Telephoto dilemma

S

Steve W

Messages
266
Edit My Images
No
HI,

I'm looking at buying a telephoto lens to go with my 450d and the standard 18-55 kit lens (I would also like to replace this at some point money permitting :) ). I've been looking at the 70-200L f4 IS / 100-400L f4, however these lens are not cheap (although I'm sure the results are worth it).

So I'm thinking, shall I go for say the 55-250mm IS or the 70-300 IS lens as sort of stepping stones to the 'L' series glass.

What do people think? Has anyone been in this situation, if so what would they recommend? Would they do it differently if they could do it again?

What do people think of the 55-250 and 70-300 lens, are they good for the money?

Any advice much appreciated

Ta
 
I'd take a look at the non-IS F/4 canon. If i was ever to change my sigma it would be up to that lens (assuming i dont go full frame before that)
 
After using my Lumix TZ3 for a long time I bought the 450 at the beginning of the year to at first, take images through my telescope of galaxies / nebula / planets.

Once I had the dslr I found it to be far superior to the TZ3 (which is a great point and shoot), but missed the 10x optial zoom of the TZ3.

TinaC said:
What do you photograph?
Click to expand...
Very good question, when I was in Cornwall in May I found the 18-55 was not long enough when I was trying to take images of the coast line, picking out certain features in the rocks and taking pictures of sea birds.

daugirdas said:
What exactly is wrong with 70-200mm f/4 L non-IS
Click to expand...
Either my technique is wrong or my hands are not very steady :bonk:. I was using a friends Non IS telephone lens and I found a number, (well most) of the images were blurred when I got back home :( plus I don't really want to carry a tripod around right now as I think too much stuff at this stage may put me off - If that makes sense :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Sorry,

It may be a basic type question/advice needed, but just wondering if someone could help or steer me in the right direction. :)

Cheers
 
Your original question re the 55-250 and 70-300 IS, yes both are good. Obviously the 70-300 is better but the 55-250 is really exceptional value, and very light.

Unless you have got steady hands, I wouldn't get a non-IS lens. The extra image quality you get with a L lens is nothing compared to what you might throw away through camera shake.
 
HoppyUK said:
Unless you have got steady hands, I wouldn't get a non-IS lens. The extra image quality you get with a L lens is nothing compared to what you might throw away through camera shake.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight. That is my concern with non-IS, yes the 70-200 is great value for money and has great quality, but without IS I think I'll end up disappointed with the results is half of the images are blurred
 
If your subjects moving IS wont help you - you need to have a high enough shutter speed to stop subject blur - can you post one of you failed shots ?
 
HoppyUK said:
Unless you have got steady hands, I wouldn't get a non-IS lens. The extra image quality you get with a L lens is nothing compared to what you might throw away through camera shake.
Click to expand...

Sorry Hoppy :nono:

You and I know that an understanding of the circle of confusion and in-field common sense on stabilizing techniques far exceeds IS.

OP, if you don't know how to get the shot you need without IS then you need to learn how to first, I am personally very shaky, but don't have an IS lens :shrug:

3 meters high and 4 meters away with my 70-200mm f/4 non IS after loads of fresh coffee :D

Cat stuck in wall by perfectspeedphotography, on Flickr
 
PerfectSpeed said:
Sorry Hoppy :nono:

You and I know that an understanding of the circle of confusion and in-field common sense on stabilizing techniques far exceeds IS.

<snip>
Click to expand...

With respect, yes I do, and no it doesn't.

IS is arguably the most significant contributer to improved image sharpness ever. It costs very little, works brilliantly, and there are no downsides. Almost every new lens produced today has it, for good reason.

To argue that it is not hugely beneficial, especially for someone with shakey hands, and that good hand-holding technique can better it, is not born out in practise.
 
1/400s or faster and you need to make some very good effort to get blurry photos. So no you don't need IS unless you have parkinson's or similar. If you do shake it hard enough IS won't help any more. It is one of those things that are nice to have as long as the loss of IQ and cash is not too punitive.
 
HoppyUK said:
With respect, yes I do, and no it doesn't.

IS is arguably the most significant contributer to improved image sharpness ever.
Click to expand...
Would it improve my posted shot, the cat was thrashing about in this shot? I don't have or have shot IS, not even sure when it would come in handy.
 
daugirdas said:
1/400s or faster and you need to make some very good effort to get blurry photos. So no you don't need IS unless you have parkinson's or similar. If you do shake it hard enough IS won't help any more. It is one of those things that are nice to have as long as the loss of IQ and cash is not too punitive.
Click to expand...

All nonsense. Every word.
 
i must agree with above.i have to 100-400l lens for wildlife and motorsport.and with the shots im taking the IS is of no benefit as my shutter speed is ALWAYS in the region of 1/500 or well above even on a dull day,although i suppose it depends what your shooting.
 
