I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 with a zoom lens EF 75-300mm.  What I am trying to do is take pictures of my son on the soccer field. I would love not to have the blur face just some really nice pics.  He’s fast so I need something to handle action.  Games are anywhere from midday for club soccer and early evening for high school soccer. The zoom lens all the way out leaves face blurry or I might as well use my iPhone. What I want is to be able to sit in bleachers, zoom in on my player, and get facial features - not look like I’m using a disposable.  I don’t know if I can buy a lens for this camera - if so what type of lens should I get? Or do I just buy a whole new camera with lenses. I want to purchase within the next month so I can practice before games begin. I’m tired of taking what could have been fantastic pics.
83417
I recently took on my first paying client, and she is also into photgraphy. She usually does sports for her highschool yearbook. They just have an entry level Canon DSLR with a kit zoom on it that goes up to 200mm, but it's not very fast (f/4 or 5.6 or so). She told me that she has a tough time - especially at basketball games - getting shots with any kind of reasonable lighting, and has to do a lot of work in post just to get them reasonable.   mentions the Cannon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM II for professional sports photographers. At $6k USD I suspect the yearbook won't be springing for that lens anytime soon.  So I was curious, are there any reasonable quality, fast lenses for Canon cameras that are lower priced (certainly no more than say, $1k)? I'd love to be able to point them to a couple of options. I assume the largest print they'd be making would be a full spread in the yearbook - maybe two 17"x11" (two 8.5" side by side)
32247
I'm currently using a Canon 700D with a few EF-S lenses, I like the Canon system, the looks, feel and ergonomics but I'm not happy with the files I'm getting. Whenever I come across a photo that appeals to me from a technical point of view it happens to be shot on a full frame camera or some Sony sensor APS-C. The most important thing I miss in my files is sharpness, overall Canon crop sensor cameras lack in focus and / or sharpening ability when compared to Nikon / Sony / Fuji etc. Would you advise me to upgrade to a full frame 6D or to switch brands to Nikon D7100 / D7200 / possibly Nikon D610? I have just 4 basic lenses so the cost wouldn't be very high. I don't want to ask another question which brand is better, just some opinions on the best / the most efficient way to raise technical image quality. I know I can buy a professional lens like Sigma 18-35, but I have just one body which I'm going to upgrade soon, and I think maybe it would be more wise to buy the Sigma lens for a Nikon body to get optimal results.
17229
I am thinking of buying a camera to learn photography. Most of the time I'll be shooting portraits and landscapes. But I am not sure where I should start. Most of my friends tell me that I should get an entry level DSLR, but I am not sure if I have the persistence and enthusiasm to carry it all day in a backpack. But the camera on my cellphone doesn't seem to be enough to begin with.  So what I want is some expert advice (preferably with professional experience). Can most compact fixed-lens or mirrorless cameras fit the situations I mentioned? Or do I really need to go to a DSLR to get a tool to learn photography?
95512
I've been taking photographs for a while, and have started to think about moving to full-frame. I'm on a very limited budget, but I currently have a good macro lens and am quite willing to buy something like a EF 50mm f/1.8 to start off with. I could possibly stretch my budget as far as a 70-200 f/4 L or 24-105 f/4 L.  Primarily, I'm interested in taking photos of small wildlife like reptiles, amphibians and insects, but I have a healthy interest in landscapes, birds and street photography.   I currently have an EOS 30D, and I love the way the camera handles, especially with the dual control dials. For this reason, I think shooting with a Rebel would be a significant step down.   However, I have seen 5Ds and occasionally 1Ds Mark IIs on ebay for roughly the same price as an EOS 650D. I'm sure these cameras have better IQ than my 30D, since they are pro-level bodies from around the same time, and full-frame besides. The question is, are these cameras now so old that the image quality from them is a substantial step down from current Rebels?   I realise I'll be giving up continuous shooting speed and some amount of low-light performance, and that I'd also need to get an external flash, but besides these, are there any substantial caveats I need to be aware of before I go ahead and take the plunge?
95083
After several years of shooting with my point-and-shoot, I upgraded to an NEX-5R, with two prime lenses — a 35mm f/1.8 and a 19mm f/2.8. I don't have a zoom lens, not even the kit lens.  I've been told that I should first learn to zoom with my feet before I buy a zoom lens. Is that advice correct? Would I be slowing down the rate at which I improve my skills if I buy a zoom lens now?  Or might buying one actually help because I'll be able to capture shots I can't with a prime lens (one can't always zoom with one's feet) and thereby learn compositional and other skills?
