Newbie +Lenses (Canon)

The quality on the Canon 75-300 isn't all that great. Canon makes a 70-300mm that is far better.

Don't know much about the Sigma!

Chris83 said:

Also would I be right in thinking that the 400D crops the picture by a factor of 1.6, so a 75-300mm lens is effectively 120-480mm? In this case would there be a benefit to getting a 200mm lens?
Cheers

Click to expand...

The 1.6 "crop factor" allows you to compare a lens on an APS size camera to the same lens on a full frame or 35mm film camera. If the person giving the advice to go with a 300mm lens was using an APS size camera then the 1.6 crop factor does not apply because the advice giver ad advice taker are using the same camera.

The better way to think abut a 200mm lens is that the subject will be 4X larger than with a 50mm lens. You can see the effect at 50mm. 200mm is 4x larger and 300mm is 6x larger. But with this you also get 4x or 6x greater blur due to camera shake. So you need to use 4x or 6x faster shutter speeds

300mm is a long lens and holding it stedy will not be easy. Ideally for your moving subjects you would want a good tripod and a ball head.

Folks..
I am totally new to photography and want to make it one of my serious hobbies.
I am planning to get a canon rebel xti. As of now I dont have a budget to go for expensive lenses.
Should i go for the basic kit lens? I also plan to order the following lenses
- Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens

As a newbie, should i be ordering any other lens?

Thanks in advance. All inputs will be highly appreciated.

Chris83 said:

Here's 2 that I have been looking at

Canon 75-300mm F4.0-5.6 III USM EF
Sigma 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 APO DG Macro

Click to expand...

These are 2 budget telephoto lenses and their quality is on par with the price.

There's nothing inherently wrong with them, it's just that they are slow lenses and the image quality is subpar unless you have the absolute best conditions.

As suggested, Canon has a 70-300 which is an updated variant of the 75-300, including Image Stabilizer.

It does cost about 2 times as much as the 75-300 though. But the quality will be there.

You've mentioned capturing air shows and car events. The budget telephoto lenses will have issues when trying to focus and you will probably miss shots or they will just come out misfocused. Very disappointing.

If you can stretch your budget, consider the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 f/4 L. Both are about the same price, $500-550.

(This is coming from someone who owns the 75-300 so I'm not just bashing low end lenses.)

sidharth80 said:

Folks..
I am totally new to photography and want to make it one of my serious hobbies.
I am planning to get a canon rebel xti. As of now I dont have a budget to go for expensive lenses.
Should i go for the basic kit lens? I also plan to order the following lenses
- Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens

As a newbie, should i be ordering any other lens?

Thanks in advance. All inputs will be highly appreciated.

Click to expand...

With only a 50mm and the 70-300, you'll be limiting your range quite a bit.

The general consensus for beginners is to buy the camera body only and the EF-S 18-55 IS, along with the 50mm if you can. It's only $80, there's no point to not getting it.

what i did..

i had the same initial amazement with my new dslr - canon d400..

but then i wanted to capture some sports for my school and some plane action at my airport...

after looking for a while i narrowed my choices down to 2 products
1- canon 70-300 IS usm f/4.0-5.6
2- canon 70-200 (without IS) usm f/4.0

as u can see these are a bit more expensive than ur budget but remember that u can keep these things for the rest of ur life and take amazing pics... )

by the way - both lenses are around 550 dollars on amazon so there is no price difference really...

the first thing that i noticed though was that the 200-er was an L lens - from the professional line of canon lenses meaning that the glass quality is much greater and the lens is much more robust because it is a pro level lens


i decided to go with the 2oo-er based on a friend who is a professor of photography and becuase of the many people who tried both of the afore mentioned lenses and reviewed them - they all said that the returned the 300-er and kept the 200-er and were really happy..




i hope this very confusing and ill organized post will help u out

Canon's new 55-250mm lens would be a good middle road choice for longer focal length. The Canon 70-300 and 70-200 L are too expensive, and the Canon 75-300 and Sigma/Tamron 70-300 variants are rather soft at long focal lengths.

Save your money for the 70-200 F4L. The non-IS version can be had for $400-450 used (oh yeah, dont buy new lenses...buy quality used).

It's MUCH better than the others you mentioned.

Grimace said:

The quality on the Canon 75-300 isn't all that great. Canon makes a 70-300mm that is far better.

Don't know much about the Sigma!

Click to expand...

I tried the 75-300 for a couple of test rolls. Returned it and bought the IS version instead. Found that it was better ... but still only okay, as it gets soft beyond around 200mm. I still have the lens; I should sell it...someone make me an offer.

Reportedly, the 70-300 lenses are better than the 75-'s, but I don't have any direct experience with to what degree. There's also a 70-300 DO IS, but its dang expensive; not really all that sure what its niche is.

I've functionally replaced it with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter. A lot heavier and a lot more expensive, but sharp all the way out.



-hh

Definity save up for the 70-200, you won't feel sorry about gettting it!

I have the IS version!

Edge100 said:

Save your money for the 70-200 F4L. The non-IS version can be had for $400-450 used (oh yeah, dont buy new lenses...buy quality used).

It's MUCH better than the others you mentioned.

Click to expand...

Don't buy a zoom starting at 70mm. It's too tight for crop cameras.

