photoshop & slr lens

[zhd1000]

I just bought a used Nikon D70s and it came with a 55-200mm lens. So I need something like a 18-55mm lens, or something that can get up-close shots.. i've also been searching around for a macro lens and and a much larger lens (like 800-1600mm).. anyone know where a good place to find either would be? I've been searching on ebay but wondering about good sites people have bought from before. Also, what are some good brands to look for (or to stay away from)..


Also looking for a copy of photoshop.. don't really care what version, just would like to find one cheap. Unfortunatly in my photo class we got to use CS2 and would love that but it's a little pricy.

[wushdishmeen]

I have photoshop CS2. Make me an offer

[methos]

when i bought my d50, i bought it with a sigma 28-300. i love it. the f/stop is like 3.5-6.3. little high but still good. i also just bought a nikon 50mm f/1.8. thing is nice! only bout $120.after i get my new laptop, im gonna save up for a 70-200 f/2.8. its bout $1600. it will be my track lense. if ur looking for a long distance lense like 800+...ur gonna pay the money on it. ive seen ones like 500+ sale for $5000

[SilverEcstasy]

I don't know where I've seen it, but i've read where people will buy this reverse adapter to fit your camera lense on backwards, for the macro effect, I'm not sure if that would help your situation?

[Mike Jung]

I just bought a used Nikon D70s and it came with a 55-200mm lens. So I need something like a 18-55mm lens, or something that can get up-close shots.. i've also been searching around for a macro lens and and a much larger lens (like 800-1600mm)...

I would recommend for macro use the:
Nikon AF-s 105mm f/2.8 VR lens (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2160) or the Nikon AF 60mm f/2.8 micro lens (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987).

Both will give you 1:1 life-size magnification.

But the 105mm lens will give you more working distance to put in lights (& such).
Minimum focus distance (for 1:1 life size macro magnification): 31.4cm/12.4" (for the 105mm) vs 22cm/8.7" (for the 60mm)

Tip: Most macro work will work better, if:
You use manual focus;
Stop down the aperture for more focus zone range.

You got some money to spend:
Get the Nikon AF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens (http://www.nikon.ca/products/afs-dx-zoom-17-55/) as your regular use lens.


You do realize that by buying a quality big telephoto lens, you will be paying big dollars $$$.

We used to have at work, a Nikon AF-I 600mm f/4.0 lens.
No one would really want to rent it.
It weighed about 6 Kg / 13 lbs.
& needed a heavy duty tripod to use it (or a monopod & some muscles)
(The current model: Nikon AF-s 600mm f/4.0 II lens sells for $9,079.95 US.)

But we still have for rent a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L lens lol
It weighs about the same at about 5kg / 12 lbs.

& then you would slap a 1.4x teleconverter on it (& loss 1-stop of light).

The biggest lens that I've ever seen is:
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens) <- click on there for the MRSP of that lens lol

...im gonna save up for a 70-200 f/2.8. its bout $1600. it will be my track lense...
Nice choice.
Not like the crappy Nikon AF-s 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 DX lens.
You will enjoy the Nikon AF-s 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens :thumbs:
(Especially, if you have a higher end Nikon body.)

[Exodus]

http://www.journeyed.com/searchOpen.asp

You wont this price anywhere else.

[Mike Jung]

Saw this on another forum...

Press Release (lens to be released at a later date):

Sigma APO 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG lens (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp) lol
& it comes with a 2x teleconverter (you lose 2-stops of light).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-big.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-01.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-02.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-03.jpg

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/Sigma/sigma200500mm-04.jpg

[methos]

I would recommend for macro use the:
Nikon AF-s 105mm f/2.8 VR lens (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2160) or the Nikon AF 60mm f/2.8 micro lens (http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987).

Both will give you 1:1 life-size magnification.

But the 105mm lens will give you more working distance to put in lights (& such).
Minimum focus distance (for 1:1 life size macro magnification): 31.4cm/12.4" (for the 105mm) vs 22cm/8.7" (for the 60mm)

Tip: Most macro work will work better, if:
You use manual focus;
Stop down the aperture for more focus zone range.

You got some money to spend:
Get the Nikon AF-s 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens (http://www.nikon.ca/products/afs-dx-zoom-17-55/) as your regular use lens.


You do realize that by buying a quality big telephoto lens, you will be paying big dollars $$$.

We used to have at work, a Nikon AF-I 600mm f/4.0 lens.
No one would really want to rent it.
It weighed about 6 Kg / 13 lbs.
& needed a heavy duty tripod to use it (or a monopod & some muscles)
(The current model: Nikon AF-s 600mm f/4.0 II lens sells for $9,079.95 US.)

But we still have for rent a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L lens lol
It weighs about the same at about 5kg / 12 lbs.

& then you would slap a 1.4x teleconverter on it (& loss 1-stop of light).

The biggest lens that I've ever seen is:
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens) <- click on there for the MRSP of that lens lol


Nice choice.
Not like the crappy Nikon AF-s 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 DX lens.
You will enjoy the Nikon AF-s 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens :thumbs:
(Especially, if you have a higher end Nikon body.)

$90,000!!!!! hahaha. rofl!!

[wushdishmeen]

hahah is that real??? should just strap a rocket launcher to your camera and then you can really "blow things up" before you take a picture. lmao corny i know

[GrandAmGT1996]

$90,000!!!!! hahaha. rofl!!

errrr....$9,000, not $90,000


:attention lol

[Mike Jung]

errrr....$9,000, not $90,000


:attention lol
No, $89,579 US.

See: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L lens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_1200mm_lens)

When one was in Canada, I saw the price tag at $120,000 Cdn.

[mightypan42]

For that much money, I'd want to be able to count grains of sand on the surface of Mars...

[wushdishmeen]

That's not suprising because normal slr lenses run you about $1000 for a decent one. That thing doesn't even look real it looks like a fake cropped image as a joke. Who the F*** would carry that around, it looks so dumb

[Mike Jung]

hahah is that real???...
...That thing doesn't even look real it looks like a fake cropped image as a joke. Who the F*** would carry that around, it looks so dumb
Does this look fake to you ?

Press Release on Sigma's website: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/200_500_28.htm
Image from the Press Release:
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/news/img/200-500_28_s.jpg

Here is a pic from the PMA (Photo Marketing Association International) '07 show; that was held at Las Vegas Convention Center on March 8-11, '07.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/pma07/IMG_8063-sigma.jpg

& another pic from the PMA show.
http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/8513/45f1fabc134c2c5frh3.jpg


It is obvious that you don't understand what a 200-500mm f/2.8 lens could do for a pro sports photographer.
& you don't understand what is needed for a lens to be in size, when it is f/2.8 at that focal length (& especially in a zoom lens design).


PS: I put some more images of the lens in post #7, in this thread.

Edit: It weighs 35 lbs / 15.8 kg :eek:

[Mike Jung]

For that much money, I'd want to be able to count grains of sand on the surface of Mars...
It won't.

It is only like 24x telephoto on a full frame sensor / 35mm camera.
(Where the 50mm is the normal perspective lens.)

[mightypan42]

OK I won't buy one then. Thanks Mike :thumbs:

[wushdishmeen]

so uhm...what the post was for....

i have photoshop, if the original poster is still on this thread...lol

[blake]

i have photoshop CS2 also!