Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which lens to replace kit lens (350D)? please help

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 2, 2005 11:28:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.

Thanks
August 2, 2005 11:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>

Any lens is better...

What do you have today?

Pepe
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>


I replaced my kit lens with this lens.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

It has become my every day lens and I've very happy with it.

If you can manage more than $400 then I'd look at some L series glass from
Canon.

--

Rob
Related resources
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.

EF 28-135 or EFS 17-85 are both worth looking at.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:28:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The list is long, starting with the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, which is about $220 at
B&H, through the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 if you need a little more width, though the
lens may not be quite as good as the 28-105, it is nice. Then there's the
28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, at $410, which I have, and love, the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS,
which is good, and gives more width at the expense of reach, and runs right
out of your budget, at about $600.
Tamron makes a nice 28-75 f2.8 that's in that same under $400 ballpark,
gives you more depth of field flexibility.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
August 2, 2005 11:28:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the
camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens and
never used the IS feature to shoot photos not once. I only did when I got
the lens to be sure it works. I feel great to know I can just hold my camera
with any lens and don't need IS feature. learn to use the lens with IS OFF.

The images from the 17-85mm lens is GREAT GREAT GREAT...

Vince....



"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UNmdneds1MQtRHLfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...

"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.

EF 28-135 or EFS 17-85 are both worth looking at.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:28:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Vince" <Vince@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_DRHe.4163$z91.367190@news20.bellglobal.com...
> What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the
> camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens and
> never used the IS feature to shoot photos not once. I only did when I got
> the lens to be sure it works. I feel great to know I can just hold my
> camera
> with any lens and don't need IS feature. learn to use the lens with IS
> OFF.

Good for you, Vince. I am 64 and a bit shaky and like coffee and like IS.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:28:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o oGdnVO5S8QaYXLfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
>
> "Vince" <Vince@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:_DRHe.4163$z91.367190@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold the
>> camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens
>> and
>> never used the IS feature to shoot photos not once. I only did when I
>> got
>> the lens to be sure it works. I feel great to know I can just hold my
>> camera
>> with any lens and don't need IS feature. learn to use the lens with IS
>> OFF.
>
> Good for you, Vince. I am 64 and a bit shaky and like coffee and like IS.


I'm not 64 and can hold the camera steady and I still prefer my IS lenses
especially in low light situations.

Oh and I like coffee too. ;) 


--

Rob
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 12:04:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dino wrote:
> I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.

I picked up a Sigma 18-200mm in June and have found it to be a wonderful
lens for the money. It stays on my camera 90% of the time. It turns my
300D into an 11X super zoom. The convenience of the range is very
addictive. It also takes very decent pictures, especially in good
light. It is not a lens to buy and expect "L" glass quality but other
than the Tamron 18-200 there isn't a lens in Canon's lineup that can
cover as many situations as this lens. Even if I had a bag full of L
lenses I still would have plenty of opportunities to use the Sigma
18-200mm. IMO, it is currently the ultimate budget walk-around lens.
It has great range, very good build quality, is very light weight and it
has very good optics considering its range and price. If Sigma would
have made it 2.8-5.6 aperture it would be an absolute killer lens.

Personally, I don't recommend the Canon 28-135 IS. I have one and have
found its performance to be mediocre. The IS has not proved to be that
much of a benefit and it suffers from terrible CA. If you are shooting
a moving subject the IS is next to worthless. It has taught me that I
would much prefer a faster lens over IS for anything less than
150-200mm. I can see it being very useful on long range telephoto
lenses though.
August 3, 2005 1:32:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
news:xpOHe.30647$d5.183698@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
> news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
> Any lens is better...
>
> What do you have today?
>
> Pepe
>

Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM.
August 3, 2005 1:32:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
news:D cohp6$bm4$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>
> "Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:xpOHe.30647$d5.183698@newsb.telia.net...
>>
>> "Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit
>> >lens.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Any lens is better...
>>
>> What do you have today?
>>
>> Pepe
>>
>
> Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM.
>
>

You will get more for the money with this one. And faster shutter with low
light. Quality are about the same.
<http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...;
There will be left over for a good filter.

