bother to use anymore - It's an annoyance.

[ramzey]

Everything whats great MiniD said

cheap 70-300 are good enough to about 200, above that they are ****ty even for amateur, just waste of money. But you have to learn by yourself to  get it, as i did

Every pro will told you, get the best lens you can afford and second body from the line you can  afford.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Fishu
Yeah, clearly different lenses

The bokeh is bad on the first picture, but nice on the second. The first picture is also alot softer. Very much similar to my Nikon 70-300G (w/o ED) lens, which I don't even bother to use anymore - It's an annoyance.

Ditto. Haven't used my 70-300G since picking up my 80-200 AF-D lens. I use a 1.4 teleconverter when I have to (which loses 1 f stop) but its still 10 times the lens that the 70-300 was...

[texasmom]

*shrugs* first one looked pretty darned good to me