Photography and Videography Tips, techniques and equipment for taking great photographs and videos. Come here for advice and critique on your photos and videos. To show off your S2000 go to The Gallery

newbie question

 
Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 04:04 PM
  #1  
jimmij's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 0
From: Lake Worth, FL
Default newbie question

I have a Sony A100 and am looking for a long range telephoto lense. Is this worth the money? It seems cheaper compared to other lenses available.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3339...nual_Focus.html


Thanks for the help
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 04:49 PM
  #2  
ALaS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
From: Long Beach, Ca
Default

Holy, considering the range and how cheap it is, i'd think the quality would be pretty bad, but I've never ever seen that far of a focal length at that price, so Maybe it could outweigh it?
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 05:48 PM
  #3  
Kevbo1983's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, ON
Default

From here:
I've read a review on this lens in a brazilian magazine. Image quality is poor (lens construction is solid, though). If you just want to have fun, and won't enlarge any bigger than 13x18cm, maybe it's worth the money.

Keep in mind that at f8-f16, manual focusing will be very difficult
There are some photos here.....don't look very good:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...41&changemode=1

How much range do you actually need? If you don't need that much, and don't want to spend that much, might as well pick up a kit lens.
Old Sep 5, 2007 | 09:50 PM
  #4  
NFRs2000NYC's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Default

In short, that lens is a steaming heaping pile of sh!t.
Old Sep 6, 2007 | 03:44 AM
  #5  
Poindexter's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 24,162
Likes: 3
From: Burlington, VT
Default

If the real deal lenses in this range start at $7,000 and go to $90,000, then I think you know the answer.
Old Sep 6, 2007 | 04:30 AM
  #6  
F1-Fanatic's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,242
Likes: 0
From: Branford, CT
Default

Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Sep 6 2007, 12:50 AM
In short, that lens is a steaming heaping pile of sh!t.
Dave,

Don't hold back... Please just tell him what you really think of it.

-N

Old Sep 6, 2007 | 09:19 AM
  #7  
J3ffro's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,778
Likes: 0
From: Kona, HI
Default

Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Sep 5 2007, 10:50 PM
In short, that lens is a steaming heaping pile of sh!t.
Old Sep 9, 2007 | 03:02 PM
  #8  
NFRs2000NYC's Avatar
Former Moderator
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Default

Originally Posted by F1-Fanatic,Sep 6 2007, 07:30 AM
Dave,

Don't hold back... Please just tell him what you really think of it.

-N

Ok ok....it's better quality than my 70-200 2.8 IS.
Old Sep 9, 2007 | 03:44 PM
  #9  
e3opian's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 28,456
Likes: 228
Default

Maybe YOUR 70-200... but not mine!!

 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MovingViolation
Off-topic Talk
1
Jun 8, 2003 12:28 PM
ironwedge
Off-topic Talk
2
Jul 8, 2002 07:01 AM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:16 AM.