Pepe
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:32:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
news:m4RHe.30684$d5.183586@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
> news:D cohp6$bm4$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>>
>> "Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
>> news:xpOHe.30647$d5.183698@newsb.telia.net...
>>>
>>> "Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>>> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit
>>> >lens.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> Any lens is better...
>>>
>>> What do you have today?
>>>
>>> Pepe
>>>
>>
>> Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM.
>>
>>
>
> You will get more for the money with this one. And faster shutter with low
> light. Quality are about the same.
> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...;
> There will be left over for a good filter.
>
> Pepe
>
Are you actually saying the quality of the 28-135 IS is similar to that of
the 18-55 kit lens??? Or are you guessing that he means the 17-85 IS kit
lens? If it's the former, then that's way off base, I have both, and, while
the 18-55 is acceptable for snapshots, it doesn't hold a candle to the
28-135 for image quality.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
August 3, 2005 1:32:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ylRHe.27092$HV1.24894@fed1read07...
> "Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:m4RHe.30684$d5.183586@newsb.telia.net...
>>
>> "Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:D cohp6$bm4$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>>>
>>> "Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:xpOHe.30647$d5.183698@newsb.telia.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> skrev i meddelandet
>>>> news:D coaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>>>> >I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit
>>>> >lens.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Any lens is better...
>>>>
>>>> What do you have today?
>>>>
>>>> Pepe
>>>>
>>>
>>> Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You will get more for the money with this one. And faster shutter with
>> low light. Quality are about the same.
>> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...;
>> There will be left over for a good filter.
>>
>> Pepe
>>
> Are you actually saying the quality of the 28-135 IS is similar to that of
> the 18-55 kit lens??? Or are you guessing that he means the 17-85 IS kit
> lens? If it's the former, then that's way off base, I have both, and,
> while the 18-55 is acceptable for snapshots, it doesn't hold a candle to
> the 28-135 for image quality.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
I think he will get most for the money. And there will be money left ower
for a tripod also.
IS is not worth the money. It will just give hope for better pictures.

I don´t think you go for that cheap lenses with your business anyway.
If he had a bigger money i could suggest better things.

Pepe
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:32:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pepe" <pepe@home.nl> wrote in message
news:TrRHe.30688$d5.183719@newsb.telia.net...
>

>>>>>
>>>>> Any lens is better...
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you have today?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pepe
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kit lens. I'm looking at 28-135 IS USM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You will get more for the money with this one. And faster shutter with
>>> low light. Quality are about the same.
>>> <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...;
>>> There will be left over for a good filter.
>>>
>>> Pepe
>>>
>> Are you actually saying the quality of the 28-135 IS is similar to that
>> of the 18-55 kit lens??? Or are you guessing that he means the 17-85 IS
>> kit lens? If it's the former, then that's way off base, I have both,
>> and, while the 18-55 is acceptable for snapshots, it doesn't hold a
>> candle to the 28-135 for image quality.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
> I think he will get most for the money. And there will be money left ower
> for a tripod also.
> IS is not worth the money. It will just give hope for better pictures.
>
> I don´t think you go for that cheap lenses with your business anyway.
> If he had a bigger money i could suggest better things.
>
> Pepe
>
I'm sorry, I misread your post, and the link wouldn't open when I tried it
the first time. Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who
used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but it
lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops, f3.5 is only 1
stop slower, as is f5.6 at the long end. For $50, I'd go with the Canon.
As far as "any lens is better," there are a couple of Canon lenses that
aren't as good, like the 28-90 f4.5-5.6, not to mention several aftermarket
lenses, like Phoenix/Cosina/Vivitar and some of the bottom feeding
Sigmas...but overall, you are right.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 1:56:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dcoaf9$1gm$1@ss405.t-com.hr>,
"Dino" <dino_avdic@du.htnet.hr> wrote:

> I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>
> Thanks

I have a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 lens for Canon + 2 Filters on aution
in ebay. Send me an email and I will send you the link. Or you can look
up croatoan6. It's a very good lens.

--

http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
August 3, 2005 4:57:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who
> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but
> it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops,

ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2
might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness
especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to
start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a
faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass.


--

Stacey
August 3, 2005 5:04:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:2fudnSGw9teRnW3fRVn-uA@giganews.com...
>
> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:o oGdnVO5S8QaYXLfRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Vince" <Vince@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:_DRHe.4163$z91.367190@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> What every happened to just getting a good lens and learn how to hold
the
> >> camera steady. Now everyone what's to get IS lenses. I have an IS Lens
> >> and
> >> never used the IS feature to shoot photos not once. I only did when I
> >> got
> >> the lens to be sure it works. I feel great to know I can just hold my
> >> camera
> >> with any lens and don't need IS feature. learn to use the lens with IS
> >> OFF.
> >
> > Good for you, Vince. I am 64 and a bit shaky and like coffee and like
IS.
>
>
> I'm not 64 and can hold the camera steady and I still prefer my IS lenses
> especially in low light situations.
>
> Oh and I like coffee too. ;) 

I don't like coffee, but I do like IS ;-) As it was said, if the subject is
not moving, IS can save a shot in low light. On the longer lenses, it is a
wise investment.

Jean
August 3, 2005 5:26:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lb16cF11l4erU8@individual.net...
Skip M wrote:

> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who
> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but
> it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops,

ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2
might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness
especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to
start with, IS does nothing for this.


If I had a choice between IS and a faster lens at the same price, I'd
always go for the faster glass.

--

Stacey

Tell them Stacey. IS is for whose who can't hold they camera's steady. fast
lens are for whose who know's how to.

Vince....
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:29:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dino wrote:
> I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>
> Thanks

Wait a minute, are you saying that you can change lenses on a D-SLR, and
that you don't have to use the kit lens exclusively forever? You might
want to tell this to Stacey and Tony!

Seriously though, look at the 28-135 IS. It's $410 for the U.S. version,
$395 for the import version.

