New SLR and pics of my baby
thanks Fab. You never fail to put a smile on my face 
Hey Henry so are you goin to the meet after all? And when you shot jayk's car was it with a Nikon if so what lens did you use I just bought a camera and want to buy a new lens but dont know if I should go with a 18-200mm or 55-200mm both will be VR of course.
Hey Victor,
I have a Canon 50D with the 28-135mm IS lens. But In general with lens have two separate lens like your 18-55 and getting a 55-200 is better than an all in one lens. Although getting a "combo" lens is so convenient. If I were you I would try to find a lens with a constant F/2.8 or lower. But the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 is gonna cost you a 1000. But a nice alternative is the Sigma or Tamron f2.8 lens both running around $400?
But if you need bit more reach on a single lens how about the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and its a bit cheaper. Look at the customer images looks nice. But the better lens would be the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. In general having a lower F/ number allows the lens to open the aperture wider allowing you to take better pictures in low light. But that makes the lens more expensive.
I have a Canon 50D with the 28-135mm IS lens. But In general with lens have two separate lens like your 18-55 and getting a 55-200 is better than an all in one lens. Although getting a "combo" lens is so convenient. If I were you I would try to find a lens with a constant F/2.8 or lower. But the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 is gonna cost you a 1000. But a nice alternative is the Sigma or Tamron f2.8 lens both running around $400?
But if you need bit more reach on a single lens how about the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and its a bit cheaper. Look at the customer images looks nice. But the better lens would be the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. In general having a lower F/ number allows the lens to open the aperture wider allowing you to take better pictures in low light. But that makes the lens more expensive.
Last edited by HenryLee; Apr 14, 2010 at 04:20 AM.
Hey Victor,
I have a Canon 50D with the 28-135mm IS lens. But In general with lens have two separate lens like your 18-55 and getting a 55-200 is better than an all in one lens. Although getting a "combo" lens is so convenient. If I were you I would try to find a lens with a constant F/2.8 or lower. But the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 is gonna cost you a 1000. But a nice alternative is the Sigma or Tamron f2.8 lens both running around $400?
But if you need bit more reach on a single lens how about the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and its a bit cheaper. Look at the customer images looks nice. But the better lens would be the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. In general having a lower F/ number allows the lens to open the aperture wider allowing you to take better pictures in low light. But that makes the lens more expensive.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-...cmu_pg__header
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-...cmu_pg__header
I have a Canon 50D with the 28-135mm IS lens. But In general with lens have two separate lens like your 18-55 and getting a 55-200 is better than an all in one lens. Although getting a "combo" lens is so convenient. If I were you I would try to find a lens with a constant F/2.8 or lower. But the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 is gonna cost you a 1000. But a nice alternative is the Sigma or Tamron f2.8 lens both running around $400?
But if you need bit more reach on a single lens how about the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and its a bit cheaper. Look at the customer images looks nice. But the better lens would be the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. In general having a lower F/ number allows the lens to open the aperture wider allowing you to take better pictures in low light. But that makes the lens more expensive.
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-...cmu_pg__header
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-50mm-...cmu_pg__header
Yea. But try to figure out what you want to shoot and the range where you shoot the most. If you should a lot of pictures from the middle range of 30-80mm then having two len's would be hella annoying to switch back and forth. Getting the 18-105 nikor might be worth it. For myself I dont shoot wide or long, so the 28-135mm range fits me well but want sharper pictures. Im thinking of picking up a new lens with a F/2.8 for its sharper images. It all depends on what you want to shoot. If your gonna do mostly cars the a wider lens would be great. If you shoot more portrait pictures than a 24-70mm lens would be good. Or if you shoot more wildlife shots of birds and animals then a 55-200 range would be good.
k I think Im getting to the jist of it so then what would be good for car pics 18/200 or 55/200 or a macro fml lol although the aperture sux on both their like F/3.5 doode F/2.8 is gonna b expensive then 
Last edited by VictoriousG; Apr 14, 2010 at 05:07 AM.