Fortuntely I don't have Parkinson's and fairly steady hands but still find I need IS to get crisp sharp shots.

I have a 70-300mm IS USM lens and with the IS switched off at 300mm I would need at least 1/1000 sec to get reasonable shots.

Don't forget that with a 1.6 crop that 300mm is the equivalent of a 420mm on a FF camera, so using the old formula I should be using an exposure of at least 1/500 sec to ensure sharp pics.

So regardless of those who can take pics at low speed and no blur, I'll stick to IS and vastly increase my chances of getting a good shot.

.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
Would it improve my posted shot, the cat was thrashing about in this shot? I don't have or have shot IS, not even sure when it would come in handy.
Click to expand...

Really, you should try IS before saying it isn't worthwhile. This just isn't a debate worth having.

Here's a link showing what IS does for you. The evidence is clear as day http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/is.html This is an old review, and current IS systems are much better still.

There are no optical downsides to IS, and the extra cost is insignificant. The two lenses suggested to the OP (Canon 55-250 and 70-4300 IS) are both very good value.

I'm at a loss as to why some folks argue against the benefits of IS.
 
petersmart said:
Fortuntely I don't have Parkinson's and fairly steady hands but still find I need IS to get crisp sharp shots.

I have a 70-300mm IS USM lens and with the IS switched off at 300mm I would need at least 1/1000 sec to get reasonable shots.
.
Click to expand...
Better lens springs to mind, it's sort of OK for shooting stationary subjects without a tripod.

It's a consumer lens f/4-5.6 IS USM :shrug:
 
daugirdas, I wouldn't worry about it, Hoppy is one of these gents who insists that to get sharp images on any lens longer than a pinhead you absolutely must have IS.


HoppyUK said:
I'm at a loss as to why some folks argue against the benefits of IS.
Click to expand...

Applications which require the use of very fast shutter speeds will render IS obsolete right on the spot.
If said application is the only use for the lens, well, you work out the rest. It's like paying for four wheel drive when all you use the car for is the 5 minute journey to work down the road.

We've been through this before though, and since it's late I won't try my luck again...
 
Last edited:
PerfectSpeed said:
Better lens springs to mind, it's sort of OK for shooting stationary subjects without a tripod.

It's a consumer lens f/4-5.6 IS USM :shrug:
Click to expand...

It is also a discontinued lens now. It may be OK, as long as one can deal with a slow f/5.6 aperture (vs. 2.8 or 4 and 2x or 2x faster shutter), soft 300mm (200mm extrapolated from L zoom is better), more CA, heavy blue fringe, and far inferior build quality. It does have IS, but as mentioned it won't help to take a shot of robin in the woods, nor a moving deer or a dog.

Have I tested IS? Yes, I would want want for as long it didn't cost 2x more for the equivalent L. I can't justify that in any way for as long as there is any other thing that I want to buy.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
Could you better my shot with IS :D

Didn't think so, and I didn't even have to wait for your reply :p
Click to expand...

How can Hoppy answer that if he doesn't know the shutter speed you used?

We all have our personal limits when it comes to hand holding at,slow shutter speeds, but no mattem how good you are, the point at which you fail, is the point at which IS steps in and saves the shot.

I just don' t see anything to argue about. :shrug:
 
daugirdas said:
It is also a discontinued lens now. It may be OK, as long as one can deal with a slow f/5.6 aperture (vs. 2.8 or 4 and 2x or 2x faster shutter), soft 300mm (200mm extrapolated from L zoom is better), more CA, heavy blue fringe, and far inferior build quality. It does have IS, but as mentioned it won't help to take a shot of robin in the woods, nor a moving deer or a dog.

Have I tested IS? Yes, I would want want for as long it didn't cost 2x more for the equivalent L. I can't justify that in any way for as long as there is any other thing that I want to buy.
Click to expand...

Which lenses cost 2x more with IS? Apart from absolutely none, you can only be referring to the Canon 70-200L range where the IS versions are indeed substantially more expensive.

However, they are not the same lenses. They might look similar but they are completely different optically and the IS versions are better, and they are very substantially changed mechanically with weather-sealing and circular apertures etc.

The evidence is actually that IS adds diddly to the cost of a lens. I can't think of any absolutely direct comparisons, but the nearest I can think of is the Canon 17-55 2.8 and the Nikon lens of identical spec. The Canon version has IS, and is in fact cheaper.

Why don't you guys go and argue with the Bob Atkins link I posted above?
 
CT said:
How can Hoppy answer that if he doesn't know the shutter speed you used?

We all have our personal limits when it comes to hand holding at,slow shutter speeds, but no mattem how good you are, the point at which you fail, is the point at which IS steps in and saves the shot.

