I wish i could spend a day at the beach during the winter timespent my day at the beach....fun
Something that can zoom upwards of 250mm and doesn't suck complete ass is going to be about $700. Why do you need that much zoon over the 90mm Kit?Anyone have any recommendations for a lens that has at least a 250mm zoom for a XSi? I need to get something since I just have the stock one.
the 55-250 IS is a great lens for the money. then there is the 70-300 IS which is awesome as well. then you get into the fast lens like the sigma, tamron, and canon 70-200 2.8s which range from $700-$1600 haha. the 55-250 IS will compliment the 18-55 perfectly.Anyone have any recommendations for a lens that has at least a 250mm zoom for a XSi? I need to get something since I just have the stock one.
Its a 55mm kit, not 90 but I just want something that I can acutally shoot things from a distance.Something that can zoom upwards of 250mm and doesn't suck complete ass is going to be about $700. Why do you need that much zoon over the 90mm Kit?
The 55-250 was the one I have been looking at but I didn't know it there were any other good options out there. I don't want anything super expensive but I don't want cheap eitherthe 55-250 IS is a great lens for the money. then there is the 70-300 IS which is awesome as well. then you get into the fast lens like the sigma, tamron, and canon 70-200 2.8s which range from $700-$1600 haha. the 55-250 IS will compliment the 18-55 perfectly.
Just get the normal 70-200 F/2.8.what i mean is they are missing the a good part of the F/4 selection. 70-200f4 or the version with IS/VR. im not saying its bad and would suit my needs for now. I am thinking 70-200 2.8VR and 24-70 2.8 would be a great on either the d300 or 700 just be very expensive. I would get the 24-70 2.8 for sure but would love to get 70-200 F/4VR but its not offered from nikon. i havent really looked into nikon's macro stuff yet which i eventually want to get into.
no not trying to make up for that one stop with IS. just the lens is more in the budget and are great for sports and stuff. the 2.8 is better and yes its only $600 more or so, but i could use that towards lighting, another lens and so on. I am still in a battle with my self though on which camera brand i want to be with.Just get the normal 70-200 F/2.8.
Being limited to F/4 and trying to make up for it with image stabilization seems like backwards thinking.
PS> People need to stop saying Nifty Fifty.
No lens with image stabilization is great for sports. Image stablization helps with hand shake, you'll still have motion blur from not having enough light to keep shutter speeds up.no not trying to make up for that one stop with IS. just the lens is more in the budget and are great for sports and stuff. the 2.8 is better and yes its only $600 more or so, but i could use that towards lighting, another lens and so on. I am still in a battle with my self though on which camera brand i want to be with.