Looking for a Lens that has good zoom capabilities

[I AM THE MAN]

Hey everyone. I'm pretty new to SLR Photography and so far, I only have 3 lens kits and I'm trying add another one. I'm looking for a lens that has some good zoom capabilities. So far, I've come down to only a few options.

Lens 1: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-300...ON8I/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1333918279&sr=8-8

Lens 2: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250m...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1333920166&sr=1-1

If anyone has any other suggestions please feel free to list them.

My current Lens kits I have:

Canon 18-55mm
Canon 50mm EF f/1.8
Canon 28-135mm USM

Thanks for the answers in advance.

 

[SithTracy]

I have the 55-250mm, but honestly have yet to use it. I hear great things about it. I shoot indoor sports on my crop sensor with a 70-200mm f2.8. I am hoping to get outdoors with it soon and try it on some girls softball (obviously I have an athletic daughter). What are you looking to do with it? I would not suggest either for shooting indoor sports. Outdoor it should be fine. I've looked at serveral images shot with the Canon 55-250mm and they look quite sharp. I was considering selling it for a Tamron 70-300 VR for outdoor, but will be giving it a shot soon and based on what I saw suspect I will hold on to it.

Guessing your uses, I would suggest looking hard at the Canon. Not a fan of the super zoom type lens. Your focal lengths are covered. If perhaps you were vacationing and wanting to pack light, I'd say look at the Tamron 28-300 though I have not researched it.

 

[TheReef]

Do you really need another kit zoom?

If you got the Tamron you would have some serious overlap.


My choice out of the two would be the 55-250 IS.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

I have the 55-250mm, but honestly have yet to use it. I hear great things about it. I shoot indoor sports on my crop sensor with a 70-200mm f2.8. I am hoping to get outdoors with it soon and try it on some girls softball (obviously I have an athletic daughter). What are you looking to do with it? I would not suggest either for shooting indoor sports. Outdoor it should be fine. I've looked at serveral images shot with the Canon 55-250mm and they look quite sharp. I was considering selling it for a Tamron 70-300 VR for outdoor, but will be giving it a shot soon and based on what I saw suspect I will hold on to it.

Guessing your uses, I would suggest looking hard at the Canon. Not a fan of the super zoom type lens. Your focal lengths are covered. If perhaps you were vacationing and wanting to pack light, I'd say look at the Tamron 28-300 though I have not researched it.

Do you really need another kit zoom?

If you got the Tamron you would have some serious overlap.


My choice out of the two would be the 55-250 IS.

I'm really going to be using the lens for outdoors. I'm pretty much set on trying to capture photos on birds and any animals nearby. So far, I'm dead-set on buying either the Canon EF 70-300mm or 55-250mm. I want a lens where I can get a good zoom distance. For instance, some of my shots are from my house window and wit the 28-135mm, I fall short on the zoom.

 

[theheyes]

Even though it's another kit zoom, I'd go with the 55-250 as well. You're really not going to miss the extra 50mm of the tamron.

 

[TheDrift-]

Another vote for the 55 250 IS, an exceptional lens for the price...I'd probably sell the 28-135 or 18 55 too, and put the money towards another lens or flash

 

[h1r0ll3r]

If you can, sell off all the lenses you have and get;

17-55 IS f/2.8
55-250

I have both and while I rarely use the 55-250, it's a great lens for the price and offers great image quality. Once you get the 17-55 though, you'll probably never take it off the camera.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

Even though it's another kit zoom, I'd go with the 55-250 as well. You're really not going to miss the extra 50mm of the tamron.

Is the extra 50mm really not a big deal?

Another vote for the 55 250 IS, an exceptional lens for the price...I'd probably sell the 28-135 or 18 55 too, and put the money towards another lens or flash

I am thinking of sellig my 18-55mm eventually but I just don't think I can justify selling my 28-135mm right now because I use it all the time and it is the main lens I use.

