I don't need a telephoto..?

lolage

lolage

Messages
911
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Had my D3100 and 18-55 kit lens for almost a month and have used it a fair bit. I'm finding that I dont ever think "oh I wish I had a longer lens". I was tempted to get a 55-200vr as its pretty cheap for the £ but I don't think I'd use it? Is this just me beig stupid or does anyone else not feel the need for anything longer than a 55mm? I am more interested in landscapes so maybe I don't feel I need anything as this is the main thing im interested in?

Only thing I would consider getting is 10-20mm wide angle. Anyone else similar or am I stupud for not considering getting a telephoto lens?
 
Of course you're not stupid. It depends on what sort of photographs you want to take. I'm more interested in wildlife closeups, so a long lens is important to me, but I don't have so much use for a very wide angle.
 
Hi a telephoto lens can produce some very good shots, and at 3.5 on the zoom give some quite exceptional Bokeh only achievable by faster primes, it also give flexibility, say 18 200mm will give you that excellent walk about Len's, just remember that at 200mm on a crop will give you more reach, just be careful at 200mm that you avoid camera shake that's where VR would come in or non VR with a mono pod, or decent light fast shutter speed, hope this helps


i had a 10 20mm had it a day got fed up within an hour, again remember on a crop x it by 1.6 that's the true length.

merc
 
Last edited:
A long lens can be useful for landscapes as well, most landscape toggers i know will have an ultra wide like the 10-20mm you mentioned, a standard zoom like the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and a long lens like the 55-200mm you mentioned. Personally i got by with a 17-50mm and a 55-200mm. You wont get the feeling that you can 'walk into' a photo taken with a long lens but for times when walking closer to the subject just wont do it (like a photo of the sea) then a long lens is essential but if you dont do many seascapes then it may not be needed. For normal landscapes i find i just walk closer to the subject. Gets me some well needed exercise after all :). But as Eric says above, your certainly not stupid, we all face these dilemmas when thinking of a new lens :)

Si
 
I find that 35mm DX and 50mm FX is quite a good focal length for general landscape at it gives a good balance between foreground & distant detail.

I once tried out a 12-24/4 lens on my old D70s but did not really like the ultra wide angle effect so much as it seemed to show far too much foreground compared with my 35/2 that was the lens I usually used on that body.
 
Thanks for the replies. :)



chocky said:
A long lens can be useful for landscapes as well, most landscape toggers i know will have an ultra wide like the 10-20mm you mentioned, a standard zoom like the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and a long lens like the 55-200mm you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Whats the tamron lens you mentioned? I may look at just upgrading my kit lens if that tamron is alot better. I remember looking at it a while back, but was put off when people were telling me to buy the non-vr version - which seemed a bit silly to me :thinking:
 
redddraggon said:
That is only meaningful if you are old and grew up with 35mm film cameras. Afterall the focal length doesn't change anyway.
Click to expand...



i did grow up on 35mm cameras, hopefully you will too on digital,

in my quote you have changed the 1.6 to 1.5 is this some new crop factor,?? thanks for the intresting reply,

crop factors are only meaningfull if you are old :thinking:

anyway this guys just relised the full frame life can be rewarding here

Merc the old fart
 
Last edited:
redddraggon said:
That is only meaningful if you are interested in photography, and have experienced 35mm film cameras. The focal length of a lens and its perspective is affected by the size of the sensor inside the camera
Click to expand...

Hope you don't mind me altering your statement, in the same way, as I do not mind you calling people "old" for using 35mm format.;)
 
mercmanuk said:
in my quote you have changed the 1.6 to 1.5 is this some new crop factor,?? thanks for the intresting reply,

crop factors are only meaningfull if you are old :thinking:

anyway this guys just relised the full frame life can be rewarding here

Merc the old fart
Click to expand...

I grew up on 35mm as well (OK, got older - I still refuse to grow up!)

