Originally Posted by reeftool
You should be able to get some decent shots with the lens you have, at least for the soccer shots. For wildlife shots, the longer the better, but 250 should get you some decent wildlife shots with a little luck. For now, I would spend some time with that 18-250 and really get to know the camera also before sinking big money into lenses.
If by "wildlife" he means songbirds, then the 18-250mm is woefully inadequate. I have the 18-250 and I have a couple of the popular 300mm telezooms, and there is a huge difference when photographing small birds. As in don't even bother with the 18-250 unless you're ten feet away.
Alfisti is on to something. The 18-250mm only reaches a true 250mm if you use infinity focus (i.e. rarely). Even then, 250 is not 300, and 375 mm equivalent is not 450 mm equivalent. AFAIC the 18-250mm is a great standard zoom. It does not compete with the telezooms for distant or really small subjects.
__________________
Dan
___
K20D, K100D Super, DA 16-45mm, DA 55-300mm, DA 18-250mm, Kalimar A 28mm f/2.8, FA 50mm f/1.4, D FA 100mm Macro, Raynox 250, Sigma 530 Super flash, BG-2 and Travor battery grips.
|