The Old Folks Home

[vehve]

Okay, I'm off for a 5 am snack then straight to bed - well after brush and floss my teeth. No bus Friday so can sleep as late as I want.

Sweet dreams diva.

 

[Teila]

... and I am off to eat my dinner, watch a little television and then off to bed for me also (08:10pm here is Aus; once again I am leaving just as the party is getting started

)

Take care folks and happy chickens

 

[dsqard]

They make pretty nice affordable lenses. I have a Sigma DG 70-300 F1:4-5.6. It's the cheapo version without a stabilizer, and needs loads of light to function, but on sunny days you get really nice closeups.

They do make affordable lenses and they make pretty good quality as well from what I have read. I read the reviews on the lens and the Canon "L" series and really could not see the reason to spend $300-400 more for basically the same lens. I have no problem paying good money for good glass but I don't see a reason to throw money away either. This is the EX DG OS model so it has all the same bells and whistles the "L" lens would.

 

[vehve]

Quote: How does it perform in less light? 2.8 should be pretty good. I'm always cursing with mine, but I wanted a tele-lens with a lot of reach for a cheap price, so you can't get everything. And a fixed 300mm seemed a bit ridiculous, so I went with the 70-300. It's nicer to take pictures in sunlight anyway.

 

[dsqard]

It seems pretty good so far. I have the "L" series 70-200 F2.8 and love it for my true telephoto lens. I also have the 2X extender for that lens. It takes away some of the f-stops but it is a lot less expensive than buying a 400mm lens. If I get serious about doing more wildlife photography, I am going to have to get something "bigger". Right now I am pretty happy with what I have. I do have a nice 50mm prime that is 1.4. That one is excellent in the lower light but I don't use it much right now. I think I will be though as I get more serious about taking "people" photos.

 

[vehve]

It seems pretty good so far. I have the "L" series 70-200 F2.8 and love it for my true telephoto lens. I also have the 2X extender for that lens. It takes away some of the f-stops but it is a lot less expensive than buying a 400mm lens. If I get serious about doing more wildlife photography, I am going to have to get something "bigger". Right now I am pretty happy with what I have. I do have a nice 50mm prime that is 1.4. That one is excellent in the lower light but I don't use it much right now. I think I will be though as I get more serious about taking "people" photos.

Yeah, those wide lenses are really great for portraits and such. I looked at a 600mm lens as a joke at one point, but you have to be pretty nuts about taking wildlife pictures to consider those, especially if you want something decent.

 

[bamadude]

Vehve: what type of chicken laid that pink egg?

 

[vehve]

Vehve: what type of chicken laid that pink egg?

It's brown, but I'm having trouble replicating the color in a picture. She's a Black Copper Marans.

Just isn't turning our nicely. I'll take a picture of the whole skelter a bit later, maybe that will show the colors a bit better.

 

[dsqard]

Yeah, those wide lenses are really great for portraits and such. I looked at a 600mm lens as a joke at one point, but you have to be pretty nuts about taking wildlife pictures to consider those, especially if you want something decent.

Yes you need a "big" zoom if you are shooting wildlife. At 400mm I am just into the range needed to get the good shots. Yeah, if I go that direction it will be a major investment. Again, I don't mind spending money on good glass because it will last a long time and through many camera bodies. Funny how the body winds up being the "cheapest" part when you start investing in lenses. Of course a great lens on a so-so body is going to give you much better results than an expensive body with a crappy lens. That is why you want to invest in your lenses. I also recommend making sure you are happy with your "brand" before investing in glass. I have Canon but Nikon is just as good. I just happened to start off with Canon and now I wouldn't switch because of the amount I have invested in lenses.

 

[vehve]

Quote: I have an old zoom lens my dad bought for his eos300 (note the lack of d), it's nice how you can use those together with the digital slr:s too. It's a 35-105mm with a stabilizer, but works out to about 50-160mm with my camera. I used that a lot before getting the Sigma.