As I'm sure the Old Farting Benz knows, the crop factor for Nikons is 1.5x rathr than the 1.6x of Canon and always has been in their Dx bodies.

If your interests lie in the wide angle end of focal lengths, going for a wide angle like the 10-20 is far from stupid - indeed, it would be stupid for the OP to purchase a telephoto lens (although it may be worth him/her borrowing one if possible to see if there's any interest in that sort of photography as well).
 
As others have said, you're not being stupid - especially if you're interested in landscapes.

In addition to the Tamron 10-24mm, you might also want to consider the Tokina 11-16mm. It's considerably more expensive, but very, very nice.
 
redddraggon said:
That is only meaningful if you are old and grew up with 35mm film cameras. Afterall the focal length doesn't change anyway.
Click to expand...

Take out the "old" bit and I agree.. it really doesnt mean anyhting to most people on here and confuses newbies who ask about lens people start quoting whats its equivelant to..its pretty much useless information.. it is to me and I am guessing most others..

But nowt to do with old :)
 
Ben...

My experience has been that my interests change over time. I started out with landscapes, but later found myself interested in architecture and cityscapes. Then, of course, there are photos of kids and others at Christmas, in school plays, etc. Finally, there are the photos at the zoo, in the wild or even just your pets in the backyard. Having a well-rounded kit gives you a lot of flexibility.

While you may not need (and certainly should not buy) a telephoto right now, don't be surprised if in six months or two years you suddenly find yourself on the lookout for one. Photography is a great hobby with many variations. Best wishes.
 
lolage said:
Whats the tamron lens you mentioned? I may look at just upgrading my kit lens if that tamron is alot better. I remember looking at it a while back, but was put off when people were telling me to buy the non-vr version - which seemed a bit silly to me :thinking:
Click to expand...

Its a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, a true beaty in the lens category, ive just changed to canon from sony so i had to sell mine (sony mount) but what a lens it is!! If i wasnt buying L glass instead id buy the canon mount one in an instant. Far better build quality than a kit lens and a perfect upgrade. I highly recommend it as im sure others would as well :)

Not the best price on the web but this is the one (it will only go on your Nikon crop though, wont work on full frame) http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/76775/show.html you can get the Non-VC (vibration compensation) one for a little cheaper but i wouldnt bother.

Si
 
Last edited:
TinaC said:
Maybe Nikon are 1.5 to make the maths easier for the poor owners ;)
Click to expand...

where as canon owners hark back for the simplicity of pre-decimal currency, and for some reason think Tv=Shutter priority makes any form of sense outside of a badly translated Japanese manual ;)
 
TinaC said:
:lol:

Don't you remember how many shillings make a guinea?
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me started. Tru'penny bits, farthings. Groats. No, I'm not THAT old. One thing metric did was make arithmetic a darn sight easier which is probably why most shop assistants can't work out what change to give you unless the cash register has worked it out!

Back on topic, depending on what you find you like to photo, a wide-angle 10-22 is great. Perhaps a 85 mm prime. Telephoto lenses have the disadvantage of being bulky and heavy to carry around, not to say expensive. Sounds to me like you are still feeling your way around. The first thing I bought after I got mine with a kit lens was buy a 50mm 1.4, then an 85mm 1.8, but I was more interested in portraits than landscapes.
 
A telephoto can get you shots from above, of homes, trees etc., taken from a hillside, which give the owner a different perspective, so can be sellable.
 
redddraggon said:
That is only meaningful if you are old and grew up with 35mm film cameras. Afterall the focal length doesn't change anyway.
Click to expand...

Start trying to use wide angle lenses without taking the crop factor into consideration and see how far it gets you!
 