See: "http://tinylink.com/?C42zDydwcl"
Free shipping too.
August 3, 2005 5:29:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

SMS wrote:

> Dino wrote:
>> I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> Wait a minute, are you saying that you can change lenses on a D-SLR, and
> that you don't have to use the kit lens exclusively forever? You might
> want to tell this to Stacey and Tony!
>


WOW and to think I still use my kit lens even though I have some more
expencive glass! I got to spend my money on a wide lens and a tele rather
that -replacing- a lens I already paid for. Imagine that the camera
actually comes with a lens you'd want to continue to use?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 8:58:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3lb16cF11l4erU8@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who
>> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but
>> it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops,
>
> ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2
> might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness
> especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to
> start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a
> faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass.
>
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Ah, but what if you could get both, like the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM?
Faster is good, that is why I have the 24-70 f2.8, but I also use the 28-135
IS. Sometimes you need the depth of field at low light with a stationary
subject.
And, Stacey, please avoid making statements on subjects about which you have
little or no knowledge. Canon advertises a two stop advantage for the
28-135, and I have regularly gotten three stops, and sometimes more, with
mine. As low as 1/4 sec at 50mm.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:06:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Vince" <Vince@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:GzYHe.4510$z91.452581@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3lb16cF11l4erU8@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who
>> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but
>> it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops,
>
> ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2
> might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness
> especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to
> start with, IS does nothing for this.
>
>
> If I had a choice between IS and a faster lens at the same price, I'd
> always go for the faster glass.
>
> --
>
> Stacey
>
> Tell them Stacey. IS is for whose who can't hold they camera's steady.
> fast
> lens are for whose who know's how to.
>
> Vince....
>
>
That is one of the most sanctimonious answers I've seen on this forum, and,
trust me, it's known for that.
IS is for situations where traditional methods of holding "they camera's"
steady are ineffective or unavailable. If you've ever shot a night from a
bridge, or other unstable surfaces, or tried to line a shot up in the field
where terrain is too uneven for a tripod, and there's nothing to brace
yourself against, you'd know what I'm talking about. With more than 40
years of photographic experience, I think I "know's" how to.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:12:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3lb16cF11l4erU8@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Skip M wrote:
>
>> Similar image quality, maybe, I've never known anyone who
>> used the Sigma to compare it, and f2.8 will give better DOF control, but
>> it lacks IS, which will give a handheld advantage of 2-3 stops,
>
>ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2
>might be. Also the f2.8 will help with AF speed and viewing brightness
>especially in lower light levels which is why you want the wider fstop to
>start with, IS does nothing for this. If I had a choice between IS and a
>faster lens at the same price, I'd always go for the faster glass.

There are benefits to going that way, but there are also drawbacks; when
using telephoto lenses, and you want significant DOF, wider apertures
can't replace IS.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:16:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <GzYHe.4510$z91.452581@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"Vince" <Vince@nospam.net> wrote:

>ONLY if the subject isn't moving and 3 stops is QUITE a stretch and even 2
>might be.

The way I look at it is that IS gives about 1-stop for tack-sharpness; 2
for acceptable sharpness, and 3-4 for "a little blurry instead of very
blurry".

IS counteracts lower spatial frequencies, mostly. So, if you're
printing small, or downsizing for the web, IS helps more than if you
were to try to make a sharp poster.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 2:18:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <UgYHe.15662$pH4.625978@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:

>I don't like coffee, but I do like IS ;-)

ANyone know how guarana compares to coffee, in terms of the
jitter-to-pep ratio?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
August 4, 2005 6:16:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> With more than 40
> years of photographic experience, I think I "know's" how to.

I'd think with that much experience you'd understand color management as
well...

--

Stacey
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 7:02:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <phg2f1l601vap6qrasuh91dtncqf0ab076@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
says...
> In message <UgYHe.15662$pH4.625978@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:
>
> >I don't like coffee, but I do like IS ;-)
>
> ANyone know how guarana compares to coffee, in terms of the
> jitter-to-pep ratio?

That stuff is packed with caffeine.

It's pretty popular with nerds. See: Bawls.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:06:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ldq61F126nujU5@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> With more than 40
>> years of photographic experience, I think I "know's" how to.
>
> I'd think with that much experience you'd understand color management as
> well...
>
> --
>
> Stacey
40 years in photography, 3 years doing digital. Don't have much experience,
but it hasn't affected the overall pitch of things, much.
And what does this have to do with 350D lenses? Thread drift?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 8:52:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Why not just buy the "body" only and buy whatever lens you want? Or sell
the kit lens on ebay? Lots of choices.
Paul


Stacey wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
>>Dino wrote:
>>
>>>I need something that cost up to 400 $ and which is better then kit lens.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>
>>Wait a minute, are you saying that you can change lenses on a D-SLR, and
>>that you don't have to use the kit lens exclusively forever? You might
>>want to tell this to Stacey and Tony!
>>
>
>
>
> WOW and to think I still use my kit lens even though I have some more
> expencive glass! I got to spend my money on a wide lens and a tele rather
> that -replacing- a lens I already paid for. Imagine that the camera
> actually comes with a lens you'd want to continue to use?
>
Related resources
!