Equipment question

[Omag 2.0]

Hi all,

Does anyone know a reliable source to read about lenses for digital dslr's? Dpreview seems to lack that feature...

Thanks,

Omag

[flyboy 28]

For user reviews...

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews

DPreview does review some lenses, but only in a "news" form. Example - http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112 ... -500mm.asp

[MWISimmer]

Are you going to DSLR Kris?
If so, I can't wait for your pics, they're excellent with your Lumix as it is  8-)
Keep us posted!

[Rifleman]

See if you can find the info you're looking for hereKris. There's a section on lens reviews if you look around the page...... 8-)

[Omag 2.0]

[quote]Are you going to DSLR Kris?
If so, I can't wait for your pics, they're excellent with your Lumix as it is

[Hagar]

[quote]The Canon 400D seems a good deal at the moment.

[Omag 2.0]

What kind of lenses do you guys use? Preferably one that's suited for aviation photography...

[Hagar]

I now use this one. http://www.nextag.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-300mm-509193332/uk/prices-html

Not the lens I originally intended getting but they were out of stock & I was persuaded to try it. The image stabilising is handy & I get good consistent results with it but to be honest I got some excellent shots with my old Sigma which was much cheaper. http://www.nextag.co.uk/Sigma-AF-70-300mm-522227355/uk/prices-html

I find 70 - 300 mm is a good compromise for what I use it for but even then I could do with a bit more zoom at the average air display as the display line seems to get further away each season. Don't let anyone try to tell you that 200mm is suitable for photographing aircraft in the air unless you can get really close to them. By that I mean almost close enough to touch them at places like Old Warden. I could have saved myself a lot of money & messing around if I'd been told that when I first got my DSLR.

[Roughrider]

What kind of lenses do you guys use? Preferably one that's suited for aviation photography...

Kris, I agree with Doug, and use the same lens he has, 70-300mm USM IS on a 400D, for aviation most of the time this is good, there is only a few times that I am trying to push the zoom past 300mm. I would recommend a zoom lens though, I like moving in close or taking an overall shot without having to change lens. What I would really like is the 100-400mm http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... S_USM.html

[61_OTU]

Hi Kris,

all of my airliners shots were taken with the cheapest Canon 300mm on the market. The non-USM EF 90-300

I've been very pleased with it, and it has been great for portrait shots too, provided sufficient distance can be put between yourself and the subject.

Obviously it works better in good light. In poor light the max aperture of f4.5 is limiting, as this allows less light into the camera, forcing either a higher ISO, or a slower shutter speed, or both.

The USM version of this lens offers faster and quieter focusing, I'm not sure how much this helps in reality.

The 75-300 IS includes the image stabilisation, which allows a slower shutter speed and therefore compensates for the fairly small max aperture of f4.5

Doug's 70-300 IS DO has a significant size advantage, using better optics to contain the same range in a much smaller, lighter barrel.

I have to admit that I have just gone out and got the Canon 100-400 L which Mark refers to, second hand off ebay. I have not yet had a chance to do any proper aviation photography with it, but unless you go for an L series prime lens (like Mr H) then it is *the* aviation lens. You do however pay for the privilege

[Ivan]

Pentax, K mount... and a good heavy prime in steel and glass

[Papa9571]

Ivan....There is a camera I haven't heard much about.

I just gave mine away to a friend that is taking photography classes in college. I even managed to dig up the 70-300mm zoom lens I had for it and gave that to him too. It sat in its camera bag for close to 14 years and I figured it still had some use.

My cameras are digital now, I have three Canon, including the 400D. I am into mostly nature photography and have gotten some decent shots.

I figure that I have taken over 15,000 shots in the last three years and shudder to think what that would have cost me in film and development costs.