Telephoto dilemma

If you are anywhere near Cornwall - you are quite welcome to try mine and my 150-500mm which has IS
 
daugirdas said:
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.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a total misunderstanding here - are you saying that IS would have been no good because the subject is moving slowly?

IS has no impact on subject movement it only compensates for small movements on the part of the photographer.

.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
The rule of thumb is crop * focal length = min shutter speed
Click to expand...

So do you mean 1.6 (450d body) * 300 = 480, so shutter speed should be at least 1/480 sec ?

The duck image I posted was at 300mm, 1/400, ISO400. So is that why it is slightly blurred?
 
CT said:
but if you don't need it just accept that there there are many others who do.
Click to expand...

And the inverse works for the person(s?) in this thread insisting that everyone should have IS. It works both ways mate ;)


petersmart said:
There seems to be a total misunderstanding here - are you saying that IS would have been no good because the subject is moving slowly?

IS has no impact on subject movement it only compensates for small movements on the part of the photographer.

.
Click to expand...

I think it's more likely that he's saying IS would have been no use because there is subject movement. Any time there is subject movement, IS automatically becomes redundant; and there are a lot of people out there who shoot moving things.
 
Last edited:
Steve W;2971106]So do you mean 1.6 (450d body) * 300 = 480, so shutter speed should be at least 1/480 sec ?
Yes :thumbs:

The duck image I posted was at 300mm, 1/400, ISO400. So is that why it is slightly blurred?
Possibly - but if the duck was moving its head when you took the shot it probably would still have been blurred - even if you had taken the shot with a lens that had IS.
 
Last edited:
Steve W said:
So do you mean 1.6 (450d body) * 300 = 480, so shutter speed should be at least 1/480 sec ?

The duck image I posted was at 300mm, 1/400, ISO400. So is that why it is slightly blurred?
Click to expand...

It could be - or the duck could have moved slightly - or a combination of both.

.
 
Okay I understand, the higher the shutter speed the more likely you are to get less blur for obvious reasons.

Maybe there is somewhere that will allow me to rent to 70-200 non-is to see if I get on with it and make sure I use high shutter speeds.

When would you need a faster lens, say the 70-200 2.8L over the 70-200 4.0L ??
 
Steve W said:
When would you need a faster lens, say the 70-200 2.8L over the 70-200 4.0L ??
Click to expand...

When you can afford it :D

The F2.8 version would allow you to get higher shutter speeds at lower ISO's, brighter image in the viewfinder, on some Canon bodies the center focus point is more accurate with a f2.8 lens, better subject isolation with a smaller DOF, and better focusing in low light situations. - there's probably more

But its also a lot bigger and heavier so it also brings a new set of issues with it .
 
I'm always surprised that there are still people here that would argue with CT. His knowledge and more importantly, practical application of all things photographic is superb. Also, we do tend to agree on most things. ;)

On the original topic, learning good technique will improve your hit rate with a non IS lens dramatically. I like this option as improving ourselves is always better, cheaper and longer lasting than improving kit. That said, take an improved snapper and match them with improved kit and you win two fold. :)
 
Going back to the original question.... :)

What do people think of the 55-250 and 70-300 lenses ( I know they are not as good as the 'L' series). Should they be avoided because of quality issues or are they adequate for most situations ??
 
Steve W said:
Going back to the original question.... :)

What do people think of the 55-250 and 70-300 lenses ( I know they are not as good as the 'L' series). Should they be avoided because of quality issues or are they adequate for most situations ??
Click to expand...

cant help with the 55-250 , 70-300mm IS USM is a very good lens that punches above its price tag.
 
arad85 said:
Try looking here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

as there are comparative pictures between the lenses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I have read this (and about 100 others until I went :cuckoo:)

The images for the 70-300mm look great as do the images for the 55-250mm so for me its hard to tell. The 70-200 L images look much sharper though as you would expect for that lens.

Dogfish_magnet said:
i went from 70-300mm IS to the 70-200mm f4 and there was a noticeable difference in IQ.
Click to expand...

Would you recommend going down the same path? Did you get 70-200 f4 IS?

Ta
 
Steve W said:
Thanks for the link, I have read this (and about 100 others until I went :cuckoo:)

The images for the 70-300mm look great as do the images for the 55-250mm so for me its hard to tell. The 70-200 L images look much sharper though as you would expect for that lens.



Would you recommend going down the same path? Did you get 70-200 f4 IS?

Ta
Click to expand...

Hi i got the non-IS version - it depends on what you shoot - if you need above 200mm then there's only 1 candidate and 100mm is a lot to lose. (i had a sigma 150-500mm to cover the difference.)
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
it depends on what you shoot
Click to expand...

When you say that, forgive me for the seemingly silly question, but what falls into what category? Am I right is saying that:-

Motorsport, Planes and Wildlife would generally benefit less from IS as the subject is always moving and say landscapes would benefit?

If not which subjects would benefit more from IS and which maybe would it be less important ??