70851
I'm considering purchasing a DSLR for the first time here in the next couple of months. The two "big boys" seem to be Canon and Nikon. I've looked at both companies, and I can't really see significant differences between the two.  Are there any?  (Please don't go into a flame war here -- I'm looking for factual differences between the cameras, not "I enjoy X because of Y...")    Also see   for another important part of the story.
122507
I am an amateur photographer and I have a newborn session coming up for a family friend.   My current gear is:   Canon T5i (crop sensor) Canon 18-55 IS STM Kit lens 85mm f/1.8 lens   I plan on buying a reflector for the shoot and will be using natural light as my light source.  So my question is: is this enough gear to get some nice photos? Should I get another prime lens besides the 85mm? I don't really use the kit lens.  I also have another 8 month old baby shoot coming up and an informal wedding shoot coming up so it would be nice to use the lenses in all situations. I don't need a telephoto at the moment and will probably not use one any time soon.
123960
I am just another guy who just taken up photography as a social hobby who enjoys taking pics of everyday life, social events / parties &amp; some portraits. Need camera for short overseas trip (2-3 times a year), maybe some landscape pics.   I have done some research and have come up a list of main lenses that I am considering and hope you guys can offer some advice / comments to whether I should make those purchases.   Main reason why I chose "third party lenses" 'cos apparently they cost less, newer and are "award winning" - so I don't see the point of spending more for the original canon lens (which some maybe quite old - ie 3-5 yrs).   Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM Lens (day to day lens) Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM (for portrait &amp; bokeh effects) Wide angle lens (any suggestions)   Main questions / comments please...   Q1) What do you think of the lens choices that I have decided to build my kit?  Q2) Any wide angle lens that you will recommend? (third party or canon) or should I get wide angle zoom lens ? Q3) What are your thoughts that I chose all my lens from Third Party instead of Official Canon ones... is that a "smart move"?
114482
I just got my Nikon D7000 and I was not satisfied with the kit lens that came with it (18-105mm VR), so I have now set my eyes on an 80-200mm available for $1000 on a local store.  However, I have heard photography sites that say never to pair up the 80-200mm f/2.8 with a DX camera an instead to go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2, which is more than twice the price of the 80-200.  For budget reasons, I am not able to go 70-200mm, but I would not want to waste money on an 80-200 if it will not work as I expect it.   I do mainly sports photography and candid shots of people from events, so I need the zoom and the f/2.8. I also plan to do small music videos, so I need the zoom and the f/2.8 aperture, again.   So why, exactly, do some people say not to pair up the f/2.8 80-200mm with DX cameras? Or in general, why would I not want to pair up a lens designed for FX cams with DX cams?
115846
Looking at the , I notice a distinction between telephoto lens and zoom lens.  What is the difference between the two?  Why would I want one over the other?  I  but remain confused about this distinction.  Please talk to me like I'm stupid. :) I am hoping for a completely lay explanation.  In particular, I'd like to understand in what situations I'd use a telephoto lens, and in what (other) situations I'd use a zoom lens.
108
I am a photography newbie and have only a 18 - 135mm canon kit lens at my disposal. I wanted to take macro shots but can't really afford a macro lens right now. One very optimistic goal of mine is to capture a single snow flake this winter.   Is there any cheap(er) way to take macro shots? Also, any specific advice from anyone one how to go about photographing a single snow flake.
