Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,507   Posts: 1,543,550   Online: 1060
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,268
    Images
    2
    Canon's 70-150, which emulates (and supposedly just beats) the impressive optics of the Nikon 70-150, is quite cheap.
    W.A. Crider

  2. #12
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    A 135/2.8 was my first lens. Very cheap, very useful. (In fact I got one for my Nikons a few weeks ago and finally put some film behind it a couple of weeks ago - and the shots are beautiful.) The 135/2.5 Canon equivalent would be a fine substitute.

    If Canon has a 100/105 mm lens that's also great. Nikon's 105/2.5 is a beautiful lens. Some above have mentioned the 100/2.8 and it would be just fine.

    I'd stay away from the zooms for now. They are more flexible but harder to learn with, in my opinion. If your son can learn to use a 50 and 100/135 effectively, he'll be a much better user of a zoom later.
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    104

    Long lens recommendation

    135mm, by all means. It is a classic, and should be part of a yound photographer's education. A bit long for just head shots, it can still be used with a little finesse, and it's a great street and landscape lens.

    Landscape lens? Absolutely. It's a fine way to control what's in the frame, and teaches focus control and perspective.

    Pentax Spotmatic, Takumar 135mm, Verona, Italy 1970
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Self-PortraitVerona1970smallweb.jpg  
    Jeff Polaski
    "A full-time job seriously interferes with photography."

  4. #14
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,596
    Quote Originally Posted by kunihiko View Post
    As David said, NFD 135/2 is quite a good lens. But I think it's little bit heavy for a kid.
    In my limited experience, old FD 135/2.5 S.C. was not that bad and reasonably priced.
    As the new type FD lenses were generally lighter constructed the FDn 135/2 is only 5% heavier than the FD 135/2.5.
    (got the weights from the net)

  5. #15
    kunihiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Tokyo
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    242
    Images
    17
    Oh, I must have got weaken. 135/2.5 was not that much heavy when I was younger and I feel 135/2 quite heavy now:o
    I listed 135/2.5 right after 135/2 because of its price. Could you please quote like this ?
    And it could cost you more than A-1 and 50mm kit.
    In my limited experience, old FD 135/2.5 S.C. was not that bad and reasonably priced.
    Thank you for pointing out. I've been thinking weight difference was much more in my mind anyway. Now I'm corrected
    kunihiko kario

  6. #16
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,596
    I have got the old one myself and find it quite a weight. Looking at photos of the new one (2.0) I thought oooh. And was surpriced about the weights too. But as indicated before Canon exchanged a lot of brass against plastic, amoungst other measures.

    Especially for `longer´ lenses the right kind of friction is important, I guess I would put this above weight.
    Last edited by AgX; 07-04-2007 at 04:26 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: insertion

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    93
    I cant recomend the`100mm high enough I had a 1.8 till my cam bag was stolen in he early 90s, I loved that lens

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin