Advice for a beginner on a longer lens

B

bombfrog

Messages
190
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys.

I recently bought a Canon 50D and have 2 lenses, a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime and a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 zoom lens

I've been using the camera for a couple of weeks and the one thing I am noticing is that it would be useful to be able to zoom in a lot more. I noticed this at Glastonbury last week when I was unable to zoom into things that I couldn't get close to, either because I was stuck behind a fence or in a crowd of people etc.

Now I don't know much about longer lenses or what effect they have on the IQ of photos. I know I love the DOF effect I get with the F1.8 so I'd like to get a larger aperture if possible, although I'm not sure I'd even get the same kinf od DOF effect when zoomed in? I would also assume that IQ would generally go do the more you zoom in?

My other though was that it takes a while to swap lenses so maybe I should go for a lens that covers everything from around 15mm to around 200mm-300m or would I see a massive drop off in quality for the benefit of convenience.

Any advice would be useful as I am a complete beginner. I'm prepared to spend a bit of money on a lens (more than a couple of hundred quid but not over a grand if possible).
 
Longer lenses can have just as good image quality as any lens, but tend to be more expensive to get high quality results.
Cheap telephoto zooms are not great particularly at the long end(70-300 types), and many will advise you against going for a 'do it all' lens(18-200), they have compromises of generally lower image quality throughout the whole range and restricted apertures at telephoto lengths. But they are useful if you need a large range without changing lenses, if you can live with the compromises.

As for the aperture, the longer the lens the less depth of field there is anyway, so a 300mm at f4 has less DoF than a 50mm for example.

A well respected lens is the 70-200F4 or F2.8 both are L series and offer great image quality, the F4 has the advantage of being more lightweight and compact at the expense of a stop of light. Both have constant apertures throughout their zoom range.
 
Canon's 70-200 L lens comes in 5 varieties - F4, F4 image stabilised, f2.8 and f2.8 stabilised (the fifth being an insulated mug)

If 200mm isn't long enough, then the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 IS L is an option.

Sigma do some quite long lenses - 100-300 f4 EX or 120-400 OS.
 
To get more reach from my 50D I have a Canon 70-200 F2.8 which I use with a 1.4x teleconverter which only takes it down to F4. In theory on a crop sensor like the 50D (1.5x) I think this should take the focal length to over 300mm (not sure exactly to what but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say).
This is an expensive lens at about £900 second hand but is superb for image quality and DOF.
It all comes down to budget! ;)
 
andrewc said:
F4, F4 image stabilised, f2.8 and f2.8 stabilised
Click to expand...

F4 - £549
F4 image stabilised - £959
F2.8 - £1049
F2.8 stabilised - £2249

So, I guess you get what you pay for, right? Or are the differences not that noticeable?

andrewc said:
If 200mm isn't long enough, then the 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 IS L is an option.
Click to expand...

Well that's a good point, I guess I won't know how long I need until I need it! Maybe I need to borrow/rent one first.
 
I assume that the IS version of each lens is better than the non-IS version, but the interesting comparison and the two closest in price are...

F4 IS versus F2.8 non-IS
 
bombfrog said:
I assume that the IS version of each lens is better than the non-IS version, but the interesting comparison and the two closest in price are...

F4 IS versus F2.8 non-IS
Click to expand...

It depends on how you use it. I think most people would go for the non-IS version in that case, but some people might find IS more useful. I mean, if you're on a tripod all the time - 2.8 every time.
 
RevOnline said:
It depends on how you use it. I think most people would go for the non-IS version in that case, but some people might find IS more useful. I mean, if you're on a tripod all the time - 2.8 every time.
Click to expand...

I would assume that if you're zooming in on things that are far away then the chances are that they are moving (e.g. animals, people, racing cars etc.) so you probably wouldn't be using a tripod often when zoomed in.

For this reason I would guess that on a high zoom, photographing moving objects is going to make the f4 IS much more useful, I'm just guessing though.
 
bombfrog said:
Hi Guys.

I recently bought a Canon 50D and have 2 lenses, a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime and a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 zoom lens

I've been using the camera for a couple of weeks and the one thing I am noticing is that it would be useful to be able to zoom in a lot more. I noticed this at Glastonbury last week when I was unable to zoom into things that I couldn't get close to, either because I was stuck behind a fence or in a crowd of people etc.

Now I don't know much about longer lenses or what effect they have on the IQ of photos. I know I love the DOF effect I get with the F1.8 so I'd like to get a larger aperture if possible, although I'm not sure I'd even get the same kinf od DOF effect when zoomed in? I would also assume that IQ would generally go do the more you zoom in?

My other though was that it takes a while to swap lenses so maybe I should go for a lens that covers everything from around 15mm to around 200mm-300m or would I see a massive drop off in quality for the benefit of convenience.

Any advice would be useful as I am a complete beginner. I'm prepared to spend a bit of money on a lens (more than a couple of hundred quid but not over a grand if possible).
Click to expand...

Bearing everything in mind, the best all round lens to get is probably the Canon 70-300 IS at about £400. It's an excellent lens. Probably the one to look at first IMHO. Fairly small, light and discrete too.

