would you suggest that the 650x1300mm lens be a bit more managable than the 650x2600 since they are the same price, or just go with the 650x2600 thks
2091790
The lens is a 650 x 1300 mm and comes with a T ( thread ) 2 x adapter. I wased the adapter a dew times, but really only for awesome Moon shots. Now I have that adapter on another lens and just use my 650 x 1300. This lens is more of a telescope than a zoom, but takes great bird pics. Enjoy.
2091791
I'm a semi-professional photographer, I can't recommend either one. The 2600 is just the 1300 with a doubler. BUT the "Nikon" connector fell apart before I could even try it. It fell apart in such a way as to be irreparable. It is cheap for a reason, it's junk. The lens length and WEIGHT would make it embarrassing to use when anyone is around and I doubt the quality of the image would be acceptable. I didn't send it back because I put it on a shelf with my good lenses to remind that you don't get something for nothing. If you buy it and it works...great...but my money is on "Fail," Sorry!Larry Kelsey I'm a semi-professional photographer, I can't recommend either one. The 2600 is just the 1300 with a doubler. BUT the "Nikon" connector fell apart before I could even try it. It fell apart in such a way as to be irreparable. It is cheap for a reason, it's junk. The lens length and WEIGHT would make it embarrassing to use when anyone is around and I doubt the quality of the image would be acceptable. I didn't send it back because I put it on a shelf with my good lenses to remind that you don't get something for nothing. If you buy it and it works...great...but my money is on... » Read More I'm a semi-professional photographer, I can't recommend either one. The 2600 is just the 1300 with a doubler. BUT the "Nikon" connector fell apart before I could even try it. It fell apart in such a way as to be irreparable. It is cheap for a reason, it's junk. The lens length and WEIGHT would make it embarrassing to use when anyone is around and I doubt the quality of the image would be acceptable. I didn't send it back because I put it on a shelf with my good lenses to remind that you don't get something for nothing. If you buy it and it works...great...but my money is on "Fail," Sorry!Larry Kelsey « Show Less
855772
You can either do the 50mm or 35mm. Price is very different but either two will do the job great! I have both and use the 35 more because I feel like it is slightly sharper and it is better if you are in a smaller space.
617201
I am not familiar with the 600mm. I know there is a 650mm The main difference the 500 is a mirror lens and the 650-1300 is more of a conventional lens.
364835
Basically just more distance. In my opinion, i never ever use the kit lens, so get the cheaper one and get a couple primes with much much better quality. Thats just my opinion. Honestly, just watch some reviews and based off what kind of photography you're doing its your call!
1872898
I ordered mine with the 24-120 f4, for a walk-around prime lens. The 24-85 is a good choice, too. As for the other zooms you mentioned, it depends entirely what type of photography you are going to do. The 80 to 200 f2.8 is a very good lens - it's expensive, tho. The other zooms are fine, but the quality seems to go up with the price. Also, go to dpreview.com and find their test info on the lenses you want. They are a great source for valid info on all things digital...both cameras and lenses. I love my D610.
543828
The lens is good, but prime lenses are not flexible in terms of what picture you are trying to capture. Both lenses are very good and are similar but not, obviously, the focal length. Really it depends on the photographer, but I say go to a camera store such as samy's camera or calumet to demo both lenses and for sure that is where you make your decision of which is better.
405
Thanks everyone for your help. You've explained a lot and it really helps. After your explanations, I looked at my past photos. I'm thinking that maybe the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 will fill my needs. Thanks again.
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
1413081
Get the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm f4 for less tha half the price. It's a two lens combo that is outstanding. The pictures are sharp,crisp, and saturated.
687298
You have to know if 50mm equivalent works for you. Also look at 17 and 14mm from Olympus and Panasonic if you need wider field of view. I have the lens you ask about and it's great but focal length you shoot at is first priority. Look at previous pics and see. Also using Amazon I've bought new and used like-new with equal good results but cost a lot less!!!
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
735071
I'd have to say it comes down to what your purposes/needs are. As others have noted, the 50mm is more cheaply-built, but less expensive and will give you shallower depth of field if that's what you need. That said, if you can deal with a stop less of lens speed, the 40mm is better-built, half the size, focuses more closely, operates more quietly, is at least as sharp, and is overall more versatile.
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!
1705280
Awesome. Although for the MarkIII, I would get the same 85mm LSeries lens. Costs more.
2240582
I've been using the 17-85mm IS USM with my cameras for several years - love it. I have not used this lens, but you can find the 17-85 used for several hundred dollars cheaper than the 17-40L and it is a more versatile lens.
709668
the width. Although they both offer similar of not identical results (if you know how to use manual) the 50mm is the better one when i comes to a wide angle lens. However if you have one you don't need the other.
110371
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster. I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).