If you can, sell off all the lenses you have and get;

17-55 IS f/2.8
55-250

I have both and while I rarely use the 55-250, it's a great lens for the price and offers great image quality. Once you get the 17-55 though, you'll probably never take it off the camera.

Whats so special about the 17-55mm? In additon its about $1,100 so its really out of my budget even if I sell all my lens :/

 

[VI™]

Is the extra 50mm really not a big deal?



I am thinking of sellig my 18-55mm eventually but I just don't think I can justify selling my 28-135mm right now because I use it all the time and it is the main lens I use.



Whats so special about the 17-55mm? In additon its about $1,100 so its really out of my budget even if I sell all my lens :/

The more expensive lenses are going to give you a sharper image, better image quality and a constant wide aperture. The problem is that the value of price vs. performance starts to differ exponentialy as you go towards higher cost lenses. Canon L lenses generally cost over $1,000 and may only offer slightly better performance than a $500 lens as compared to comparing the $500 lens to a $100 lens.

The 17-55 is not an L lens because of the EF-S mount, but it deliver L like quality, a constant f/2.8 aperture over the zoom range and Image Stabilization. Try and find a used one and you'll be paying close to new prices because it holds it's value.

Mega zooms also generally do not have consistent performance. They may be sharp at a certain focal length, but as you zoom in or out, the image will gain a softness to it because of the additional glass in the lens. Most professional zooms you see will not have a very wide zoom rang, for example you have the following lenses that are Canon L zooms:

16-35 f/2.8
17-40 f/4
27-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 & f/4

The best zoom you can buy for the money is the 70-200 f/4L. If prices haven't risen, you can still find them used for around $500 USD. It has a constant f/4 aperture and is a very sharp lens.

 

[TheDrift-]

Is the extra 50mm really not a big deal?



I am thinking of sellig my 18-55mm eventually but I just don't think I can justify selling my 28-135mm right now because I use it all the time and it is the main lens I use.



Whats so special about the 17-55mm? In additon its about $1,100 so its really out of my budget even if I sell all my lens :/

ahh my bad i meant either sell off the 18-55 or the 28 135 not both ...unless you really need that 18mm at the short end

 

[I AM THE MAN]

The more expensive lenses are going to give you a sharper image, better image quality and a constant wide aperture. The problem is that the value of price vs. performance starts to differ exponentialy as you go towards higher cost lenses. Canon L lenses generally cost over $1,000 and may only offer slightly better performance than a $500 lens as compared to comparing the $500 lens to a $100 lens.

The 17-55 is not an L lens because of the EF-S mount, but it deliver L like quality, a constant f/2.8 aperture over the zoom range and Image Stabilization. Try and find a used one and you'll be paying close to new prices because it holds it's value.

Mega zooms also generally do not have consistent performance. They may be sharp at a certain focal length, but as you zoom in or out, the image will gain a softness to it because of the additional glass in the lens. Most professional zooms you see will not have a very wide zoom rang, for example you have the following lenses that are Canon L zooms:

16-35 f/2.8
17-40 f/4
27-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 & f/4

The best zoom you can buy for the money is the 70-200 f/4L. If prices haven't risen, you can still find them used for around $500 USD. It has a constant f/4 aperture and is a very sharp lens.

I will look into that lens. Additionally, buying used Lens isn't something I'm familiar with. I just don't think I can trust someone else's lens because you never know if anything is internally wrong with it.

ahh my bad i meant either sell off the 18-55 or the 28 135 not both ...unless you really need that 18mm at the short end

Oh ok. I do find myself using the 18mm every once in awhile.

 

[compuwar]

I'm really going to be using the lens for outdoors. I'm pretty much set on trying to capture photos on birds and any animals nearby. So far, I'm dead-set on buying either the Canon EF 70-300mm or 55-250mm.