70-200L 4 IS is better and works well with a 1.4x extender, but that combo is three times the price. That's the one I have, if the budget will stretch a bit but bear in mind there is an extra lens change to fit the extender. There's the cheaper non-IS version of course, but I think IS is well worth it. No good having great optics if it's blurred with camera shake.

Alternatively, the best all-in-one super zoom choice is the EF-S 18-200 IS at £450-ish. It's better than some folks give it credit for, and can be made better still if you shoot Raw and run the files through the aberrations correction software in DPP (Canon software that comes with the camera).

Three completely different ways of doing things. You really need to try them to see how they suit.
 
I'm going to vote for the sigma 50-500mm lens, you did say you wanted some zoom option :D

In all seriousness, are you doing A3 prints of these pictures? If not I'd say the longer ranges will give you perfectly acceptable IQ, obviously not as great as an expensive prime but perfectly good for most people. But it all depends what you're doing.
 
OK, it's hard to give examples of what I'm going to do with it because I don't really know yet, but let me give you three examples of when I needed a zoom lens on my holiday to Florida last year...

1) Sat in the audience at Seaworld, trying to get close-up shots of the dolphins from halfway back.

2) Stopped on the way back to our villa when we saw an armadillo by the side of the road and trying to get s decent shot of it out of the car window.

3) Sat in the airport trying to get a photo of a 747 landing out of the departure lounge window.

Really not sure how long the lens would need to be for any of these and how much IS would help?
 
bombfrog said:
OK, it's hard to give examples of what I'm going to do with it because I don't really know yet, but let me give you three examples of when I needed a zoom lens on my holiday to Florida last year...

1) Sat in the audience at Seaworld, trying to get close-up shots of the dolphins from halfway back.

2) Stopped on the way back to our villa when we saw an armadillo by the side of the road and trying to get s decent shot of it out of the car window.

3) Sat in the airport trying to get a photo of a 747 landing out of the departure lounge window.

Really not sure how long the lens would need to be for any of these and how much IS would help?
Click to expand...

Have a look at this lens focal length comparitor. Click on 'digital' bottom right http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php
 
Hmm, I'm not experienced but I'd think you'd want at least a 300mm reach for that sort of work. 400 wouldn't hurt!

The saying you get what you pay for is true.

The Canon 100-400L I've found at £1220 new, the sigma 120-400 I've found at £640 new. I don't know the individual IQs, but I'm guessing the canon will be better - almost twice as much better though, I don't know! Obviously you'd be able to pick the canon up for less 2nd hand, a quick check on Ebay says £900 - £1k posted.

Or you could go for a longer reach again, the sigmas 50-500mm or 150-500mm.

Fores and against on each. I'm not a canonite so I don't know how the iq difference between canon and sigma lenses will be, but I'd *guess* you will be ok with either unless you're doing a lot of 100% crops.
 
Two other things to think about is SIZE and WEIGHT...

I have the F2.8IS it is large and weighs a ton...
Never take this on holiday unless travelling by car...

I think something like the 18-200 would be best if you are thinking of a walkabout travel lens...

:thumbs:
 
bombfrog said:
I would assume that if you're zooming in on things that are far away then the chances are that they are moving (e.g. animals, people, racing cars etc.) so you probably wouldn't be using a tripod often when zoomed in.

For this reason I would guess that on a high zoom, photographing moving objects is going to make the f4 IS much more useful, I'm just guessing though.
Click to expand...

IS is an advantage, but it's not a massive one. It can do amazing things on relatively quick shots when a flash is fired, but an image that is unaffected by a flash and takes a bit of time to take won't be that much better - in my experience at least.

Long lenses take longer to fill with light, so they'll get used fastened to a tripod (or perhaps a monopod, which is a bit quicker to maneuver) pretty often for maximum sharpness. Obviously it isn't always possible...but it should be aimed for.
 
I have the 70-200 f4 non-is and its great. It gives the extra reach and the image quality is suberb. Look for kerso in the sellers section here and he does them for a great price. For the few times it sounds like you would use it and in the conditions, f4 and no is sounds fine. It just needs good light and a faster shutter speed than the is versions! Only if you think you will use it all of the time and in poor light would I consider anything else at your stage in photography.

If you are thinking of bird and small animal photography, that is another whole ball game!
 
Probably not the best thing for your wallet but the way I looked at it was that I wanted to buy the best lens for any conditions that I may come across with the flexibility of a zoom. If its dark I'm good with a f2.8 and IS just for the times when hand holding is the only option. I was fortunate as the Mk 2 70-200 wasn't available so it was a lot cheaper than the new one but at £1250 some may not call that cheap. The downside is the lens is quite large and heavy and I'm not sure I would want to carry it around seaworld for the day or at a concert. I have been considering buying a superzoom 18-200 for those occasions after all seaworld everything is out in the open and very bright. A concert the artist and stage is usually illuminated very well so maybe its not that big an issue for those shots from the crowd photos.

I think buy right the first time i miles cheaper than buying something else after already splashing out a chunk of cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top