I just don' t see anything to argue about. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
That' s not a dark part of a market btw, the lady is standing in full sunshine, the only shade being from tbe brim of her hat, so it's not the best image you could have put forward in support of your argument - nice though it is. ;)
 
CT said:
How can Hoppy answer that if he doesn't know the shutter speed you used?
Click to expand...
He understands the COF and could quit easily replicate this shot without IS, metering left out of this.

Your aperture required, choose SS needed, adjust ISO for exposure, it's 1.2.3. photography 101. :shrug:
 
4923605858_9c34c6ae96_z.jpg


1/125s f/4. The lion was walking towards me.

How would f/5.6 IS lens help to take a 'better' picture? ISO would be at least double for sure, AF would get really slow.
 
CT said:
That' s not a dark part of a market btw, the lady is standing in full sunshine, the only shade being from tbe brim of her hat, so it's not the best image you could have put forward in support of your argument - nice though it is. ;)
Click to expand...
She was in shade, I do understand exposure, and spot and compensate to regularize shadows and highlights to make it look OK, the only reason I got this shot was because she was not in full sun.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
She was in shade, I do understand exposure, and spot and compensate to regularize shadows and highlights to make it look OK, the only reason I got this shot was because she was not in full sun.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry,but the lady is very clearly in full sunshine, nothing else could be throwing that shadow on her face unless there's a spotlight trained on her.

No-one has posted an image in this thread so far which is remotely pertinent to the IS question - they're all taken in good sunlight.

I feel Hoppy's frustration - it's sometimes very difficult to wade through the blancmange of misinformation which surrounds the use of IS - usually from people who have no experience of it, reckon they don't need it or simply can't afford it. This isn't lens snobbery - IS is simply the biggest advance in lens technology since autofocus, and it's no gimmick, I wish all my lenses had it.

Put simply, IS adds (let's be conservative because things are improving all the while) 2 stops advantage to the shutter speed at which you could normally safely hand hold a given camera/lens combo regardless of how good you are and how slow you can usually go.

The advantage is obvious as light levels drop. It depends what sort of photography you do - you either need it or you don't, but if you don't need it just accept that there there are many others who do.
 
CT said:
I'm sorry,but the lady is very clearly in full sunshine, nothing else could be throwing that shadow on her face unless there's a spotlight trained on her.
Click to expand...
I'm quite chuffed your perplexed with this concept :)

It's sort of a complement :thumbs:
 
PerfectSpeed said:
I'm quite chuffed your perplexed with this concept :)

It's sort of a complement :thumbs:
Click to expand...

LOL. I have the evidence of my own eyes. ;)

However back to the subject at hand. Every post you guys make Steve, misses out the only two relevant pieces of information - what was the focal length of the lens - what was the shutter speed?
 
If budget is a factor, which from what you say in your original post, it is, then have you considered the Sigma 150-500, an excellent lens for the money has an awesome OS system.

http://SPAM/c3whur/mar/Img_1713.jpg
 
Good responses on the the subject of IS :)

With non-IS I guess you need a faster lens to compensate?

Dogfish_magnet said:
If your subjects moving IS wont help you - you need to have a high enough shutter speed to stop subject blur - can you post one of you failed shots ?
Click to expand...

Here is the image I took at 300mm using the 75-300mm non-is lens. This was one of the better ones (the rest I have deleted). Saying that, some shots were pin sharp, just the percentage was low.

IMG_0263.jpg


Thoughts ??

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Only the OP knows if IS is worth the extra £400 it costs on the 70-200mm Lens over the non-IS version, if he's shooting static objects in poor light it may be (or he could use a tripod) or if hes shooting moving objects in light that allows a suitable shutter speed it probably isn't - and for a extra £100 you could get the f2.8 non IS version which would probably be more suitable for non-static objects.

IS is excellent but when funds are tight your shooting style & subject matter may not benefit from it.


The lens you were using in that sample shot (100-300) is not one of Canon's finest creations ;) and you were sooting it at 300mm so there will be inherent softness, also you could probably done with a higher shutter speed to freeze any movement of the ducks head.
 
Last edited:
My only concern is I buy the non-IS L glass and find that most of my shots are blurred and get down heartened and then stop using the lens.

If there is a way I can learn to avoid this great!

I assume you need a faster lens to help avoid shake, say the 70-200 L f2.8 as you can use a faster shutter speed with it, or am I wrong here??
 
Steve W said:
My only concern is I buy the non-IS L glass and find that most of my shots are blurred and get down heartened and then stop using the lens.

If there is a way I can learn to avoid this great!

I assume you need a faster lens to help avoid shake, say the 70-200 L f2.8 as you can use a faster shutter speed with it, or am I wrong here??
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb is crop * focal length = min shutter speed to stop camera shake - you may need a higher shutter speed to freeze the action or stop subject movement blur
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top