Body sorted. Lens decision...

[Ben:]

Hiii again
So thanks to the help of people of here I've decided to go for a 50d instead of a new 60d.
I will sell my 400d, 18-55mm, 28-200mm.
Which leaves me with my new 50mm f1.8 that I can use for portraits, flowers, still life and so on.
But nothing for wildlife, or anything futher away.
Not really sure on budget tbh...I'll save to get something worthwhile.
But something to replace my 28-200mm (which I've been told isn't very good )

Any suggestions?
Secondhand is fine

 

[AndyB1976]

Best bang for buck...........

Canon ef-s 55-250mm IS, or if I was buying again 70-200 f4L IS...only £700 price difference


Andy

 

[tris101]

I would be looking at canon 70-200 f4 with or without IS, 2nd hand saved a bit off the new price.

non IS £330-350 ish
IS £600-650 ish

I would also think about 17-50 tamron f2.8 as a walkabout lens its great lens at a cheap price.

 

[wontolla]

As already said above ^
If on a budget, 55-250mm IS
If a bit flush, 70-200mm F4L.
Iv'e managed to save enough for both!

 

[andyred]

Think I'd be looking at

55-250 IS
70-300 IS
70-200 F4 non IS
70-200 F ...... Onwards

Obviously this is down to budget. Good luck ..

 

[Ben:]

Thanks for the options everyone.
First thing I can see is the EF-S 55-250mm is reported to lack build quality, however if the images are promised to be of HIGH quality I guess this isn't an issue. Realistically how good is this lens? (in the right hands )

Next...I'd LOVE the EF 70-200mm L IS. From what I can see a truly high quality 'pro' lens.
I've found one on ebay, starting bid £250...4days left, I'll be watching closely!

The 70-300mm is quite appealing, better build quality, longer reach (currently I sometimes find 200mm too short) however how does the image quality compare to the 55-250mm?
[found one on ebay again, starting at £200, 4days left]

A lot of info there I know but any futher advice would be great.
Thanks.

 

[highpriest]

First thing I can see is the EF-S 55-250mm is reported to lack build quality, however if the images are promised to be of HIGH quality I guess this isn't an issue. Realistically how good is this lens? (in the right hands )

The 55-250 is the second "kit lens", so to speak, so the build/fit/finish will be a little on the cheaper side. Having said that, I have seen various people posting some amazing pictures taken by that lens. I can't personally vouch for it as I have never used it myself

I have used the 70-300 IS though and that produces some really nice images.

Cheers
HighPriest

 

[highpriest]

Here's a few samples from the 70-300 IS (on a 400D):

This one was shot through glass:

Cheers
HighPriest

 

[tris101]

The non IS 70-200 f4 is a really great lens, very sharp and well built. They don't really loss much in value so you could buy a 2nd now and upgrade the IS model in a year and not lose any money.

If the range is a bit short you can also get x1.4 and x2.0 TC for them.

 

[Ben:]

Wow they are clear images!
Any idea what focal length they were taken at?
As the problem with my current 28-200mm is that the images are 'soft' at a longer length.

 

[Ben:]

The non IS 70-200 f4 is a really great lens, very sharp and well built. They don't really loss much in value so you could buy a 2nd now and upgrade the IS model in a year and not lose any money.

If the range is a bit short you can also get x1.4 and x2.0 TC for them.

I had thought about a TC.
How much of a benefit is IS on a longer lens though?

 

[wontolla]

not on pc at the mo, so can't post pics, but I can assure you that the 55-250mm is one of those lenses that performs well above its price. its not an L lens, but nothing wrong with build quality! will try to post some pics later.

 

[highpriest]

Any idea what focal length they were taken at?

I thought the exif was intact on those images

Anyway...

Picture 1: 280mm, 1/320, f/5.6, ISO 400
Picture 2: 240mm, 1/60, f/5.6, ISO 400
Picture 3: 140mm, 1/200, f/5, ISO 400

Cheers

 

[Ben:]

Oh sorry, how do I see/find the exif for future reference?
Wow so even at 280mm it can produce a fairly crisp image.
Thanks alot.

 

[tris101]

I guess it depends on what you are shooting.

If the shutter speed is high IS is not very important, also IS won't stop motion blur of fast sports. If panning quite a few people turn it off, it does have a panning mode but some don’t like it.

The longer the lens the more you notice the benefit of IS when handholding.

One day I will upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8 MkII, I will have had the use my F4 IS until then and I should be able to sell it for about what I paid for it. It seems like a good deal to me.

 

[highpriest]

I use an add-on called FxIF on Firefox and an extension called EXIF Viewer on Chrome. Works very well!