107206
I currently own a Canon 60D, and I am perfectly happy with the camera. It is going to be years until I move to a better (most likely full-frame) body.   My main, walk-around lens is the . I am also very happy with this lens, although I also know its shortcomings, like the variable aperture (3.5-5.6).   But this morning, as a "what if" exercise, I started thinking about upgrading this lens.   Since my 60D is a crop sensor body, the closest and cheapest upgrade I can do is the   EF-S USM IS. It has a constant aperture of 2.8, and people say that it produces the best picture quality of all EF-S lenses. The upgrade would probably cost me $300-$500, depending on the price I sell my 15-85 at, and whether I want a used or new 17-55.   But 'upgrading' from an EF-S lens to another EF-S lens is not really upgrading, is it? It is more like switching between two similar quality products. Is it worth it?   A TRUE upgrade would be to get an L lens. So, assuming that price is no object (one can only dream :(), what L lens would you recommend to replace my 15-85?   EDIT: What I would look for in the ideal replacement lens.  Thanks for all the answers so far. One conclusion I came to after reading them is that there is no point for me to invest in L glass if I care about wide angle on my crop sensor body. And I do.   I like my 15-85 because it offers me the flexibility of being able to capture moments like a few snapshots in a restaurant with friends, or my 2 years old daughter who won't sit in one place for long - definitely not long enough for me to switch lenses.   I could give up the 2mm difference on the wide end of the spectrum, if the 17-55 offered me much higher IQ than the 15-85 does.   Hence the followup question - Please let me know if you upgraded from 15-85 to 17-55 and if that was a right decision.. I know it is all personal - and that is what I am asking about - what was your experience with such upgrade if you did it?
56804
I dropped my camera while on holiday last summer. Thankfully, my camera wasn't damaged but the kit lens has lost the ability to autofocus and the UV filter and 58mm to 52mm filter step-down (I use it to attach a fisheye filter to the lens) I had on its end are stuck and won't come off.  I've replaced the lens with an 18-200 zoom lens so I don't especially need it. I was wondering if it was worth getting the lens looked at and possibly repaired?  I've heard many places will charge you £50 or so just to look at the lens and given the cost of the kit lens I'm not sure it's worth it.
56634
I just purchased a brand new Canon Rebel T3i kit from Costco.. I used it for a couple of days, but now when I have the 18-55mm lens attached and the camera on auto-focus, it will not take a picture. Still will take a picture in manual focus. And will take a picture in either focus with the other lens on (55-250mm).  I've been told by a friend that the lens may not be seating right.  Are there any other settings I can check? I am very new to the camera and I probably messed with some settings or accidentally bumped something I shouldn't have.  Or I can take it back to Coscto and exchange it.
46473
I have a Canon 550D which I've been using for around a year now. I really love it and have learned a great deal with this and the 18 - 135mm kit lens. But now with experience I feel the need to get some better glass. I won't be buying a new body any time soon because I figure investing in some good glass is more important.   As I have looked around, I see quite a few good used L lenses I can get in ebay for good bargain prices. But I know that the EF lenses don't have the same focal length in the cropped sensors. Is it a wise decision to buy these EF lenses or buy the cropped sensor alternatives?  I have the following lenses in mind that I am looking to buy down the line from the canon range over the next several months.  16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L.  Are these apt choices for cropped sensors? I know most pros with FFs use these but I am a bit skeptic that they will serve the same purpose for me. If so what are the alternatives for this that have almost as good image quality?
34017
So I decided to start photography. My aim is simple: take photos of my future travels around the world. I want to take good photos.  Well, I made the mistake of buying the gears before even learning about it. I bought a Nikon D5100 camera, and I think it's not good but maybe it's just my skills.  So here it goes my questions:   Where can I learn about gear? Things like a lens, protection and cleaning stuff... Is the Nikon D5100 a good camera? The lens is "18-55mm" What are the good software for editing photos and where to learn how to use them?   Also any estimates of how much time this should take?
17
So I'm about to buy my first DSLR (definitely a Canon, probably the 700D) and my original plan was to buy the one with the included 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.  At the same time I was thinking about picking up the 50mm f/1.8 on account of the fact that it's cheap and I love taking photos of people with a shallow depth of field.   A couple of friends who are big into photography both suggested that the kit lenses aren't that good and produce blurry, distorted and drab imagery. They also both suggested that I should use the money saved by just getting the body to offset the cost of a decent prime lens.  At this point their views differed:   One suggested that I should get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. This works out at only £12 more expensive than the kit. They said it takes much better photos than the 50m f/1.8 for only a small amount more and it's very light. Another suggested that I go directly to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 as it's a lens that I'll never ever need to replace. This works out at £150 more expensive than the kit, although I can take (very small) comfort in the fact that I'm saving £80 by not buying the f/1.8 as a stepping stone to the f/1.4.   Both also suggested that once I'd had some lessons, learnt how to use the camera and absolutely must have a zoom lens, then I save up and look to buy something decent at that point in time, rather than use the kit lens.  Should I drop the kit lens and pick up a decent prime? Will I be missing out on some types of photography without the kit lens? Or should I start off with the kit and nifty-fifty and upgrade each component over time?