What lenses for Canon 450D

DaelpixOutdoors

DaelpixOutdoors

Messages
1,805
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Thought I'd make a new thread regarding lenses since I'm not buying a full frame any more. With that being said, I'm looking to upgrade a couple of my lenses, making sure I can fit them to a full frame in case I buy one in the future.

At the moment I have the 18-55mm (non-IS), a 75-300mm f4-5.6 III and a 18-135mm lens. I also have a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM lens but there's something wrong with it.


I guess the 75-300mm lens is ok. These photos were taken with it. Photo details below each photo.
I think its best used in bright light.

The Swan and Tufted Duck are ok, but the Otter could have been better. It was taken around 90 feet. It was rather dark in colour (the photo).
In my opinion the lens isn't capable of taking good photos in the shade. I've taken quite a few but deleted them straight away because they were that rubbish.

I wouldn't mind a better lens for these things. I would like a fast lens to lock on small mammals and birds quick enough without missing the the shot. And I'd like something that I can get up and close with them.
Now, someone mentioned a Sigma 150-500mm lens. Would this suit my needs? And would it go well with the 450D?

I upgraded the 18-55mm kit lens to the 18-135mm lens, would this be ok for landscapes and general use? My kit lens seems to be better than this lens.


Now regarding a 50mm, what things could I shoot with the lens? I know that its a good lens for shooting portraits, but I'm not interested in them at the moment, and I may not even take portraits. Is it worth buying one?

I wouldn't mind a macro lens too (getting expensive now). I would like one for shooting trout and salmon flies but also flowers, any ideas?






20.01.11 by DaelPix, on Flickr @ 260mm f/7.1 1/400


Tufted Duck by DaelPix, on Flickr @ 300mm f/7.1 1/400


Deer by DaelPix, on Flickr @ 135mm f/7.1 1/160


Otter 3 by DaelPix, on Flickr @ 300mm f/5.6 1/400
 
Last edited:
The Tamron 105mm macro is very sharp and fast lens though auto focus can be a little troublesome in low light. Though not sure it will have the focal length you require. Have a look on here as there is a thread talking about the long focal lenses from tamron and sigma.

As for 50mm 1.8 it is also fast and very sharp. Though since getting 105mm I been finding I use that for portrait. But it is so cheap worth having any way, street photography would work great as got good bokeh.
 
I could buy a teleconverter couldn't I for the sigma if I didn't like the zoom range?
 
With regards to the 150-500. It is a great lens a did you get a good copy ,nice and sharp. However it also like good light at 500mm you are at f/6.3 wide open. It's sharpest setting is f/8. As to the 50 mm, I've got one it's sharp and cheap, however I find the length awkward on a crop so hardly ever use it. Tape your kit lens at 50mm and see for yourself
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
With regards to the 150-500. It is a great lens a did you get a good copy ,nice and sharp. However it also like good light at 500mm you are at f/6.3 wide open. It's sharpest setting is f/8. As to the 50 mm, I've got one it's sharp and cheap, however I find the length awkward on a crop so hardly ever use it. Tape your kit lens at 50mm and see for yourself
Click to expand...

Already done this last year :)
 
This really depends on your budget and what you want to shoot - and of course what the lighting is like.
From above it looks like you like to shoot wildlife. In good light then you've probably got what you need with the 75-300 but if you need more reach on a budget then the 150-500 may be worth considering. In lower light conditions though you're going to have to spend a lot more to get an f2.8 lens, maybe 70-200 or 300 prime, either could then be used with teleconverters for extra reach whilst maintaining autofocus.
 
I usually tell people that when buying a new lens to only buy one when you find your unable to capture the images your trying to get.
Your kit lens is extremely versatile bit of kit.
For close up/macro if its something you only do occasionally,it could be well worth investing in some close up filters available cheaply on certain auction sites or can be picked up at camera fairs s/h.
In good light the Sigma 150-500mm will do a Stirling job for you,it's versatile and when I had mine it worked extremely well on a crop sensor body for close up images, giving you a excellent working distance if shooting insects etc.
It also would work on a full frame camera should the opportunity arise in the future.
As for upgrading standard or ultra wide with future FF compatibility.
Sigma,Tamron and Tokina also make some stunning glass with big savings over O.M. Glass.
As much as we would all like L or ED glass in our kit along with a top flight camera it's not in everyone's budget and its not needed.
Buy the best glass you can afford as you probably won't need to upgrade your glassware in the future.
And it will leave you with extra cash to upgrade your camera body in the future :naughty:

As for the humble 50mm it's probably the most developed optic out there that you can buy.
For decades most cameras came with a 50mm as standard hence all manufactures really put a lot of money into its development.
It sharp,fast and light in most cases, can be used in poor lighting conditions without flash and can be used with close up filters/extension tubes or teleconverters for close up work.
 
Last edited:
Duncan
I've taken a bit of wildlife. I mostly take landscapes really, but I do like taking shots of wildlife, I was interested in taking shots of 'birds in flight' and I'm still determined to do so. The photo below is my best one so far!