300mm is an absolute minimum for birding unless you're using a hide and baiting them. I'd be looking more along the 400-800mm focal length if I were you, and I wouldn't go with a 250mm lens- every bit of magnification helps immensely. If you have to save up longer, then do that-- I can't remember very many times at all that I've been out shooting birds and thought "Gee! I wish this lens was wider!" In fact, when shooting a zoom, other than the occasional environmental portrait, I've never shot a zoom at anything other than maxed out when out grabbing birds.

Paul

 

[VI™]

I will look into that lens. Additionally, buying used Lens isn't something I'm familiar with. I just don't think I can trust someone else's lens because you never know if anything is internally wrong with it.



Oh ok. I do find myself using the 18mm every once in awhile.

Check out www.photography-on-the.net

The Canon DSLR forums has a huge classified section and I've bought an sold lenses, light, cameras, and other photography related equipment through there.

I look at it this way, people don't spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on equipment to trash it. You can see photos of the equipment and depending on what type of photography the person has done, you can get an idea of how the equipment was treated. Buying a lens from a studio photographer is probably going to be safer than buying a lens from a war photographer.

 

[WRP]

The only 2 lenses you need are a 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4L. Anything else after that is all fluff for a newbie.

 

[Ruahrc]

300mm is an absolute minimum for birding unless you're using a hide and baiting them. I'd be looking more along the 400-800mm focal length if I were you, and I wouldn't go with a 250mm lens- every bit of magnification helps immensely. If you have to save up longer, then do that-- I can't remember very many times at all that I've been out shooting birds and thought "Gee! I wish this lens was wider!" In fact, when shooting a zoom, other than the occasional environmental portrait, I've never shot a zoom at anything other than maxed out when out grabbing birds.

Paul

True that. Everything I hear about shooting birds is that there is no such thing as too much focal length. People own 600mm lenses with teleconverters and still complain about not enough reach.

Maybe if you have a lot of vultures and condors around your house then 250mm would work but otherwise I think it's not going to be enough.

Ruahrc

 

[I AM THE MAN]

300mm is an absolute minimum for birding unless you're using a hide and baiting them. I'd be looking more along the 400-800mm focal length if I were you, and I wouldn't go with a 250mm lens- every bit of magnification helps immensely. If you have to save up longer, then do that-- I can't remember very many times at all that I've been out shooting birds and thought "Gee! I wish this lens was wider!" In fact, when shooting a zoom, other than the occasional environmental portrait, I've never shot a zoom at anything other than maxed out when out grabbing birds.

Paul

I know what you mean. The main purpose for the lens is so I have an all around telephoto lens but I would also love to be able to use it for birds that come in my back yard. So far I'm looking at the Canon 70-200 f/4L. My only dilemma is the money.

Check out www.photography-on-the.net

The Canon DSLR forums has a huge classified section and I've bought an sold lenses, light, cameras, and other photography related equipment through there.

I look at it this way, people don't spend hundreds and thousands of dollars on equipment to trash it. You can see photos of the equipment and depending on what type of photography the person has done, you can get an idea of how the equipment was treated. Buying a lens from a studio photographer is probably going to be safer than buying a lens from a war photographer.

I know what you mean but you never know if a studio photographer has ever dropped his lens or something. That's just how I think.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

After looking through a great amount of lens, I'm stuck between the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, the Canon 55-250mm and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens.

So far, I'm really pleased by the 70-200mm because all the images I've seen from it online are really sharp and they really look great. On the other hand, some people say that the Canon EF 70-300mm isn't "completely" blown out of the water compared to the 70-200mm. Is the extra $250 bucks really worth it for the 70-200mm?

What would you all recommend?

 

[Ruahrc]

If you're serious about wanting to use it for birds then I'd recommend the 70-300. 200mm is going to be too short too often, and you will likely just end up frustrated (and probably back where you started a few months from now... Looking for a longer lens except you would have already put money down on a 70-200)

Either that, or just keep saving up for a higher end lens with more reach like the 70-300L or 100-400, etc. Good lenses aren't cheap but probably the best investment in photo gear you can make.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

If you're serious about wanting to use it for birds then I'd recommend the 70-300. 200mm is going to be too short too often, and you will likely just end up frustrated (and probably back where you started a few months from now... Looking for a longer lens except you would have already put money down on a 70-200)

Either that, or just keep saving up for a higher end lens with more reach like the 70-300L or 100-400, etc. Good lenses aren't cheap but probably the best investment in photo gear you can make.

