Besides the obvious eBay and Craigslist, are there any good sites for second hand lenses?
KEH and B&H Photo would be the big two in the US. Other big camera dealers like Adorama also sell used gear.
B&H offers a 90 day warranty on used gear. KEH has a 6 month warranty and 14 day no questions asked return policy
Check more discussion of this question.
Besides the obvious ebay and Craigslist are there any good sites for second hand lenses?
KEH and B&H Photo would be the big two in the US. Other big camera dealers like Adorama also sell used gear.
B&H offers a 90 day warranty on used gear. KEH has a 6 month warranty and 14 day no questions asked return policy
Check more discussion of this question.
Can you list some of the trusted websites for buying cameras and lenses that deliver inside USA?
I am looking to buy a camera, and have heard that you can get some very good package deals (camera + lens + memory card, etc) off some of these sites. Unfortunately I dont know about any of these sites.
What are some such reputed sites?
There are a few good options for buying new gear:
My personal favorite is Adorama, the service has always been wonderful.
Check more discussion of this question.
(I thought this question would already have been asked/answered here, but if it is I can't find it.)
I'll soon be doing some handheld indoor/low-light photography, so I want a VR lens to help with that.
I currently have the following lenses:
I have two camera bodies: a D300s and a D70.
So, my choices seem to be:
Option 1: 18-200mm VR, cost ~£545
Lens: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF DX VR 17/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
Option 2: 18-105mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£460
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR for ~£220, 15/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED for ~£240, 16/25 by Thom or 23/25 from Ken Rockwell
Option 3: 16-85mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£675
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR for ~£435, 16/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED for ~£240, 16/25 by Thom or 23/25 from Ken Rockwell
Option 4: Something else?
Comparing Option 1 and 2, Thom's review scores suggest the 18-200mm is better (although he still "highly recommends" the other two), and Ken Rockwell suggests go for the 18-200mm if the extra ~£100 isn't an issue.
Comparing Option 1 and 3, Thom's scores are a little closer, and Ken still suggests the 18-200mm, and spending £675 is really in the more-than-I-want-to-spend zone.
So, signs are pointing towards the 18-200mm being the best choice, but that's mostly only from two opinions (albeit from authorative/popular professionals).
Would anyone here recommend anything different?
(Or should I stop wasting time and just order the 18-200mm?)
More Details:
I'll happily photograph most things, but my main focus is landscapes, trees, and related stuff, and it's generally either handheld or on a beanbag. So yeah, VR will be a help when in a forest, or just random handheld shots.
But I am actively looking at upgrading now due to photographing soon at an event, which will be mostly people shots, so that is a factor too.
The event itself is all day long, will be both indoors and outside, so could be a range of different conditions and lighting types. However, the photos are for recording the event, and unlikely to be used past a web gallery, so print-quality shots are not essential.
Looking on dpreview (here and here), it seems the D300s might produce acceptable results (for web-gallery use) at ISO 3200/6400 with Noise Reduction? (The the exposure calculator gives 1/125s at f/4 for that.)
Given that, would any of the f/3.5-5.6 lenses above therefore be good enough, or is it pushing things a bit far?
It sounds like you want to be photographing people, and VR won't help anywhere near as much as a fast aperture for that kind of indoor photography.
For example, based on this exposure calculator, your shutter speed at ISO 1600 under "domestic interiors at night" lighting will be 1/15 at f/5.6 and 1/30 at f/4 -- neither of which is fast enough to stop even modest human motion, and VR won't help with that. Keep in mind that those zooms are only f/3.5 or f/4 at the very widest focal lengths.
I believe your options are:
The former would get you a shutter speed of ~1/180 and VR won't be necessary. You could probably even back off the ISO a bit.
w.r.t. More Details
None of the lenses you propose can be relied on to get good portraits inside. You may get lucky (e.g., exceptionally bright, people very still) but if you're being relied on as an event photographer, that's a huge risk. Keep in mind you'll be shooting at f/5.6 if you zoom in much. And VR can't be relied on for shake-free shots at 1/15 and 1/30; you'll have a higher hit rate, but it's no guarantee. Nikon will claim 4 stops improvement in workable shutter speed, but it's uncommon to actually get that.
