Advice needed from the photography members out there... - LotusTalk

shadowhusky · 10-26-2009, 07:31 AM

I am rather new to his whole Digital photography thing,.

I am looking to buy a different zoom lens for my Camera a Canon Rebel XSI 450D.

I currently have this lens Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS Zoom Lens XT XTi XS XSi

I want something with more zoom. I have been investigating teleconverters because the camera shop I went to said that a teleconvertor will not work with the EF-S lenses, therefore I was looking at this lens CANON EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM TELEPHOTO ZOOM LENS and possibly a few appropriate teleconvertors, a 2X and possible a 1.4X. I know that I will have to worry about low light conditions with the teleconverter and some possible image loss.

I was also looking at the Toking 100-400 mm lens, however it doesn't have any kind of image stabilization so that turning me away, especially if I plan on trying to use it handheld and not on a tripod.

Any advise that you could offer me on what to get or what to stay away from will be appreciated. If you have any other lens recommendations or warnings please let me know that also.

Most of the stuff I like to shoot is landscape and nature and wildlife, up close and far away.

I just can't justify one of the higher priced telephoto lenses at this point.

mikester · 10-26-2009, 08:53 AM

Canon's consumer-level lenses are good, reliable and generally well-made for the money you'll spend. I think you're wise to stay away from a lens without IS, for anything above 300 mm. I have a non-IS Canon 100-300, and it's fine for what I'm generally using it for (motor racing), though I wish that I'd sprung for the IS version.

That being said I recently borrowed my brother-in-law's L-series Canon 100-400 with IS and I now have no doubt that you get what you pay for, when it comes to lenses. With that lens I was able to capture much more detail and sharpness etc. I was able to shoot things that were very far away (over a 1000 feet up to around a mile or so), and after cropping, the shots still showed very nicely. The old nugget about putting your money on the best lenses you can afford is spot-on !

Oh, with regard to teleconverters, I've heard from several sources that the 1.4 is the way to go, over the 2.0, for the Canon series. I haven't used one yet so I can't speak from experience.

6_speed · 10-26-2009, 11:45 AM

I have a CANON EF 100-300mm F4-5.6 USM but NON-IS.

Like you, I use it primarily for landscape and nature. And since almost all my landscape and nature subjects don't move at all or don't move fast, I opt for a tripod instead of coughing up more $$ for an IS. At 300mm, any tiny hand movement gets amplified and I can imagine it getting worse as one moves up to 400mm and higher. So, for me, a good tripod(read light and sturdy) was my cheap way of getting IS

If your wildlife subjects are 'well-behaved', maybe a tripod might work too.

holmz · 10-26-2009, 12:42 PM

Also use your feet as a a zoom when you can to move forward towards the shot.
Might not work with Lions and such - but for many things it does work.

luxige · 10-26-2009, 02:24 PM

IMO, a teleconverter is a waste of money. I've known a couple people who fell for the idea, and they regretted it/got no use from it. Why pay more money to make your expensive lenses work worse?
May I suggest you look into buying used? If that doesn't get the cost down to your budget, maybe you have a lens you aren't using much in your current work. It's possible that selling off the deadbeat and buying used could net you a quality long lens for not a lot more than a teleconverter.

Also, evaluate how much you really need a new lens. Obviously, some work requires a long focal length, but severe cropping can cover a lot of situations for the non-pro. And this technique lets you get away with a fixed-length lens and save a bundle. You already have a great zoom in a convenient length.

I was into long fixed lenses for a while, but a cold, hard look at my results convinced me that my shortest lenses were forcing me to be more creative and selective.

Spudboy · 10-26-2009, 08:57 PM

F 4.0/5.6 is already pretty slow. Slap a teleconverter on it and it and you've lost a lot of light. That MIGHT not be a problem if you always shoot with lots of light, but something to think about. Also, IS is not a panacea for all motion problems, and you can save some money by not getting an IS lens. Lastly, you should decide which end of the zoom you really want. The wider the zoom range, the more of a compromise the lens will be. So you might want to think about the day you have several lenses, and buy a better long tele now, and a shorter range one down the road.

jtj · 10-27-2009, 07:24 AM

on an f5.6 lens, you will lose at least one and a half, probably stops with a TC, making it an f8 or smaller wide open. That is enough to ensure your AF will not work right, if at all. Some brands of TC actually disable the AF all together just because. IMHO a TC is only good for lenses f2.8 and larger where a $400-ish TC with the same quality optics as your L, G, Nikkor,etc lens has, is being used to extend a 400 mm or larger lens that would cost you several thousand for an equivalent focal length prime.