And yes, my copy was very sharp even at 300mm, wide open. I sold it recently though :bonk:

Cheers

 

[Ben:]

I guess it depends on what you are shooting.

If the shutter speed is high IS is not very important, also IS won't stop motion blur of fast sports. If panning quite a few people turn it off, it does have a panning mode but some don’t like it.

The longer the lens the more you notice the benefit of IS when handholding.

One day I will upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8 MkII, I will have had the use my F4 IS until then and I should be able to sell it for about what I paid for it. It seems like a good deal to me.

Found a non IS lens for £300 on ebay, still 2days left.
If I bought a non IS I would just make sure I used a tripod where possible.

I use an add-on called FxIF on Firefox and an extension called EXIF Viewer on Chrome. Works very well!

And yes, my copy was very sharp even at 300mm, wide open. I sold it recently though :bonk:

Cheers

Thanks! I'm now downloading chrome and will get EXIF viewer.
Shame you sold yours already!

 

[Mark_C]

I would think the 70-200mm f/4 without the IS would be a nice addition to your collection if money is an issue. They're small, light and take very sharp photos in good light.

 

[Ben:]

Thanks! I'm now downloading chrome and will get EXIF viewer.

Downloaded Chrome and a exif reader extension...Do I need to right click a image to view exif data or what? :\

 

[hashcake]

A 70-300 IS would serve you well if can't wait to save up but if you can, I would set my sights on a Canon 100-400L.
My 70-200L IS f/4 never ceased to amaze me with the IQ and paired with a 1.4x extender, the loss in IQ was minimal.
On a trip to Alaska last year, I was very pleased with the results but there were plenty of times I was kicking myself for not having a 100-400L
If you want to shoot small birds on a feeder then fine and many members here have had plenty of success shooting them in the wilde but ulitmately, there will be plenty of times you will be kicking yourself for not having more reach.

 

[Ben:]

Wow, now you are talking professional and money!
However, once I buy a new body I will be in no rush to buy a new lens.
I can use my 50mm and my current 28-200mm for the time being.
Just looked at the 100-400mm L and it looks/reads to be great. Certainly something to think about for later this year.
Thanks for your input

 

[hashcake]

Wow, now you are talking professional and money!

The 50D is in the realms of a 'semi pro' body (well it was before the 7D came along )

 

[Ben:]

What are you suggesting? It's a good choice? or not?

 

[artyman]

For most wildlife photography, not including zoos, focal length is the prime requirement, 400mmm plus. A cheaper alternative to the Canoon 100-400 are the offerings by Sigma, 120-400 and 150-500. Sigma also does the new 50-500 OS but that is getting into Canon price territory. I've found my 150-550 to be an excellent birding lens.

http://SPAM/c3whur/feb/IMG_4262.jpg

 

[Ben:]

Hey thanks alot for this info Ken!
I'll certainly give them all a look in detail tomorrow.

 

[hashcake]

What are you suggesting? It's a good choice? or not?

It's a very good choice, I own one.
I meant in respect of the term 'semi pro'.

 

[hashcake]

I know artyman favours this lens and I wouldn't argue with him, it does produce very good results.
I was tempted to buy one myself but as as with a previous Sigma lens I considered, the QA issue concerned me.
In a thread I started, another member posted that he bought a new 150-500 OS and had to take it back for a replacement due to a focussing issue.
This lens appears here in the classified section for a good price and if you were to consider it, you would be safe in knowing it should be a good copy.

I'm not trying to put you off the idea of going for a Sigma, many people are or have been happy with them.
I recently discoved that fabs has owned many without any problems.
I just wanted you to be aware

 

[Ben:]

It's a very good choice, I own one.
I meant in respect of the term 'semi pro'.

I know artyman favours this lens and I wouldn't argue with him, it does produce very good results.
I was tempted to buy one myself but as as with a previous Sigma lens I considered, the QA issue concerned me.
In a thread I started, another member posted that he bought a new 150-500 OS and had to take it back for a replacement due to a focussing issue.
This lens appears here in the classified section for a good price and if you were to consider it, you would be safe in knowing it should be a good copy.

I'm not trying to put you off the idea of going for a Sigma, many people are or have been happy with them.
I recently discoved that fabs has owned many without any problems.
I just wanted you to be aware

Ok thanks alot for this I'll be looking into some of the Sigma lenses as well as Canon

 

[Ben:]

Just been reading into the Canoon 100-400 and at f4/f5.6 I think its too slow for the money.
I know the extra length is nice but with f4 on the 70-200mm its currently winning
Sigma lens now...(researching)

 

[tris101]

If you are looking at the sigma range, read some reviews of these lenses:

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm
Sigma 100-300 f4 ex dg hsm
Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 dg os hsm

All well rated and priced.