I recommend you read this blog post over at LensRentals. It covers common mistakes for first-time event photographers, and I'm concerned that a number of them may be developing already.
Check more discussion of this question.
I'll soon be covering an event, and my existing lens set isn't necessarily ideal for low-light people photography.
As with many events, this may be both indoors and outside, and runs throughout the day, so need to be prepared for all sorts of lighting.
Of course, there are lots of non-equipment things to consider - such as scouting the venue in advance to get a better idea of potential conditions, and other possible pitfalls mentioned here.
Equipment-wise, I have a Nikon D300s and a D70.
My current lenses are:
The 30mm can do low light, and will be fine for general/scene shots, but not great for individual people/portrait style shots, since it requires getting in close.
The 70-300mm is bad in even a little dim light, and in general is slow and crappy.
So what would be a good lens to buy or rent for someone not yet an experience event photographer?
Is there any other equipment that would be useful to have? (for example, is a battery grip beneficial, or is a pair of charged spare batteries sufficient?)
I would think at least one external flash that you will be able to bounce off of walls etc is not only a "nice to have" , but probably a requirement for event photography.
Check more discussion of this question.
I'm in Times Square shooting the Imagine Cup event, and several people said that to fix my shot, I would need a faster lens. Just for the hell of it, I went across the street to a photo shop to see if they had the lens, and what they would be willing to sell it for. The price they quoted though, is kind of unbelievable. Particularly given that on Manhattan Island I would expect pretty much everything to be more expensive.
I'm concerned that I would be walking right into a ripoff of a refurb'd, used, or "grey market" lens. But I don't know enough about what the legitimate lens looks like to tell. What things should I look for to distinguish a legitimate lens from a fake one?
Both refurbs and "grey" lenses are genuine. The only way you could tell the difference from a US made new one is if you had a list of serial numbers for each category.
Fakes are more easy to spot, will usually have clearly inferior materials and often (deliberately) missspelled brand names (so the seller can claim he wasn't trying to scam you, you made a mistake in misreading the name. Something that may not hold up in court when the actual trademark owner sues, but will hold up (probably) if you'd sue). Think fake "Louis Vuitton" bags sold as "Louie Vutton", Nikon might be changed into Nikkon. For the very best fakes though, it'd take good knowledge of the real thing to tell the difference. But this being Manhattan (New York in general, long home to very shady camera stores) I'd not trust anything offered at much under manufacturer RRP.
Check more discussion of this question.
Realizing that:
...what are some things that should be considered when choosing a brand for a DSLR?
I think the top consideration would be the lenses that you have available. If you already have lenses with Canon mount, and if you want to keep those lenses, then stick to Canon. In practice the investment is in lenses, not on the camera body. Lenses should drive your decision.
If you don't have any existing lenses try to review lenses before buying the camera that fits them so make a more informed choice. I can't really recommend any other way without getting into brand wars.
Check more discussion of this question.
I am looking to purchase some used "L" series lenses for my Canon 60D. I am not exactly sure at which point it's no longer feasible to purchase a used lens over new. Surely even the best lenses must depreciate in value over time but I am finding that sellers are pricing their used lenses too close to the the price of a brand new lenses. Area there any good depreciation schedules out there I could use in my negotiations?
No, there is no such thing for any brand.
Lenses are one of the few things that generally increase in value over time. This is more true of high-end lenses. The cheapest lenses such as kit-lenses tend to remain cheap.
Major companies have been known to increase the price of lenses almost across the board. They tend to do it in small increments though but some jumps have been substantials.
Where I would expect a sharp decrease is when a replacement lens comes out (Version 2 or 3 with a new stabilizer or lens-coating for example) or significant change in technology (new mount, added stabilization, new type focus motor, etc).
Based on the last 30 or so lenses I purchased NEW, I can tell you that almost all of them now cost most then when I bought them. The ones I sold USED were ALL sold for more than I paid for, sometimes by only $50 but up to 3X the price too. I'm also keeping some worth about 6X their price now :)
Check more discussion of this question.