Look at one starting at 50 or 55.

cube said:

Don't buy a zoom starting at 70mm. It's too tight for crop cameras.

Look at one starting at 50 or 55.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Canon (and most companies) manufacturer lenses starting at 70mm -- usually 70-200 and 70-300. The optical quality of these far outweigh versions that go from 50-250mm.

I think only very experienced people note those optical differences.
At this level, it's more important to have a usable lens.

I'd stay away from the Canon 75-300. I bought one when I first bought my 400d. The lens is average at 75-200 but over that it is very poor.

As somebody mentioned, save up for the 70-200 f/4 L. I bought one a few months ago and it's a stunning lens. Very sharp all the way to to 200.

I wouldn't worry about starting at 70mm on a 1.6 crop body, you just need to shuffle you feet a little and you really don't lose anything.

You can get some very good deals on e-bay (I paid £350 inc P&P) so not much saving up from the £200 budget you had and it will last you a life time.

If you are interested in air show, have a look at these pictures. Somebody posted them when I was asking about the 70-200 f/4 L

Kebabselector said:

A few shots taken with it

146
146, no.2
757

Click to expand...

Many times you can't shuffle your feet in a room with 70mm on crop.

cube said:

Many times you can't shuffle your feet in a room with 70mm on crop.

Click to expand...

Agree sometimes it's not possible (guess I've not noticed much as most pictures I take are out doors) but for those moments he would have the kit lens to start with then could save up for a another lens something like the Canon 17-40 f/4 L or the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

But as the OP is looking for a lens to use at air shows and motor events I don't see the crop at 70mm being an issue.

Guess the one thing we will all agree on is... He's going to be spending a large amount of money over the next few years on his camera, these things are like crack. So I feel (after making the mistake myself) it's better to spend more and buy something of high quality that will do a stunning job and last a long time and not something that is, in all fairness, cheap and not going to last as long.

I guess it also depends on the style of shooting, especially if you are outdoors looking to go long. I am looking to pick up a 40D body because I want more reach from my lenses in certain situations.

review of the 55-250 at the digital picture

cube said:

Many times you can't shuffle your feet in a room with 70mm on crop.

Click to expand...

Same with 50 mm. Maybe he should get a 24 mm.


I think the 70-200 mm f/4 would be fantastic. If he can't afford it, the Sigma 70-300 is supposed to be quite good for the price......definitely better than the equivalent Canon.

Here's another 55-250 IS lens....http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review?start=1

Looks quite decent.

Chris83 said:

Cheers for all your thoughts.

I've just come across the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS in my price range and am thinking it would be better than the first two lenses?

I'd love to spend more money on a lens, however the girlfriend is keeping me in check for now, especially after just spending £400 on the camera.

Click to expand...

Yeah, for the price the 55-250 is quite good. I've had quite a lot of Canon telephotos lenses and here are my impressions.

75-300 F4-5.6 - Avoid at all costs. Soft even stopped down 2 stops between 75-200 and awful above 200.

55-250 F4-5.6 IS - Decent. Sharp from 55-200 if you stop down about 1 stop. 200-250 is a bit worse, but overall not bad. Lens is light and quite compact and good value for money.

70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM - A bit better than the 55-250IS at most focal lengths. Quite soft wide open at 300mm though. About double the price of 55-250IS.

70-200L F4 USM - If you like image quality, this is a big step up. Super sharp even wide open at any focal length between 70-200. Disadvantage compared to the 55-250 and 70-300 is the lack of IS (you will need to carry a monopod or tripod in lower light conditions). Great mechanical quality including FTM focusing and non extending design. White. Price about the same as the 70-300IS.

70-200L F4 IS USM - Image quality even slightly better than the 70-200L F4 USM and of course it has IS. Quite expensive though, but you get what you pay for.

70-200L F2.8 IS USM - If you really need F2.8, this is the one to get. Not quite as sharp as the 70-200F4 version though, but still of very high quality. Very expensive (~$US1600-1700 ... you will see many pros using this lens).

Ok.. I have zeroed down on the following 3 lenses -
- 70-200L F4 USM
- 55-250 F4-5.6 IS
- 70-300 F4-5.6 IS USM

Need inputs on choosing one among these. I am new to photography and so an amatuer.

So any thoughts on which I should buy?

sidharth80 said:

So any thoughts on which I should buy?

Click to expand...

Personally, I'd go with the 70-200 f/4 L It might cost more and lacks IS but I've never regretted the performance. Plus it's a constant f/4 unlike the other 2 which would be f/5.6 at the longer end (f/5.6 at 154mm for the 55-250 - 200mm for the 70-300).

That said the 70-300 is often rated well amongst the owners and the few people with the 55-250 seem to be happy. If you can try them out I recommend you should (though test outside the store if possible - take the images home and then check!).

I've got the 70-200 f/4 L and it is a fantastic lens, not too heavy, very very quick to focus, at full zoom images are crisp and of course it looks cool

I looked at the 70-300 IS USM but it didn't feel as well made as the f/4 L, and buying off e-bay meant I got the f/4 L cheaper than the 70-300 was in the shop I bought my camera from (I Know than means the 70-300 would be cheaper still on ebay, but go for the quality)