NZFF

by **Anthony** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:41 pm

Pentax stuff is okay and some of the lenses have an excellent reputation.
Pentax is good for Pentax, and if you buy one of Petax's DSLRs which are pretty good then you'll be able to use these lenses and others from Pentax's system.
Film is fun (and also in some ways horrible) to use for the beginner, it forces you to learn about exposure and composition and all sorts but I personally prefer digital for most uses

.

I wouldn't personally bother with an adaptor, as there may not be one and it would likely degrade quality significantly.
I think it would be a waste of your money and a waste of those lenses' potential.
50mm primes are cheap, so you don't need that. The other zoom lens isn't bad, it's fast and covers an okay focal range though it is a bit long in the short end (does that make sense?).
Spend or save the money, don't bother with an adaptor.

by **benwynn** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:58 pm

Dont get an adaptor- No point, IMO unless you dont mind using manual focus. Using an adaptor takes away all those features like AF and that.

by **Kelburn** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:41 pm

I'll just use it as a film camera.
Good to get to grips with film before digital aye? (??)

by **benwynn** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:11 pm

Yeah, thing that sucks about that is, you cant change the ISO, and you cant really practise the shots as each one goes on the film

by **Kelburn** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:46 pm

what about ASA though? isnt' that ISO?

by **benwynn** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:32 pm

I have no idea Kelburn, I just thought with film cameras it depended upon what ISO film you bought.. I used to buy 200 I remember

by **Kelburn** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:18 am

true. Whats the ASA exactly then?

by **HardCorePawn** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:55 am

My missus just got a Canon 450D (yay, they finally dumped Compact Flash and moved to SD cards!)... with the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS Lens Kit...

Just a quick question... it seems that the IS in the 55-250 is v. noisy (bzzbuzzz, bzzzz, buzzz, wiirrrrr) whereas the 18-55 is pretty much silent... is this normal? or is it possible that one of the lens stuffed? I've done some googling and it appears that the zoom lens seem to be noisier than than the smaller ones... (I've also discovered that 'noise' has a whole different meaning when talking about photography!

)

Also, I see Canon are releasing an 18-200 IS lens... woohoo! but $$$$$

Hopefully by the time I get to Hong Kong in the year, they will be a sensible price.

by **Anthony** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:40 pm

ASA is the same as ISO from what I know and with film it does depend on the film you buy.

Jared, I have read that the 55-250 does have noisy IS. I think that might just be normal for that lens.
It could be stuffed, but I doubt it.
The 18-200 looks and sounds like a very nice lens, I know that Nikon's counterpart is pretty wicked.
I like the move to SD too, CF might be faster but it doesn't matter in the baby DSLRs and SD is more universal and better targeted to the market these cameras are for.

by **Alex** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:23 pm

I have the same lens Jared, yes the noise is noticeable. My rationale for that was that there is more correction to do at higher magnification, as the same wobble = greater blur at the other end (compared to 18-55mm lens)...

Whether or not that holds water is something else entirely...

Alex

by **HardCorePawn** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:39 am

thats what i figured... it was just having to work extra hard due to higher mag... it goes away if you turn the IS off... so it is definitely related to the IS...

was just a little unsettling...

The funny thing is, that my wife spent like 2 or 3 weeks researching hard... and learning all about the technical aspects of photography (aperture, f-stops, focal lengths blah blah)... isn't the internet great?? I was like, just buy one of those $300 point and click ones... its not like you're really going to use it properly...

Anyway, now when I'm playing with 'her' camera, she'll be like "What is the F-Stop? What ISO setting are you using?" I'm like... "I turned it on, aimed and pushed the shutter button..."

muahahahahah I have to say, some of the pics she has taken (like a random one of a small chilli plant she has been growing) look absolutely stunning... there really is a difference between the "digi-35mm point and shoot"-types and a decent DSLR...

mmmmmm Humble Pie

by **Kelburn** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:21 am

I've been looking at the cameras again.
Would it be more worth getting a canon because they seem to have cheaper deals?
(I mean what would you recommend).

Also I found out the point and shoot was 33-111mm so the 18-55 might not be so good but I managed it with the film slr 20-50mm not too long ago.

by **Kelburn** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:31 pm

Hey just bringing this topic up again.
When you double the focal length (e.g. 100mm

200mm) does that double the zoom?

Also currently looking at Canon 100d twin lens kit (with 18-55 and 70-300) or D60 twin lens (18-55 55-200).
I was thinking whether the 200mm is adequate? Probably?

Anyway am currently using an old film SLR.
P.S. I like your website Ben...

by **Anthony** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:13 pm

No, doubling the focal length doubles the 'reach' of the lens.
'Zoom' is effectively the longer focal length dived by the shorter one, so your 18-55mm lens has a 3x zoom and a 70-300 has a 4x zoom.
You can't really properly compare the zoom listed on a point and shoot to this for that reason.

If the point and shoot is up to 111mm then 200mm will be adequate. For planespotting, 200mm is good, but it might be too short depending on where you are.
Getting 300mm can't hurt too much, but you will be missing that 55-70mm range which depending on your style and habits you might need. Both lenses are probably similar in quality though.

Canon vs Nikon is up to you. Neither is necessarily better, some people like Canon and some like Nikon. Others like other brands altogether.

by **Kelburn** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:38 pm

Just checking up on the focal length. So 200mm isn't twice the focal length of 100mm. Pity that makes life harder. Anyway I'll see what the deals are January next year. Ideally I would like the Nikon but the Canon has better lenses (even though the 55-70 gap).

One thing I'll need to keep in mind is the cheap second hand lenses...

by **Anthony** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:09 pm

Oh, 200mm is twice the focal length of 100mm. 200mm will have twice the reach of 100mm if you get what I'm saying, it just doesn't have more 'zoom'.
Kind of hard to understand and explain, but yer.

by **Alex** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:12 pm

I suppose if you're talking in terms of fixed lenses, it will have double the zoom, but it's not how you describe DSLR cameras - I think is what Anthony is trying to get across.

Alex

by **Kelburn** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:16 pm

Ok but 200mm doesn't focus on a point twice as large as 100mm aye?

by **benwynn** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:25 pm

Thanks Kelburn!

Just a few points..

1000D, biggest rip off. Not much bang for your buck unfortunently. I got my D60 for about $200 cheaper anyways..

Gap between 55-70mm sounds like a lot, but once you start photographing, you wont miss it at all- Its really neither here nor there. Though, it is handy to have a bit of a walk around lens, so say 18-130mm, which will be my next lens. Its more like a holiday lens- Does everything so you dont have to keep changing around! So perhaps just get something like that instead of the kit lens (18-55mm)

200mm would be adequate in most places, but bare in mind, most lenses are usually Soft at the longest length (Soft being not sharp) Also the 55-200mm auto focuses slower than the 70-300mm VR, doesnt have VR and just isnt up to the same quality.

by **Kelburn** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:19 pm

Hmmm.
Why do you say the 1000d is a rip off. The reviews and http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm give it a good read up (plus its the largest selling range in Europe).
I'll just see whats available.

NZFF

DSLR Cameras

Who is online