DemiLion said:
Start trying to use wide angle lenses without taking the crop factor into consideration and see how far it gets you!
Click to expand...

suprise me? I ahve a 17-40 on 1d ... it works and its wide.. what do i need to know the crop factor or the 35mm equivelant for?

if I want wider i will go for the canon 10-22 .. again why will i need to know what it converts to in 35mm? I know it will be wider than the 17mm

when I buy a loaf of bread i dont hoo and haa wondering how much it was in old money :)
 
KIPAX said:
suprise me? I ahve a 17-40 on 1d ... it works and its wide.. what do i need to know the crop factor or the 35mm equivelant for?

if I want wider i will go for the canon 10-22 .. again why will i need to know what it converts to in 35mm? I know it will be wider than the 17mm

when I buy a loaf of bread i dont hoo and haa wondering how much it was in old money :)
Click to expand...

Yup, that's a fair point, and I should have elaborated more.

I meant using them on different format sensors when you need to know which lens is going to give you which field of view; ie the 10-22 when wide on a full crop will give you roughly the same field of view as a 16-35 or 17-40 on FF.

On a side point, does your 10-22 work on the 1D, I thought that it was EF-S and wouldn't play with APS-H?
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
On a side point, does your 10-22 work on the 1D, I thought that it was EF-S and wouldn't play with APS-H?
Click to expand...

I havent got one... I was saying I would go for one if i needed wider than 17mm... go for one around here means go get one :) .. if I needed wider.. or wahtever would fit

The OP and most people asking have one camera.. looking for a longer lens.. why does he need to know all the conversions for other cameras he hasnt got?

See what i mean? :)
 
Same here, I've not used my 55-200mm much since I bought it. More often I'm limited in terms of wide angle and hence also thinking about getting the 10-20mm.
Where do you people find telephotos being most useful apart from shooting wildlife? Street photography perhaps?
 
KIPAX said:
I havent got one... I was saying I would go for one if i needed wider than 17mm... go for one around here means go get one :) .. if I needed wider.. or wahtever would fit

The OP and most people asking have one camera.. looking for a longer lens.. why does he need to know all the conversions for other cameras he hasnt got?

See what i mean? :)
Click to expand...

Yup I do, and in that regard you are absolutely right.

BTW I owe you a thank you! I've just found out that I can use my Sig 10-20 on a 1D, although the vignetting is pretty fearsome! :)
 
The whole "35mm equivalent" thing bugs the **** out of me. Like an increasing number of DSLR users I've never used a 35mm SLR so why I need to be told the 35mm equivalent of every lens I look at is a mystery.

To me it would make more sense given the number of complete beginners buying into DSLRs to label lenses as 70-300/5-18XZOOM (numbers clearly not accurate but you get my point). When I tried my kit 55-200 I had no idea what to expect, it's given 35mm equivalent was equally meaningless (80-260ish?) so when I put it on expecting to get up close to something the lack of range was disappointing. If it had said 3-8XZOOM or whatever I'd have known what to expect.

And whilst I'm ranting: when will we reach the point where an SLR can be assumed to be a DSLR and we refer to an old school film SLR as an FSLR? People no longer say "I've just bought a new flat screen tv, it's just assumed that a new tv is flat screen.

Anyway, back to the OP! If you don't need one or want one then don't buy one. Yet. I'd pick one up at some point though just so you can try stuff out. Once you've got one you'll try to find situations to use it and you might find you enjoy these more than your usual stuff.

For example I bought a 70-300 (with macro) to take wildlife shots when out in the hills taking landscapes after realising the 18-55 and 55-200 were both way too short. Then I took it to the zoo which was really enjoyable and now I use it quite a bit for basic, indoor macro/studio type stuff - however at the outset I had absolutely no intention of doing this kind of shoot.

Personally I'd buy a cheap 2nd hand one, that way you can either upgrade in future if you really start to use it, keep it for the odd occasion without being too out of pocket or sell it on for roughly what you paid.
 
Last edited:
lolage said:
It seems I've opened up a can of worms :D
Click to expand...

Not even close. You need to stir up the Nikon v Canon debate for that, and if you really want some fun throw Olympus into the mix as well. :)


(probably best not to ask about UV lens filters at the moment though! :D )
 
ivandobski said:
The whole "35mm equivalent" thing bugs the **** out of me.

