Pakwheels Photography Club

[yawar538]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/yawarmasood/6259658031/" title="attempt 2 by yawar_538, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6093/6259658031_acd9b2a9ed_b.jpg" width="1024" height="567" alt="attempt 2"></a>

[smartboy_am]

nyce pics yawar, u bought dslr ?

[yawar538]

nyce pics yawar, u bought dslr ?

thanks sir
well i had borrowed this D5000 from a cousin for sometime to set 'Nikon' in my hands. Will be getting a D5100 soon inshAllah. purchase was delayed because this arrived on request.

[yawar538]

i have one question for all the gurus out there.

if we get the standard lens i.e. 18-55mm and use an extender (as it is known locally) is it a good option. From what i researched photogrpahers around the world use this as a cheap alternate to getting much higher and advanced lenses. From what i found the magnifier doubles the magnification (zoom) i.e. 36-110mm for (18-55) and the extender also helps in getting macro. The standard kit lens cant do macro if the subject is very close, so this helps plus it also a cheap alternate to getting those specific macro lens for simple macro photography.

i am just talking in reference to the zoom lens and NOT the prime lens.

[Lakhum]

@yawar

Extenders are usually good for macros and telephoto lenses. With some lenses there is also huge quality lost as well, some lenses won't autofocus(higher F stop than 5.6). last but not least nikon and canon extenders are pretty expensive.

[versatilegenious]

[khurram_aziz]

@yawar

Extenders are usually good for macros and telephoto lenses. With some lenses there is also huge quality lost as well, some lenses won't autofocus(higher F stop than 5.6). last but not least nikon and canon extenders are pretty expensive.

+1; its all about letting "more light" to go to the sensor...with each glass you introduce things degrade. Take a look at page 12 of my 600D thread; even the expensive Canon teleconverter degrade the things

Stop thinking that you need 100mm..200mm or such higher zoom number in the lens...18-55 is a fine lens to start! One can always move ahead or back while composing....

You dont only need wider focal range; you also need wider aperture! 50mm prime is the cheapest way to get it....and instead of wasting money on teleconverter; get this prime instead...and if you are going with Canon and have ~20k more; instead of 50mm/1.8; get 50mm/2.5 MACRO, its the best 50mm prime (i think) as other than its macro capability; it gives much better contrasts...ideal for portraits!

[versatilegenious]

[aesiege]

i have one question for all the gurus out there.

if we get the standard lens i.e. 18-55mm and use an extender (as it is known locally) is it a good option. From what i researched photogrpahers around the world use this as a cheap alternate to getting much higher and advanced lenses. From what i found the magnifier doubles the magnification (zoom) i.e. 36-110mm for (18-55) and the extender also helps in getting macro. The standard kit lens cant do macro if the subject is very close, so this helps plus it also a cheap alternate to getting those specific macro lens for simple macro photography.

i am just talking in reference to the zoom lens and NOT the prime lens.

+1; its all about letting "more light" to go to the sensor...with each glass you introduce things degrade. Take a look at page 12 of my 600D thread; even the expensive Canon teleconverter degrade the things

Stop thinking that you need 100mm..200mm or such higher zoom number in the lens...18-55 is a fine lens to start! One can always move ahead or back while composing....

You dont only need wider focal range; you also need wider aperture! 50mm prime is the cheapest way to get it....and instead of wasting money on teleconverter; get this prime instead...and if you are going with Canon and have ~20k more; instead of 50mm/1.8; get 50mm/2.5 MACRO, its the best 50mm prime (i think) as other than its macro capability; it gives much better contrasts...ideal for portraits!

I won't suggest for teleconvertors / extenders as Khurram said its a huge light loss plus in almost all convertors .... there is one common problem.

They make the image quite soft except the centre. Only area in the middle of the pic will be acceptable and corners and towards edges it would feel like depth of field effect even if shot at f9 or f10. I bought one for moon shots and increased my reach to 1172mm but results were poor :S. Till todate, teleconvertor is my only bad investment linked to photography.

Moral?? Save money and buy a telezoom lens like 55-250mm for Canon or 55-200mm for Nikon.

However, my experience with macro convertor has been totally opposite and very very zabardast results I use Raynox DCR-250 for macro.

[yawar538]

@yawar

Extenders are usually good for macros and telephoto lenses. With some lenses there is also huge quality lost as well, some lenses won't autofocus(higher F stop than 5.6). last but not least nikon and canon extenders are pretty expensive.

so its better to get a simple 18-55mm along with prime 50mm f1.8?

+1; its all about letting "more light" to go to the sensor...with each glass you introduce things degrade. Take a look at page 12 of my 600D thread; even the expensive Canon teleconverter degrade the things

Stop thinking that you need 100mm..200mm or such higher zoom number in the lens...18-55 is a fine lens to start! One can always move ahead or back while composing....

You dont only need wider focal range; you also need wider aperture! 50mm prime is the cheapest way to get it....and instead of wasting money on teleconverter; get this prime instead...and if you are going with Canon and have ~20k more; instead of 50mm/1.8; get 50mm/2.5 MACRO, its the best 50mm prime (i think) as other than its macro capability; it gives much better contrasts...ideal for portraits!

I want a bit more zoom, nikon offer 18-105mm but thats like for around 23k :-$:'(. and they buy the 18-55 back for 9k :o

I won't suggest for teleconvertors / extenders as Khurram said its a huge light loss plus in almost all convertors .... there is one common problem.

They make the image quite soft except the centre. Only area in the middle of the pic will be acceptable and corners and towards edges it would feel like depth of field effect even if shot at f9 or f10. I bought one for moon shots and increased my reach to 1172mm but results were poor :S. Till todate, teleconvertor is my only bad investment linked to photography.

Moral?? Save money and buy a telezoom lens like 55-250mm for Canon or 55-200mm for Nikon.

However, my experience with macro convertor has been totally opposite and very very zabardast results I use Raynox DCR-250 for macro.

i guess i should start saving money for the telephoto zoom lens, its goona cost half the price of the camera

thanks for the advice. So i guess it a BIG NO for the extender currently. ill think about the Raynox DCR-250. kurram bhai any review or help on that?

[versatilegenious]

[versatilegenious]

[versatilegenious]

[versatilegenious]

[Farhansa]

Loke Virsa, Islamabad

[jazzy77]

Large

[jazzy77]

Large

[jazzy77]

Large

[heroofdikhan]

one from my side:)

[shanbhatti]

Untitled by Zeeshan Qamar, on Flickr