biggestper
Hi guys.
I have an XTI and have two lenses I'm looking at, hoping to buy one.
I'm looking for something with more zoom than my 75-300mm lens I have now. I found 500mm to be the next step up.
I have a Opteka 500mm f/8 Telephoto Mirror Lens for Canon EOS / Canon EF (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000HCNMPQ/ref=ord_cart_shr/103-1628137-2139811?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=A1P9QRDRYY6FXL&v=glance)
Which looks nice. It has nice reviews and it's quite inexpensive. A big bonus is how small it is! It doens't stick out 2 feet!
The other one in consideration is Opteka 500mm HD Lens for Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT XTi (http://stores.channeladvisor.com/47stphoto/items/item.aspx?itemid=4015373)
This only mentions 500mm, isn't there supposed to be a ###-###mm ratio? It's nice because it's a real lens, not a mirror. Downside is it's MUCH longer in length. It also as f8/-f32 with the OTHER lens only an f8. I don't know what this means.
Only $15 difference. Can I get your thoughts?
Answer
Be aware, both are bargain manual focus lenses. They will give you the extra reach you want, but will not give you the same quality as your Canon 75-300mm. If I could make a suggestion, consider a Canon teleconvertor. It will give you better quality than the Opteka lenses.
The mirror lens requires you use Aperture mode metering, FYI.
The second longer lens is not a zoom, hence no reference to any other focal length other than the 500mm. I've seen Opteka and other companies pair this with a cheap doubler for a 500-1000mm lens, but that's going from bad to worse.
Hope this is helpful.
Be aware, both are bargain manual focus lenses. They will give you the extra reach you want, but will not give you the same quality as your Canon 75-300mm. If I could make a suggestion, consider a Canon teleconvertor. It will give you better quality than the Opteka lenses.
The mirror lens requires you use Aperture mode metering, FYI.
The second longer lens is not a zoom, hence no reference to any other focal length other than the 500mm. I've seen Opteka and other companies pair this with a cheap doubler for a 500-1000mm lens, but that's going from bad to worse.
Hope this is helpful.
What kind of camera would you need to take a photo like this?
Doughnut
http://share.triangle.com/sites/share-uda.triangle.com/files/images/Cone%20Flowers.preview.jpg
I was just wondering, because I noticed that the background is a bit blurred and that the sunflowers in front are in focus. Do you need a really good camera to take shots like these? I really love taking pictures, but I'm confused on what camera I should get.
In order to take photos like that, do I need to buy an expensive camera? Like one of those cameras that are above $700? (I'm not rich, haha.)
My family camera has really nice quality, but the pictures are so sharp and I dislike it that way. I was thinking about getting a Nikon, but I want a Nikon that can take soft, delicate pictures like that.
Thanks for helping, I really appreciate it.
Answer
DSLR, DSLR, DSLR, blah, blah, blah! All you need is a camera with a fast lens. Contrary to another posters suggestion, a wide angle lens would cause an increase in depth of field, which is the opposite of what you want.
To get an object in sharp focus with the background softly out of focus, you would use a fast lens with at least a 50mm focal length. Now, this isn't to say a wide wouldn't work, but you would need a significantly larger aperture than that of a longer focal length. While your parents camera may be quite good, if it is a "point & shoot" digital, or any digital under about $2000 for that matter, it likely has a less than full frame sensor which increases your depth of field even more (again making the in focus area even larger). I still stick to using 35mm film, and I still have a larger DOF than someone using 4x5 or larger.
I can't tell you exactly what you need in any terms, but as a basic idea, if you're willing to use film, otherwise you can adapt, this would be my recommendation under $700- Zorkiy 4 with a Jupiter 8 lens. It's an old Russian rangefinder with a really great Sonnar clone lens. The lens is a 50mm F2. Here is a photo I shot with a Jupiter 8, though it was on a much more expensive Leica M3 body- http://www.flickr.com/photos/yeahyeahyeahz/5345184112/ As you can see, the rocks are in sharp focus while the rest is considerably softer. I'm not 100% sure this was shot wide open at f/2, but it was close. Hope this helped!
DSLR, DSLR, DSLR, blah, blah, blah! All you need is a camera with a fast lens. Contrary to another posters suggestion, a wide angle lens would cause an increase in depth of field, which is the opposite of what you want.
To get an object in sharp focus with the background softly out of focus, you would use a fast lens with at least a 50mm focal length. Now, this isn't to say a wide wouldn't work, but you would need a significantly larger aperture than that of a longer focal length. While your parents camera may be quite good, if it is a "point & shoot" digital, or any digital under about $2000 for that matter, it likely has a less than full frame sensor which increases your depth of field even more (again making the in focus area even larger). I still stick to using 35mm film, and I still have a larger DOF than someone using 4x5 or larger.
I can't tell you exactly what you need in any terms, but as a basic idea, if you're willing to use film, otherwise you can adapt, this would be my recommendation under $700- Zorkiy 4 with a Jupiter 8 lens. It's an old Russian rangefinder with a really great Sonnar clone lens. The lens is a 50mm F2. Here is a photo I shot with a Jupiter 8, though it was on a much more expensive Leica M3 body- http://www.flickr.com/photos/yeahyeahyeahz/5345184112/ As you can see, the rocks are in sharp focus while the rest is considerably softer. I'm not 100% sure this was shot wide open at f/2, but it was close. Hope this helped!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar