Timeline for Which telephoto lens should I get for Nikon D3000 to take close-ups?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nov 1, 2013 at 6:30 | answer | added | kmonsoor | timeline score: 0 | |
Oct 26, 2012 at 6:31 | answer | added | Rene | timeline score: 1 | |
Oct 26, 2012 at 3:00 | answer | added | Jason TEPOORTEN | timeline score: 2 | |
Mar 22, 2012 at 7:16 | history | edited | MikeW | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
Dec 8, 2011 at 18:48 | vote | accept | pitosalas | ||
Dec 8, 2011 at 17:21 | comment | added | Imre | Yes, primes are wonderful. Especially in macro photography. In telephoto usage, though, "zooming with feet" might mean a long way to run. | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 17:06 | answer | added | Imre | timeline score: 1 | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 16:54 | comment | added | pitosalas | @Imre, correct! Thanks all for your feedback. What do you think about a non-zoom as an option? Forces me to work within that artistic constraint, and I get a faster lens for the money. Good tradeoff or bad idea? | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 16:31 | answer | added | Luciano | timeline score: 1 | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 16:19 | history | edited | Imre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:58 | comment | added | Imre | @Paul 70-200mm (105-300mm equiv) is longer, but not wider than 50mm equiv, and therefore would fit the question just fine | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:57 | comment | added | TZHX | +1 to Paul - you really don't find many telephoto lenses starting below 70. 70-200 or 70-300 are quite common, and you can find budget (but still decent) lenses for around $250. Personally I have a Tamron, which I find good if a little slow. | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:32 | comment | added | Paul Cezanne | 70-200mm is a common size, you might want to rethink the "not less than 50" requirement. So you have gap, big deal, at those distances take a few steps forward or backwards. | |
Dec 8, 2011 at 15:11 | history | asked | pitosalas | CC BY-SA 3.0 |