Thanks
 
Steve W said:
When you say that, forgive me for the seemingly silly question, but what falls into what category? Am I right is saying that:-

Motorsport, Planes and Wildlife would generally benefit less from IS as the subject is always moving and say landscapes would benefit?

If not which subjects would benefit more from IS and which maybe would it be less important ??

Thanks
Click to expand...

Focal length is probably more important to start with - you need to ask yourself if 200mm would allow you to capture the subjects you want to photograph or do you need that extra 100mm of the 70-300mm.
 
Steve W said:
When you say that, forgive me for the seemingly silly question, but what falls into what category? Am I right is saying that:-

Motorsport, Planes and Wildlife would generally benefit less from IS as the subject is always moving and say landscapes would benefit?

If not which subjects would benefit more from IS and which maybe would it be less important ??

Thanks
Click to expand...

Camera shake and IS are independent of the subject. It's all about focal length, which magnifies camera movement.

I think you know the 'effective focal length = shutter speed rule' which says that, at 300mm on your camera the longest speed that you can safely hand hold is 1/480sec. It's a very rough rule and some people can better it, and some can't even match it, but let's leave it there for sake of argument.

What this means is that whenever the shutter speeds dips below that level, which let's face it is quite often, you are in the lap of the Gods. But with IS, you will be able to run down to maybe 1/60sec and still be okay.

TBH I would just get the 70-300 IS if that's within budget. Or the 55-250 IS if not. You will appreciate the reach, which is where IS helps most.
 
Last edited:
Thanks,

I was about to say it quiet hard to know how much reach you need if you do not have a telephoto lens already.

Has anyone had both 55-250 and 70-300 - Is it worth spending the extra £200 and buying the 70-300?
 
Steve W said:
Thanks,

I was about to say it quiet hard to know how much reach you need if you do not have a telephoto lens already.

Has anyone had both 55-250 and 70-300 - Is it worth spending the extra £200 and buying the 70-300?
Click to expand...

With the subjects you have listed, you will need all the reach you can get. And IS will be an absolute boon. 100-400L is the lens of choice for planes, and even that tends to be too short for wildlife.

If you buy used (from the excellent for sale section here) you can resell for what you paid.
 
Steve W said:
Good responses on the the subject of IS :)

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



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
Click to expand...

I don't think this is about camera shake. OK There might be very little... The real problem is bad focusing, ie. the duck is completely out of focus, and the lens is very soft.

Focus it well with sharp glass and the problem is gone.
 
petersmart said:
There seems to be a total misunderstanding here - are you saying that IS would have been no good because the subject is moving slowly?

IS has no impact on subject movement it only compensates for small movements on the part of the photographer.

.
Click to expand...

Please read my post again. We are comparing 2 £300-400 lenses - sharp f/4 non-IS and consumer f/5.6 IS. The lion was taken at f/4 and was moving however slowly or quickly. 1/125s was marginal. At f/5.6 lion movement would have blurred the image, end of story. f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS would be a different story, and a different price altogether.
 
daugirdas said:
I don't think this is about camera shake. OK There might be very little... The real problem is bad focusing, ie. the duck is completely out of focus, and the lens is very soft.

Focus it well with sharp glass and the problem is gone.
Click to expand...

That duck image is awash with camera shake and IS would have fixed it without any question.

daugirdas said:
<snip>

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

<snip>
Click to expand...

It's a shame he stopped.

(Sorry! :D :lol: )
 
This one I think is a bit better, taken with the same lens at the same time, again at ISO400, 1/400, at 300mm

duck2.jpg
 
I've got Canon 70-300 IS and it is a great lens to work with. You only lose out between 55-69mm along with your 18-55 and i would rather have the extra reach compared to canon 55-250mm.

Use mine for all types of photography including sports. You can turn IS off if you want too.
I've also got 70-200mm L IS which is another great lens but costs loads more but always have a teleconverter attached to it for sports.

The L series lens is obviously a better pic but then you would expect that for a L series lens. Go for the 70-300mm if you can't afford an L series lens right now, you won't be disappointed
 
Thanks for the helpful information.

I'm going to borrow the 55-250 from a work friend for a few weeks and see I like the images it takes. He showed me few he took it whilst in Aus and they looked pretty good to me.

Cheers
 
IS/VR has its uses, though it is not the be all and end all.There are for more important factors for getting good wildlife shots that need to addressed before the is/vr debate.

Yes,I have VR and Non VR lenses.
 
fracster said:
IS/VR has its uses, though it is not the be all and end all.There are for more important factors for getting good wildlife shots that need to addressed before the is/vr debate.

Yes,I have VR and Non VR lenses.
Click to expand...

I agree, however if IS is there I have to option to use it should I wish. I guess I'm worried that if I buy say the 70-200 F4 L lens instead of the 70-300 IS, I may end up with lots of blurred images because of camera shake. I may well have to use the 70-300 with a shutter speed of 1/320 which may give me images that are too dark.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
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:
Click to expand...

I'm glad you know what you are talking about!
 
HoppyUK said:
That duck image is awash with camera shake and IS would have fixed it without any question.



It's a shame he stopped.

(Sorry! :D :lol: )
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top