I think the lens would be occasionally for birds from my window to my backyard.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

I am stuck between two lens right now and I need some advice on which lens you guys would go with.

The Tamron AF 70-300mm Lens kit or the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L series lens.

I want to be able to take sharp photos as well as have a good close up shot of a subject. My only problem in buying the 70-200mm is that I would have to spend $500 more dollars and Im not sure if its really going to be worth the money. Any thoughts?

 

[compuwar]

I am stuck between two lens right now and I need some advice on which lens you guys would go with.

The Tamron AF 70-300mm Lens kit or the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L series lens.

I want to be able to take sharp photos as well as have a good close up shot of a subject. My only problem in buying the 70-200mm is that I would have to spend $500 more dollars and Im not sure if its really going to be worth the money. Any thoughts?

If you want to shoot birds, the 70-300mm is the better answer. Now that someone (Nikon) has a 2x TC that actually produces what I consider publishable images, I'm looking at that for my 400mm f/2.8 for more reach with birds.

Paul

----------

Maybe if you have a lot of vultures and condors around your house then 250mm would work but otherwise I think it's not going to be enough.

Ruahrc

Even then you can't generally approach either close enough to get a good shot-- about the only large birds you could routinely shoot with a 200mm lens are juvenile Great Blue Herons in an area where they're used to relatively close approaching humans. Otherwise, you're stuck with baiting in front of a blind in the backyard with the camera aimed at a perch constructed just for that purpose. I generally find that Vultures need about 600mm- the difference in size between Black and Turkey Vultures is offset by the difference in approach. You can get some good group shots at about 300mm though if they're allowing closer approaches that day.

Paul

 

[I AM THE MAN]

If you want to shoot birds, the 70-300mm is the better answer. Now that someone (Nikon) has a 2x TC that actually produces what I consider publishable images, I'm looking at that for my 400mm f/2.8 for more reach with birds.

Paul

----------



Even then you can't generally approach either close enough to get a good shot-- about the only large birds you could routinely shoot with a 200mm lens are juvenile Great Blue Herons in an area where they're used to relatively close approaching humans. Otherwise, you're stuck with baiting in front of a blind in the backyard with the camera aimed at a perch constructed just for that purpose. I generally find that Vultures need about 600mm- the difference in size between Black and Turkey Vultures is offset by the difference in approach. You can get some good group shots at about 300mm though if they're allowing closer approaches that day.

Paul

Alright thanks for the heads-up.

 

[mulo]

you may want to consider a Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6, I've heard great things about this lens, especially for the price. ( if your lucky you can pick one up for no more then $100 ) it also gives you a lot more reach then any of the other lenses mentioned.

its supposed to be built like a tank and decently sharp, I'm looking at getting one myself, even if its crap $100 won't even refuel my car where i'm from.
If you ever sell some of your images, one or two shots and it will have paid for itself.

 

[odinsride]

FWIW, the 55-250 is an excellent lens for the money. It has IS and is very sharp.

 

[Bear]

you may want to consider a Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6, I've heard great things about this lens, especially for the price. ( if your lucky you can pick one up for no more then $100 ) it also gives you a lot more reach then any of the other lenses mentioned.

its supposed to be built like a tank and decently sharp, I'm looking at getting one myself, even if its crap $100 won't even refuel my car where i'm from.
If you ever sell some of your images, one or two shots and it will have paid for itself.

There have been a few different versions of the Tamron 200-400 lens. Some of the versions are apparently not that good. It also weighs a fair bit and rprobably requires a monopod or tripod.