Telephoto Lens Recommendation

mep916 said:
Yeah, I agree. That's a good point. I'll try to talk to her about it without giving anything away. One last thing...

Can you recommend a good lens hood? Is there anything else you think she would need? She has a tripod already.
Click to expand...

Well, what lens' does she currently have.?

I have 9 lens' and can recommend a variety of them depending on what she might like to shoot.
 
scooter said:
Well, what lens' does she currently have.?

I have 9 lens' and can recommend a variety of them depending on what she might like to shoot.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm thinking of a hood for the lens you recommended. If I get that lens, I want to get a hood for it as well. She likes to shoot landscapes, animals, people...
 
Okay great. Again, thanks a lot everyone. I appreciate the feedback. I've sent DCIScouts a PM, so I'll wait to hear if he has any additional comments, and I'd also like to get a better idea of exactly what my wife is looking for, especially the weight issue.
 
My wife was discussing a photography contest with me - a MySpace contest - so I asked her about the lens weight issue. She seems to believe that a heavy lens wouldn't be a problem, so I'm gonna eliminate that as a negative, or deciding factor.

The "F" value of the lens determines the distance that the lens can reach. Is that correct? So, if she wanted to take an up close shot of, say, a flower, a lens with a lower "F" value would be better. For a long distance shot, a higher F value is what you would want. Is that right?
 
mep916 said:
My wife was discussing a photography contest with me - a MySpace contest - so I asked her about the lens weight issue. She seems to believe that a heavy lens wouldn't be a problem, so I'm gonna eliminate that as a negative, or deciding factor.

The "F" value of the lens determines the distance that the lens can reach. Is that correct? So, if she wanted to take an up close shot of, say, a flower, a lens with a lower "F" value would be better. For a long distance shot, a higher F value is what you would want. Is that right?
Click to expand...

That's great to hear.
The F# or aperture setting is one function that determines the amount of light coming into the camera, as well as controlling the depth of field (DOF).

So the lower the F#, the better the lens is for low light shooting. So the Sigma 70-200 2.8 would be the best in that regard. However it doesn't have the extended reach of the Sigma 120-400. If it was up to me, I would say she would benefit more from the 120-400 for the sheer versatility of it, but your starting at 120mm, so you are missing the lower focal length with can be annoying.
 
vroom_skies said:
However it doesn't have the extended reach of the Sigma 120-400. If it was up to me, I would say she would benefit more from the 120-400 for the sheer versatility of it, but your starting at 120mm, so you are missing the lower focal length with can be annoying.
Click to expand...

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. So, if I got the 120mm lens, she'd begin at 120mm, so, in some situations, that would make real up-close shots difficult? She'd easily be able to take long distance shots, but not as easily with shots where you really need to zoom in? Sorry, you'll have to forgive my ignorance here. :o
 
Ha no problem man,

I'll just steal a link from google:
http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2004/12/telephoto_and_w.html

Yup, the lens starts at 120mm, so she wont get anything below that.
See if this helps (pretend A-H is a physical distance, say 100 feet across):
A...B...C...D...E...F...G...H

With a lens in the wider focal lengths (lets take 18mm) you'll be able to fit all of A through H in the frame, however with a lens that starts at 120mm, you'll be lucky to fit just one or two letters in the frame. This is with standing at the same vantage point.

I really have no idea why I laid it out like that, just some weird urge. That's why I included the google link, to put pictures to ideas.

Hope that helped,
Bob

BTW- The minimal focal distance for the Sigma 120-400 is 4.9' (1.5 m).
 
Last edited:
Many thanks, Bob. I do understand what you're saying, I think. I'll read through the link you provided, and post back with more questions, if necessary. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top