Okay, get this… Somehow I convince my wife that we should dip into our vacation savings to buy a Digital SLR (we were going to a wedding, wanted to take nice pics, and I said “We’re gonna want the camera in Hawaii, so…” and it worked!)
Not only that, when window shopping at a photography shop, there was a 70-200mm lens, reg. $300 on for $75. Mrs. Call actually told me to buy it! Woo hoo! Since then I’ve picked up a 100-300mm and a cheapo fisheye adapter. I previously had a tripod and a good-enough-for-now camera bag.
Just last Thursday Mrs. Call got her performance bonus at work and tells each of us in the family to go and buy something for ourselves. Life just don’t get much better.
I should add: I’m a complete newbie with photography. I have a couple of books and have definitely caught the shutter-bug. So, what should I buy?
Honestly…learn your camera, find out what you like to shoot and then start spending. My camera gear is around $3,000 right now, and I only have one pro-level lens. Find out what you like to shoot and whether or not your current lenses are adequate for the types of shots you use. I could easily blow $15,000 if I had a chance to, but that’s me. I’m freaking my wife out because my ultra wide-angle lens I’m picking up next month is $500, and the lens I want after that is $700, and the one after that is $1300. I just tell her ‘be glad i’m not a wildlife photographer who needs fast supertelephotos (like a 400mm f/2.8L) for $6,000.’
If you don’t have a quality tripod, it might be a good thing to pick up. I’d go for nothing less than a Manfrotto. If you have the cash, a good carbon-fiber set of Gitzo legs with a Really Right Stuff BH-55 ball head will do you wonders, but that’ll run you around $800 total. A solid Manfrotto setup (3021 legs with 488 ball head) will run around $250. Don’t waste time on Wal-Mart tripods for $40…you’ll use them for a week and then want to buy a better one.
I hear ya! Not quite ready to drop $800, but I’ve been considering a sturdier tripod.
As for lenses: I’ve got what I need for now. Sure I’ve been ogling that 700mm but as you say, I should learn my camera before making that kind of investment.
But what about filters? The 70-200mm came with a UV filter. I can’t really tell what difference having it on makes, but I’ve read they’re at least good for protection. Each of my three lenses has a different thread diameter, and only the 200mm has the UV filter. The lens that came with the camera is 52mm in diameter, the 200mm is 49mm, and the 300mm is larger than the 52, but I don’t know the exact diameter. I’ve been thinking at least of slapping a UV filter on the other two if for no other reason than to protect the lenses.
What about sky filters - are they of any use? Polarized filters? I saw a beautiful shot in one of my books taken with a magenta filter, but to me colour filters seem pretty limited in application.
I should mention: I’ve got a teeny squeeze-air-brush bulb (probably should get a bigger one to clean the CCD) and just yesterday picked up a reuseable swab/brush thing (I’ve had to clean the CCD once - what an ordeal!)
Yeah, just go for the UV filters; relative to everything else they’re cheap anyway. I’ve never noticed a difference in the pictures, but I keep them on pretty much all the time.
I’ve gotten a kick out of polarizing filters, which were my latest purchase. Actually, I haven’t had pictures using them developed yet, but if they come out looking like what I saw in the viewfinder, they’ll be cool.
And speaking as someone below even the level of amateur, I honestly have not had a problem with my cheap $20 tripod from Wal-Mart. Well, actually just one problem: my telephoto lens can’t be used with the tripod head turned up at 90 degrees because it’s too heavy and the camera slips so that it ends up pointing at the ground.
Also, I’ve found one of those litle tabletop tripods to be handy when carrying a big one is impractical.
Quality polarising filters can cost a bit. For your autofocus digital, you’ll most likely need to go with “circular” polarising filters. (Do a search for tonnes of info on this.)
In addition to the already recco’d good tripod, a good high end flash unit for your particular brand of camera will make a huge difference in certain types of photographic situations.
An extra card or two wouldn’t hurt either. And a USB card reader (in your format) for downloading onto your computer without having to hook up the camera.
Welcome to the world of serious amateur photography!
