Off-brand lenses
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Off-brand lenses

  1. #1
    CaliforniaLabLover's Avatar
    CaliforniaLabLover is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,443

    DefaultOff-brand lenses

    Hi all,
    I was just told that I should check out the Sigma and Quantaray-brand lenses for my Canon Rebel in order to be able to get better shots of both birds in trees and bugs (I have a thing about trying to photograph insects...we have so many interesting ones around here!). I believe she mentioned something about a 70-300mm with macro, and then went on to tell me that the best prices she's found have been at the online Ritz Camera store for Quantaray lenses for her Nikon.

    Here is an example (I think): http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251662540.htm
    or this: http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251666103.htm ?
    Can anyone tell me whether or not this is what I should be looking for, and whether or not this will fit on my camera (a Rebel XTi)? ??? How ridiculous is this? I can't even tell you whether or not this will fit! LOL
    They certainly look very inexpensive... what do you think?

    ~Julie, Rogue, Monty, and Eddy~

    "The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue." -Anon

  2. Remove Advertisements
    JustLabradors.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Yellardawg is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    152

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    I was told that Quantaray is made for Ritz by Sigma or Tamron. I can't remember which. But, the Quantaray lens is more expensive than the same lens from Sigma or Tamron.


  4. #3
    Anne's Avatar
    Anne is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,336

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    Wow! That price almost seems too good to believe. ??? But, what do I know??

    Here is a lens I have been 'eyeing' for my Rebel XT http://www.pricegrabber.com/rating_g...0mm%20apo%20dg I think it offers what you are looking for. Plus, giving you a bit more distance.

    If you have the money to throw at lenses, check out the Canon 'L' series. VERY expensive....but VERY nice, too! Good lens construction, and most of them have some sort of stability "mode" (??) built into the camera. Which, evidentally, eliminates the need for a tripod.

    I'll be anxious to see what you went with. I would really like another lens to experiement with, but I can't seem to make my mind up.



    Murphy, Riley, and Piper

  5. Remove Advertisements
    JustLabradors.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Princess Zoe's Avatar
    Princess Zoe is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Howell, MI
    Posts
    13,130

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    I had a Quantaray for my 35mm Pentax (still have both). It worked fine for me.

  7. #5
    Buddysmom's Avatar
    Buddysmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    7,052

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    Quantaray is made by Sigma for Ritz/Wolfe camera. They are a more low end lens. I bought two and returned them in less than a week. The lens will make or break a camera and your photos. Don't just buy a lens because the price is good. Save if you have to to get a decent lens. They aren't all super expensive, but you do get what you pay for. Check out photo sites that do reviews OTHER than the maker of the lens' site. Here are a couple that I like.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
    http://www.photozo.com/forum/
    http://dpreview.com/


    Eiderdowns That's My Buddy
    CDX, RE, WC, CGC, TDInc.
    Monnie

  8. #6
    Yellardawg is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    152

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses


  9. #7
    Buddysmom's Avatar
    Buddysmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    7,052

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    Cray, I've heard some good things about the 200-500mm. I'm also looking at that lens. I have heard that it weighs a ton. Check out this thread about long lenses at the Zo.
    http://www.photozo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32828
    You might even ask about the other lens. I'm sure someone there is familiar with it. I'm debating between the 200-500 or either of Canon's 100-400mm L or the 400mm prime.


    Eiderdowns That's My Buddy
    CDX, RE, WC, CGC, TDInc.
    Monnie

  10. #8
    Yellardawg is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    152

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    Quote Originally Posted by buddysmom
    Cray, I've heard some good things about the 200-500mm. I'm also looking at that lens. I have heard that it weighs a ton. Check out this thread about long lenses at the Zo.
    http://www.photozo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32828
    You might even ask about the other lens. I'm sure someone there is familiar with it. I'm debating between the 200-500 or either of Canon's 100-400mm L or the 400mm prime.

    Thanks....according to the specs it is only 2.7 lb (1237 g) (compared to the Canon fixed lens at 8.53 lb isn't terrible) I just realized yesterday that I need a little more reach at times. I'm really happy with my 70-300mm, just think I need 500 or 600 mm to get those wildlife shots that are currently eluding me because of stealth issues.

    Here are a few that could've been better if the ducks weren't so spooky and I could get them with a natural background.




  11. #9
    zoesmom's Avatar
    zoesmom is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    16,476

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses

    When I get better, I'd like to get the 70-200 f/2.8 lens

    http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541166757.htm
    Linda and Zoë, the Umlaut
    Honolulu, Hawaii

    [

  12. #10
    Linda1's Avatar
    Linda1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Brookville, Pa.
    Posts
    8,812

    DefaultRe: Off-brand lenses



    I just realized yesterday that I need a little more reach at times. I'm really happy with my 70-300mm, just think I need 500 or 600 mm to get those wildlife shots that are currently eluding me because of stealth issues.
    I too realized today that I need more reach. My 200mm just doesn't cut it for birds and wildlife. Today a hawk flew by my kitchen window. I used 200mm, but I wish I could have gotten in closer. I'm saving for the 17-55 F.28 IS, so I won't have money for anything else for at least a year! I am leery of off brands. Guess I have L glass envy! This is a crop of the hawk through a very dirty window.



    Brookville, Pa.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25