To me it would make more sense given the number of complete beginners buying into DSLRs to label lenses as 70-300/5-18XZOOM (numbers clearly not accurate but you get my point). When I tried my kit 55-200 I had no idea what to expect, it's given 35mm equivalent was equally meaningless (80-260ish?) so when I put it on expecting to get up close to something the lack of range was disappointing. If it had said 3-8XZOOM or whatever I'd have known what to expect.
Click to expand...
Have you stopped to consider what happens when you mount a full-frame (35mm) lens on an APSC camera? 35mm equivalents are pertinent and I suspect will remain so for some time to come.
 
adrianday said:
Have you stopped to consider what happens when you mount a full-frame (35mm) lens on an APSC camera? 35mm equivalents are pertinent and I suspect will remain so for some time to come.
Click to expand...

Nothing happens, all lens ranges are indicated by their focal length (which doesn't change), all that happens with a crop sensor is that you capture a smaller image.
 
I have a 55-200 I have used it twice in 2 years, back in the days of film, my only previous experience, 80mm was a nice portrait lens I did not know about 1.5 crop facture.
The main point is that IMHO when you start to think often that the images you are making would be better if you had use a longer or a shorter lens then is the time to buy which ever you think would make the shots better because sods law is that if you buy a wider lens you will find you need a longer lens or the other way around
 
redddraggon said:
Nothing happens, all lens ranges are indicated by their focal length (which doesn't change), all that happens with a crop sensor is that you capture a smaller image.
Click to expand...

Ivan was suggesting that a 'zoom-factor' would be more meaningful. It won't. If we were to assume a 50mm lens provides 1x on (34mm) full-frame, it would be 1.5x on a Nikon APSC, 1.6x on a Canon and 2x on a m4/3 camera. The point I was trying to make is that the magnification factor is camera dependent - the focal length remains unchanged.

In summary, I concur. Ivan's suggested 'improvement' would be impracticable.
 
Until everyone uses the same format there will be a relevance to crop facture. 50mm dx will look similar to 75 mm on ff and on mf even longer I don’t know the correct facture but I would guess 120mm
 
ivandobski said:
The whole "35mm equivalent" thing bugs the **** out of me. Like an increasing number of DSLR users I've never used a 35mm SLR so why I need to be told the 35mm equivalent of every lens I look at is a mystery.

To me it would make more sense given the number of complete beginners buying into DSLRs to label lenses as 70-300/5-18XZOOM (numbers clearly not accurate but you get my point). When I tried my kit 55-200 I had no idea what to expect, it's given 35mm equivalent was equally meaningless (80-260ish?) so when I put it on expecting to get up close to something the lack of range was disappointing. If it had said 3-8XZOOM or whatever I'd have known what to expect.

And whilst I'm ranting: when will we reach the point where an SLR can be assumed to be a DSLR and we refer to an old school film SLR as an FSLR? People no longer say "I've just bought a new flat screen tv, it's just assumed that a new tv is flat screen.

Anyway, back to the OP! If you don't need one or want one then don't buy one. Yet. I'd pick one up at some point though just so you can try stuff out. Once you've got one you'll try to find situations to use it and you might find you enjoy these more than your usual stuff.

For example I bought a 70-300 (with macro) to take wildlife shots when out in the hills taking landscapes after realising the 18-55 and 55-200 were both way too short. Then I took it to the zoo which was really enjoyable and now I use it quite a bit for basic, indoor macro/studio type stuff - however at the outset I had absolutely no intention of doing this kind of shoot.

Personally I'd buy a cheap 2nd hand one, that way you can either upgrade in future if you really start to use it, keep it for the odd occasion without being too out of pocket or sell it on for roughly what you paid.
Click to expand...


:eek: could this be Arkady2 ???? ducks for cover :help:


Marcel we have another one here.:bat:


Merc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top