If you are not using the camera for pro work ( and even if you are, they make some good lenses), look at Sigma EX line, Tamron or Tokina. You can get a bit more for your $$ compared to L glass for your canon, and some are even just as good. I shoot Sony, and my Tamron 70-200 2.8 is indistinguishable from images shot with a Sony 70-200 G, but it costs $1200 less. I stress the EX line with Sigma, because I have had HORRIBLE luck with lower end sigmas. The EX line is built to higher standards and has been some of my best lenses. If your just wanting a walk around lens with more length, many of the 70-300's out there are great (do some home work though, some are not). I would also spring for IS. All my lenses have it by default since sony stabilizes in body, but it has been the difference between keepers and nothing to show MANY times

As was mentioned before, you get what you pay for with glass.

Jason
J Photography

Lotus Fury · 10-27-2009, 08:16 AM

I prefer the sigma lenses over the non-L canon lenses. I have a Canon 75-300 and my girlfriend has the sigma 75-300 and her lenses is better in every way except for maybe how loud the AF is and that meaningless in this context. I have several other Sigma lenses and a Tamron lens - all of which are great. IS is nice but I would prefer better glass and take a couple extra photos to get it right in low light conditions. I'm lucky to have some f2.8 glass so it lowers the need for IS. I've heard really bad things about Tonkina. Read reviews on any lens you buy.

And as Luxige said teleconverters are a really expensive way to make your picture look worse. Unless you start with a really great lens teleconverters just don't work out the way most people want. It sucks but a good lens that is over 300/400mm is just damn expensive in an SLR.

10-26-2009, 07:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
shadowhusky Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: East China, Michigan Posts: 344	Advice needed from the photography members out there... I am rather new to his whole Digital photography thing,. I am looking to buy a different zoom lens for my Camera a Canon Rebel XSI 450D. I currently have this lens Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS Zoom Lens XT XTi XS XSi I want something with more zoom. I have been investigating teleconverters because the camera shop I went to said that a teleconvertor will not work with the EF-S lenses, therefore I was looking at this lens CANON EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM TELEPHOTO ZOOM LENS and possibly a few appropriate teleconvertors, a 2X and possible a 1.4X. I know that I will have to worry about low light conditions with the teleconverter and some possible image loss. I was also looking at the Toking 100-400 mm lens, however it doesn't have any kind of image stabilization so that turning me away, especially if I plan on trying to use it handheld and not on a tripod. Any advise that you could offer me on what to get or what to stay away from will be appreciated. If you have any other lens recommendations or warnings please let me know that also. Most of the stuff I like to shoot is landscape and nature and wildlife, up close and far away. I just can't justify one of the higher priced telephoto lenses at this point. __________________ 2005 Elise, Aubergine, Touring Pack, Sport Pack, Hardtop, Quicksilver Exhaust, Cup Air Box, Tilting Clam, Mesh Grills all around - ( fabricated, not purchased ) 55w 6000k HID's, Painted Engine Covers, Center Console, A/C Surround, Polished Shifter Arm, Ball,and E-Brake Handle, Multivex Mirrors. 2008 Jeep Liberty, Jeep Green Metallic 2002 VW Jetta TDI, Metallic Blue, Daily Driver, 155,000 miles and going strong

10-26-2009, 08:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
mikester Registered Shmoozer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: So Cal Posts: 4,597	Canon's consumer-level lenses are good, reliable and generally well-made for the money you'll spend. I think you're wise to stay away from a lens without IS, for anything above 300 mm. I have a non-IS Canon 100-300, and it's fine for what I'm generally using it for (motor racing), though I wish that I'd sprung for the IS version. That being said I recently borrowed my brother-in-law's L-series Canon 100-400 with IS and I now have no doubt that you get what you pay for, when it comes to lenses. With that lens I was able to capture much more detail and sharpness etc. I was able to shoot things that were very far away (over a 1000 feet up to around a mile or so), and after cropping, the shots still showed very nicely. The old nugget about putting your money on the best lenses you can afford is spot-on ! Oh, with regard to teleconverters, I've heard from several sources that the 1.4 is the way to go, over the 2.0, for the Canon series. I haven't used one yet so I can't speak from experience. __________________ Covered in Brandy and Lard