Most still prefer the canon 70-200 and canon 100-400 but they cost more.

 

[Ben:]

If you are looking at the sigma range, read some reviews of these lenses:

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm
Sigma 100-300 f4 ex dg hsm
Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 dg os hsm

All well rated and priced.

Most still prefer the canon 70-200 and canon 100-400 but they cost more.

That is very appealing! For the 2ndhand price and f2.8.
Much better than the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens and Canon EF 70-200mm F4 L USM Lens

 

[hashcake]

Just been reading into the Canoon 100-400 and at f4/f5.6 I think its too slow for the money.
I know the extra length is nice but with f4 on the 70-200mm its currently winning
Sigma lens now...(researching)

Too slow for the money?
It's a very popular choice for sports and birds in flight and most birds are hardly slow flyers.
Plenty of members here are into those types of photography and use this lens.
The Sigma 150-500mm OS is f/5-6.3 and therefore slower than the Canon 100-400L and this is very popular lens as well for those reasons.
However, if neither of those appeal to you then fair enough.
You won't go wrong with a 70-200L but think carefully about your needs when it comes to wildlife.

 

[hashcake]

That is very appealing! For the 2ndhand price and f2.8

If you are on a tight budget then fair enough but the Canon 70-200 will **** over those when it comes to IQ.
Again, if you are not after the best IQ then it won't bother you.
Also bear in mind that the Sigma 150-500 is the only one with OS and with OS / IS you can gain an extra stop shooting hand held.

I'm sure you will be happy with your choice and perhaps you are not as heavily into wildlife like I am, I just don't want to see someone make the same pitfalls I did when it comes to going through a few lenses to reach a perfect solution as I did.

 

[Ben:]

Thanks very much for making these points.
To be honest, image quality is my main concern.
I'm currently using a 28-200mm and the images are far to soft!
Maybe I'm getting to narrow minded about the aperture.
If as you say the 'Canon 70-200 will **** over those when it comes to IQ'
This will be the preferred option...but then there's the length issue as you also stated.
So how does the Canon 70-200 compare to the 100-400L in overall performance?

EDIT: I've just seen the 2nd hand price for a 100-400L and I'll be honest, I can't be spending that amount of money on this hobby.
Maybe the 70-200mm is the way to go.

 

[tris101]

The canon 70-200 is sharper than the 100-400 over the same range.

I have seen very good sharp images produced with both the sigma 70-200 and 100-300. I would research them before you discount them.

 

[hashcake]

The canon 70-200 is sharper than the 100-400 over the same range.

Indeed, the 70-200L IS F/4 IS is often rated as the sharpest zoom lens Canon produce.

I have seen very good sharp images produced with both the sigma 70-200 and 100-300. I would research them before you discount them.

As I said above, I have no idea what his budget is but if he can stretch to the 70-200 IS f/4, there is very little chance he will hanker after another lens in that zoom range.
It's a case of what one can afford but after going through a Tamron 70-300, Canon 55-250 IS, Tamron 18-270VC, Canon 70-200L IS f4 and finally settling for the 100-400L and knowing this lens will will be with me for a very long time, in hindsight if I had waited, I would have saved a fair amount of money.
Perhaps I am an exception going through so many lenses and I only have myself to blame because right from the start I knew I wanted to get into all types of wildlife.

 

[Les Key]

We have the older version Sigma 50-500 EX its the none IS and quite a heavy beasty for hand holding but my son has been getting some cracking Equestrian shots with it. In comparison with my Canon 100-400 at same distances they are on a par with each other for sharpness. Both used on 50d's The only thing we did notice was the colour differences but with playing around and tweeking the camera settings (contrast) there is very little to tell now.
I would reccomend you take a look at one.

 

[Scotty Pro]

I have the 70-200 F4 L IS and its awesome, and I tell you something its not that heavy either, when attached to a 40D it balances out nicely.

On the other hand with the warmer weather coming up I'm sorely tempted into getting a Bigma for the reach.

 

[Ben:]

We have the older version Sigma 50-500 EX its the none IS and quite a heavy beasty for hand holding but my son has been getting some cracking Equestrian shots with it. In comparison with my Canon 100-400 at same distances they are on a par with each other for sharpness. Both used on 50d's The only thing we did notice was the colour differences but with playing around and tweeking the camera settings (contrast) there is very little to tell now.
I would reccomend you take a look at one.

A Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 dg os hsm?

 

[tris101]

What type of wildlife are you going to take photos of? What else do you want to take photos of with the zoom.

Do you need 300-500mm? If so this helps to narrow your choice.

Are you going to take photos in darkly light areas? If so F stop is important

Do you want to take photos of fast paced sports? If so F stop is important

What’s your maximum budget? This might narrow your choice.