Any photographers in here?
- Thread starter ChopstickHero
- Start date
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
Fish Eye! So I'm looking for a telephoto lens. The 55-250 is nice but I'm curious what other options I have for my Canon. Are there comparable lens manufactures with less cost than the Canon name, or should I just stay with Canon? I do like the IS feature, how does a lens without IS compare? I have a fairly steady hand or almost always a tripod when I shoot so is it really needed?
Last edited:
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
70-200 F4
70-200 F2.8 non IS
75-300 IS USM - around 600USD
55-250 is a nice option too
You can get a Tamron, TOkina or a Sigma, but I think the Canon optics are the sharpest. I use a 75-300 that I bought used for 400 bux. Look for used lenses if you want.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/
Look on their Buy/Sell
Here are a few shots using my 75-300
funky you sure its not the 70-300 ? the 75-300 is pretty old and it was not a very sharp lens, I had the 70-300IS and it was ok but I didnt really like it and got the 100-400 a month later
the other option is the sigma 70-300 APO DG, they have a IS version but last I looked it was crazy expensive
the other option is the sigma 70-300 APO DG, they have a IS version but last I looked it was crazy expensive
I've handheld down to ~ 1/15-1/30 with the 70-200 2.8L IS. Those types of shots wouldn't be possible w/o IS. This was years before people would even think about shooting at ISO 6400, though. I usually don't have to go down to about 1/50 now that I have the 5D MKII, though.
But, I bought the 70-200 2.8L IS for $1450 about 5 years ago. The lens is still worth... $1300-1400 in the used market. I think I got my moneys worth out of it. If you have the cash, go for it. If not, go with the 70-200 4.0L non IS and upgrade later to the 2.8.
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
Ya it's an older EF 75-300. Mine's actually pretty sharp. Not as sharp as the L series but it does it for me. I've even done portraits with it.
Saskatchewan17
Member
- :
- 2008 TR Mazdaspeed 3
Do you guys have any suggestions for a basic tripod? My mom wants one for Christmas.
the pics look good but I am sure if you compared it to the 70-300IS you will see a difference, especially at 300mm
from what I know its essentially a 75-300 and they just plopped IS in it, it was the first IS lens irrc
for that price you can buy the 70-300IS which is leaps ahead of it, and its selling for 400-450USD used so thats a better idea imo
some info on the 70-300IS, it is doing a small compairsion between the 55-250 and the 70-200 as well http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
You can buy the 70-200 non IS F4 for around the same price so if you dont need it longer than 200 I would go with that. Even if you do I would still get the 70-200 and a 1.4 Teleconvertor its still going to be sharper at 300mm than the others, still focus the same or better and its still F5.6 + you can shoot at F4 wide open and get sharper pics than the other lenses at F5.6
altspace - learn your camera with the kit lens and save your pennies for the 70-200 f4 IS. it's actually sharper at f4 than the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I wish I had saved up for an L lens instead of getting the 55-250. You say you're not out for perfection, but trust me, you'll get frustrated with the limitations of the 55-250 quickly. I sure did. It will be worth waiting an extra couple of months to get the L version. If you're serious about getting the 55-250, just buy it used. I see them on craigslist for around $100 all the time. All the consumer lenses lose value quick, the L lenses seem to retain theirs very well.
kickniteasy
Member
I have this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/ (commissions earned)
and love it. Very sturdy and not too bad on pricing.
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
the pics look good but I am sure if you compared it to the 70-300IS you will see a difference, especially at 300mm
from what I know its essentially a 75-300 and they just plopped IS in it, it was the first IS lens irrc
for that price you can buy the 70-300IS which is leaps ahead of it, and its selling for 400-450USD used so thats a better idea imo
some info on the 70-300IS, it is doing a small compairsion between the 55-250 and the 70-200 as well http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
You can buy the 70-200 non IS F4 for around the same price so if you dont need it longer than 200 I would go with that. Even if you do I would still get the 70-200 and a 1.4 Teleconvertor its still going to be sharper at 300mm than the others, still focus the same or better and its still F5.6 + you can shoot at F4 wide open and get sharper pics than the other lenses at F5.6
The 75-300 already had IS. The 70-300 replaced my 75-300 with a quieter IS motor and focusing. Mine actually is a bit slower and hunts a bit more especially in low light. There are other good lenses out there, but I believe a lens in that zoom range, and weight, you would want IS. The slightest shake at the long end will show up in your pictures.
For you, Josh, as seeing you have a tripod a lot of times and you don't require L series, I'd go w/ the 70-300 IS USM. It's the better value for a shooter like you.
I personally like the extra 100mm so that I don't have to take any more steps closer to wildlife. I'd just end up scaring it away.
Here's a 100% crop from the 75-300. Albeit, the photo was very well lit so it's plenty sharp. Anyone care to post up 100% crop from a 70-300?
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
Wagonbacker9
Member
- :
- 2004 'Hoe
gf's bro got engaged... these were candid shots, so forgive them not being framed perfectly.. I think they may do well with some editing too...
I love the effects that come outa the 50mm....
I love the effects that come outa the 50mm....
Last edited:
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
Sorry man..I really don't feel anything when I look at those. Even when they're candids, they should represent something. Like an important moment at that specific time. Or capturing some emotion or to instigate some feelings from the viewers. Try capturing more facial expressions. Focus on the eyes, and the rest of the picture will take care of itself. And if you can't get facial expressions, at least capture something that signifies that engagement. From these photos...I can't tell that it's your brother's engagement. You have a shot of a ring on someone's hand that's doing something, and a couple of champagne glasses.
Just some critique and feelings that I have of your set.