10-26-2009, 02:24 PM	#5 (permalink)
luxige luxige Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: MA Posts: 1,187	IMO, a teleconverter is a waste of money. I've known a couple people who fell for the idea, and they regretted it/got no use from it. Why pay more money to make your expensive lenses work worse? May I suggest you look into buying used? If that doesn't get the cost down to your budget, maybe you have a lens you aren't using much in your current work. It's possible that selling off the deadbeat and buying used could net you a quality long lens for not a lot more than a teleconverter. Also, evaluate how much you really need a new lens. Obviously, some work requires a long focal length, but severe cropping can cover a lot of situations for the non-pro. And this technique lets you get away with a fixed-length lens and save a bundle. You already have a great zoom in a convenient length. I was into long fixed lenses for a while, but a cold, hard look at my results convinced me that my shortest lenses were forcing me to be more creative and selective. __________________ In theory, there is no difference between Theory and Practice. In practice, there is. - Y. Berra Last edited by luxige : 10-26-2009 at 02:30 PM.

10-26-2009, 08:57 PM	#6 (permalink)
Spudboy Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 1,496	F 4.0/5.6 is already pretty slow. Slap a teleconverter on it and it and you've lost a lot of light. That MIGHT not be a problem if you always shoot with lots of light, but something to think about. Also, IS is not a panacea for all motion problems, and you can save some money by not getting an IS lens. Lastly, you should decide which end of the zoom you really want. The wider the zoom range, the more of a compromise the lens will be. So you might want to think about the day you have several lenses, and buy a better long tele now, and a shorter range one down the road. __________________ '05 Elise, Nightfall/Touring (1TON 1G) '94 BMW 325iS '67 Austin Healey 3000

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-26-2009, 11:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
6_speed Highway Star Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SF Bay Area Posts: 633	I have a CANON EF 100-300mm F4-5.6 USM but NON-IS. Like you, I use it primarily for landscape and nature. And since almost all my landscape and nature subjects don't move at all or don't move fast, I opt for a tripod instead of coughing up more $$ for an IS. At 300mm, any tiny hand movement gets amplified and I can imagine it getting worse as one moves up to 400mm and higher. So, for me, a good tripod(read light and sturdy) was my cheap way of getting IS If your wildlife subjects are 'well-behaved', maybe a tripod might work too.

10-26-2009, 12:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
holmz Registered User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Antipodes Posts: 623 Images: 5	Also use your feet as a a zoom when you can to move forward towards the shot. Might not work with Lions and such - but for many things it does work.

10-27-2009, 07:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
jtj Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 266	on an f5.6 lens, you will lose at least one and a half, probably stops with a TC, making it an f8 or smaller wide open. That is enough to ensure your AF will not work right, if at all. Some brands of TC actually disable the AF all together just because. IMHO a TC is only good for lenses f2.8 and larger where a $400-ish TC with the same quality optics as your L, G, Nikkor,etc lens has, is being used to extend a 400 mm or larger lens that would cost you several thousand for an equivalent focal length prime. If you are not using the camera for pro work ( and even if you are, they make some good lenses), look at Sigma EX line, Tamron or Tokina. You can get a bit more for your $$ compared to L glass for your canon, and some are even just as good. I shoot Sony, and my Tamron 70-200 2.8 is indistinguishable from images shot with a Sony 70-200 G, but it costs $1200 less. I stress the EX line with Sigma, because I have had HORRIBLE luck with lower end sigmas. The EX line is built to higher standards and has been some of my best lenses. If your just wanting a walk around lens with more length, many of the 70-300's out there are great (do some home work though, some are not). I would also spring for IS. All my lenses have it by default since sony stabilizes in body, but it has been the difference between keepers and nothing to show MANY times As was mentioned before, you get what you pay for with glass. Jason J Photography

10-27-2009, 08:16 AM	#8 (permalink)
Lotus Fury Blame Canada, eh? Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Pgh, Pa Posts: 2,261	I prefer the sigma lenses over the non-L canon lenses. I have a Canon 75-300 and my girlfriend has the sigma 75-300 and her lenses is better in every way except for maybe how loud the AF is and that meaningless in this context. I have several other Sigma lenses and a Tamron lens - all of which are great. IS is nice but I would prefer better glass and take a couple extra photos to get it right in low light conditions. I'm lucky to have some f2.8 glass so it lowers the need for IS. I've heard really bad things about Tonkina. Read reviews on any lens you buy. And as Luxige said teleconverters are a really expensive way to make your picture look worse. Unless you start with a really great lens teleconverters just don't work out the way most people want. It sucks but a good lens that is over 300/400mm is just damn expensive in an SLR.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)