New to this, Lens recommendation?
Trumandrummer
Taylor Michigan Icrontian
So, my parents bought a Canon Rebel XSi (450D)
They are not really into photography. The camera that they had was way out of date, and they wanted an all around good camera.
Well,
We are used to crappy point-and-shoot digital cameras.
So I have been reading and reading and learning as much as possible.
I have been playing around with the camera quite a bit. I must say, I LOVE IT. I wish I had this camera during my summer Vacation.
Anyways,
The lens that it came with is an 18-55mm.
My dad is a wildlife guy. He recently went to a park, and tried taking some pics of an eagle. But it was to far away for the lens to capture anything but a blurry silhouette.
He wants to buy another lens. One with enough zoom to take pictures of animals/wildlife that may be a little too far for the 55mm.
Right now we are looking at lenses capable of reaching around 300mm.
He really does not want to spend thousands of dollars on a lens because he is not going to use it that much. I do not know much about these lenses though. We obviously want Image Stabilizer though.
This is the lens that we were currently looking at,
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=15700
55-250mm, and around $300
This seems a little cheap. Some of canons lenses around 200-300mm are $1,000-$2,000
So I am wondering if this lens is any good.
Can anyone Chime in, or maybe even recommend a good lens?
Also,
We were wondering how safe it is to order a used lens. Maybe we could get a better lens and save a couple hundred bucks used.
They are not really into photography. The camera that they had was way out of date, and they wanted an all around good camera.
Well,
We are used to crappy point-and-shoot digital cameras.
So I have been reading and reading and learning as much as possible.
I have been playing around with the camera quite a bit. I must say, I LOVE IT. I wish I had this camera during my summer Vacation.
Anyways,
The lens that it came with is an 18-55mm.
My dad is a wildlife guy. He recently went to a park, and tried taking some pics of an eagle. But it was to far away for the lens to capture anything but a blurry silhouette.
He wants to buy another lens. One with enough zoom to take pictures of animals/wildlife that may be a little too far for the 55mm.
Right now we are looking at lenses capable of reaching around 300mm.
He really does not want to spend thousands of dollars on a lens because he is not going to use it that much. I do not know much about these lenses though. We obviously want Image Stabilizer though.
This is the lens that we were currently looking at,
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=15700
55-250mm, and around $300
This seems a little cheap. Some of canons lenses around 200-300mm are $1,000-$2,000
So I am wondering if this lens is any good.
Can anyone Chime in, or maybe even recommend a good lens?
Also,
We were wondering how safe it is to order a used lens. Maybe we could get a better lens and save a couple hundred bucks used.
0
Comments
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx
It makes a couple good suggestions for alternatives, and I agree with them on the ranking (quality and price increasing as you go down)
55-250
70-300 f/4-5.6
70-200 f/4
IS is useful in situations where you have a static subject and camera shake. It won't help as much if your subject is flying or running. Just something to think about.
The latter two lenses have an ultrasonic focusing motor, which in addition to sounding impressive, it means that they'll focus faster. You'll be able to manually adjust the focus without worrying about hurting the internal motor. USM is a definite plus on a lens.
Be careful if you decide on the second lens, there are two versions i think (and also a 75-300 lens) that will be cheaper, but not as good.
Used lenses: If you think you can tell the difference between a good and bad lens after using it for a few minutes, you should be fine buying used. I probably wouldn't recommend it. It can be difficult to check for consistently accurate focus, if the IS mechanism is actually working, appropriate sharpness, etc.
I might also suggest renting a lens to make sure that it is actually what you want, and that it has enough reach for what he wants to do with it.
www.lensrentals.com is an option for that.
"This high zoom ratio lens is equivalent to a focal length of 88-400mm in the 35mm format (when used on Canon EOS cameras compatible with EF-S lenses)"
On a crop body (like the 450D), you'll get higher zoom factors than what's marked by virtue of the different sensor configuration.
Beyond that, yes, it's pretty cheap. With all things camera, you're best off checking reviews and seeing if the sample pictures will give you the quality you're looking for. DPReview typically has great lens reviews with a good gamut of test pictures to evaluate that they do for every lens, but sometimes their selection won't contain the lenses you're looking for.
One they do have is the EF-S 18-200, which is roughly 29-320mm on a crop body. That review is here.
And yes, used lenses are usually safe (but, as always, test them first), but be warned that good lenses hold their value really well - you won't find amazing discounts on old gear just because it's old. If it's well cared for, a lens can have no depreciation for years.
Very helpful reviews.
Both of you guys and the reviews recommending the 70-200 f/4, sure makes me want it.
The only reason that we want the IS, is so we do not have to use a tripod ALL the time.
I am still new to this though. I have not used a lens that does not have IS. Do you absolutely need a tripod?
I think that he MIGHT be willing to pay $700, for that quality, if he can still use it sometimes without a tripod.
He was checking out the IS version of the 70-200 f/4 earlier, but he said that he did not want to pay that much. But If I can get him to like the idea of no IS... plus the fact that its $600+ cheaper, he might be up for it.
If you're shooting night wildlife, you need a far better lens than anything you're currently looking at. If you're shooting stuff in daylight, f/4 is better than you need to keep your shutter speed up high enough to avoid camera shake. If you're shooting at dusk, f/4 should be low enough to keep the shutter speeds fast, or you can bump ISO a bit to compensate.
Ultimately, IS usually won't help if he's tracking birds or whatnot. And lots of things can be used for makeshift tripods - rocks, trees, tables, your knees, etc. If you have a fast lens and a fast shutter speed, you'll almost never need a tripod except in specialist situations.
Alright,
That makes sense.
I had a a buddy of mine come over and he brought over this lens:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7444
It wasn't a bad lens for the price. But I would rather get more high quality lens.
It doesn't have IS. So I was experimenting with it. I did not have a problem with no IS. I took a couple shots of the moon, with our 55mm and his 300mm. It was a big difference. Obviously the 300mm got a little closer, and you could see a lot more moon detail.
Other than the 300mm reach, the lens didn't seem any better than the stock lens that we have now. In terms of quality.
I talked to my dad, and he really likes the idea of getting the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM.
My only question is, is the 100mm difference from 300-200 going to make that much of a difference?
I mean obviously the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM is a lot better than the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM, but will I be missing that extra reach that the 300mm has? Or will the better quality lens appear to have the same reach?
2) Only you can tell if the difference in reach between 200 and 300 is big
3) The 18-55 IS lens is actually quite an optically nice lens, it's not surprising that the 75-300 doesn't match. It also might take you a while to get used to shooting telephoto
Well it looks like it just between the 70-200 f/4L and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
Ive been talking to my dad, and even though the 70-200 will take better quality pictures. He really wants the 300mm for the extra reach.
I am still going to have my buddy bring his EF 75-300mm so that we can test it at 200mm though.
EDIT: We may just have to rent these two lenses. I keep reading the reviews on the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS and people say that it takes very sharp images, but when you are at full zoom, the images are not sharp, and tend to be fuzzy. If thats the case, then it would make no sense to get the 300mm, if it took blurry pics at 300mm anyways.