Bogen makes some nice lightweight tripods. The Junior is a favorite of mine as it uses the same quick release plate as all my other bogen accessories. You leave the plate on the camera body and latch it onto various tripod, monopod, windowpod heads.
I hadn’t thought of a flash - the built in seems to work. However, I haven’t delved into the section in the manual on flash options - it’s thicker than I would have expected. What more to a flash can their be but “go off when the shutter’s open”? (recharge rates, I guess, maybe a wider/less harsh dispersal pattern?)
Built in flashes have a very short range. The auxilary flash units often offer multi directional bounce, variable lens coverage, faster recharge, longer range, better red eye reduction possibilities, special features (dependent on which camera you actually have), etc…
I got a Pentax *ist DS. I did pick up a 1GB card and card reader with it (I already had a couple SD cards). I concur: card reader is better than plugging the camera into the computer - esp. saving camera batteries.
Not to hijack your thread, Nature’s Call, but what’s the widest F-stop you can get on that 70-200mm lens, and what brand is it? I’m in the market for a lens to use for indoor sports, and looks like I’m going to need something that goes to atleast 200mm. 75 bucks sounds too good to be true.
Take a step back and think about your objectives & interests. That will determine the range of focal lengths, but the widest aperature you’ll want. The wider the f-stop, the more expensive and the more likely you’re getting into pro/prosumer quality build and cost. That will naturally mean looking at your budget and long term plans.
In my experience, I rushed out and bought some gear (& sounds like you did the same) and had lots of fun. Later, however I ended up selling off most of it and upgraded as my interest and skills grew.
I have $6-7K invested now (35mm format, all film-no digital) and a wish list that has at least another $11K on it. Will I buy all that? NO! But it is a great template to look at from tile to time—I’ve prioritzed it (there are 33 items) and I buy them one at a time as my budget allows.
Some specific suggestions:
You have the 70-200 & 100-300 range covered. You probably need a 28-85 or 24-105 type zoom to fill in the rest. See above: Do you need “fast glass?”; 2.8 or bigger or will a 4.5-5.6 work for you?
Find the largest lens diameter of the lens you wish to buy (& will use with any regularity!) and make that the filter size of all your filters. Use “step up rings” and you will be able to cover all your lenses. In my case, the largest lens I use regularly has a 77mm front element. Other lenses I have are 72mm, 55mm & 49mm. I have some high quality filters–a polarizer, enhancer, Tiffen 812, warming/cooling filters—and they’re all 77mm. With step up rings I can use them on all my lenses. They’re inexpensive and easy to use.
If you have interst in landscape you’ll want ranges from 17mm to about 50mm. (24mm being most common I suppose), 85mm-135mm for portraits,and f2.8 (or bigger!) for low light or action/sports.
When looking at lenses for digital SLRs, remember that there is usually (except on the highest end pro cameras) a magnification factor for them copared to 35mm film SLRs. Size of the image sensor is what counts. Your instruction manual should list the maginfication fation factor somewhere in the specs.
What this does to your lens choices is boosts them all to a longer effective focal lenght (compared to 35mm). A semi wide lens becomes a longish normal, a med tele becomes a fairly significant tele, a wide lens needs to be a very short focal length to be much of a wide angle, etc…
The widest f-stop is 4.0/5.6. It is the third one on this page. I bought it from Black’s. They said it was discontinued and probably a returned unit to boot.
Give some thought to a monopod, instead of a full tripod. There’s a couple reasons -
Some places (museums, churches, etc) won’t allow tripods but will let in a monopod as people using tripods tend to clog up the place. You might even appear to be a professional photographer with it.
A mono is going to weigh about a third of what a comparable tripod weighs. It packs smaller as well.
Finally, monos are conducive to quick shooting.
I’ve seen some tripods that let you drop off two legs to convert the thing into a monopod. If it’s not too expensive, (eg: does it cost more than a tripod and a monopod?) this is a nice compromise that isn’t actually a compromise.
Finally, another vote here for Bogen / Manfrotto. They’re the same company, just apparently different marketing names. Slik is another tripod manufacturer that’s been around for decades.
I just tell her ‘be glad i’m not a wildlife photographer who needs fast supertelephotos (like a 400mm f/2.8L) for $6,000.’