Phil
Do you have any samples taken from your crop sensor with the 150-500mm lens?

I wish I had the whole photo of the otter, because the photo was cropped then I could judge whether or not the Sigma would be appropriate for what I want.



gull1 by DaelPix, on Flickr @300mm f5.6 1/1600
 
Hi Dael_Pix, I've got a couple of shots taken with a crop sensor and a Sigma 150-500 and there's a few more on my Flickr account if you want to have a look. I love my Sigma 150-500, I've had it for a couple of years and got some great shots with it and it's light years ahead of the Canon 75-300 MkIII I had (the 75-300 MkIII was THE worst lens optically that I've ever had) but it does take a bit of getting used to because of the weight and size, I found putting a grip on the body helped balance the weight better.

This is from a 7D, it's a Jpeg SOOC and has been cropped but had no other PP. 1/1250, f9, ISO400 and 500mm.

Sparrow or Dunnock ? by modchild, on Flickr

And this one was taken with a 550D, again it's a Jpeg SOOC with no other PP apart from a crop. 1/1250, f6.3 (wide open for this lens), ISO100 and 500mm.

Sparrow by modchild, on Flickr
 
I've been reading posts from other people on the internet regarding the lens that its soft at 500mm. Is this true or not?
 
I was going to go out with my telephoto and kit lens set at 50mm today but its been peeing it down all day. Hope we can some dry weather tomorrow.
 
As above the big Sigmas are fine if you get a good copy I had the 120-400 on my 450D for 2 seasons and it served me well but the AF is not as fast as my L lenses they lock on very quickly and are better in low light but they cost a lot more.

Re using a converter on the big Sigma they will not AF but that's not a prob if you are focusing manually
 
Hmm I didn't know that if you fitted a teleconverter that it wouldn't auto focus. I don't think I would be able to handle manual focusing all the time.
 
My 18-55mm kit lens is loose and I can move it side to side. It annoys me when I'm using it. Maybe a new one would be better (preferably with IS too!!!) Unless of course I decide to go for the 50mm, then I could add macro filters on to it. Unless, I buy a proper macro lens.
 
Landscape and general use, I can recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non vc to replace the kit lens. I used one on my 450d as a general walkabout lens and you can pick them up relatively cheap second hand. Not going to help you with the wildlife shots though!

J
 
I think I'm going to take the plunge and buy the Sigma 150-500mm.
 
Last edited:
I used the 15-85 on my 600d and it's a great lens for landscapes, also the 70-200 which again is a great lens but I find ot stopping short of the focal length I'd like, as you I've been edging towards the sigma.
 
Thought I'd post a couple of links that you may have seen but they simulate focal length so you can actually visualise the difference.

http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/simulator

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/focal-length-simulator/


I wasn't going to offer any advice on lenses but some things to think about are:

Sell the 18-135 and 18-55 and buy a 17-50 f2.8 lens. Optically better and constant f2.8 gives a lot of flexibility. A good all rounder and wide enough for many shots although I note you have the sigma 10-20 if you need to go wider.

Shooting long without compromise is an expensive business as I'm sure you know- given what you say about challenging lighting conditions, I'm not convinced the Sigma 150-500 or a 50-500 would be the right move- more reach yes but very slow at the long end- slower than what you have although the rest of the lens may be better. A Canon 300mm f4 could be a better option and you could use a 1.4 teleconverter for extra reach- wont be as far but you would only lose a stop of light so still faster and would AF. If you really got into wildlife then I would think about long f2.8 lenses or 500mm f4 etc.

Same with macro- a set of extension tubes while not a substitute for a macro lens are a cheaper way to at least check out the genre. Canon do a great macro lens that I wished Nikon would replicate- the MP-E. The Tamron 90mm is a good alternative and can be used for portraits too- as can any lens obviously but it's a reasonably pleasing focal length in terms of flattening the face etc.

Personally if landscapes are your staple, I'd fix your Sigma and tackle them first. Make do with your 75-300 and maybe get a set of extension tubes to try macro. Decide upon wildlife or macro and act accordingly. Either way I would change 1 thing first rather than doing everything at once but you need to do what's right for you. Just remember it's easy to blow a stack of cash in photography and not achieve any of your original objectives.
 
I only bought the 18-135mm last year 2nd hand and I'm not planning on selling it just yet.

To be honest I want a good lens to capture great images of birds/mammals to matter how big or small they are and also a lens for macro shots of flowers and other 'macro' things.

If using a teleconverter, doesn't it lose image quality, making them less sharp?
If I bought a 300mm and used a 1.4 teleconverter, what focal range does it make it? It looks like a great lens, but it's a little too expensive for me.


I've just been out taking photos with my 18-55mm set to 50mm and I seem to like it. I'll put the photos on my Flickr when I've processed them. I may buy a 50mm, But which one?

I also took my 75-300mm lens with me and shot some things. I included someone jogging and I judged it to where the sea meets the road on holiday where I shot the otter from and I think the 150-500mm lens would suit my needs.
 
Dael_Pix said:
...
I've just been out taking photos with my 18-55mm set to 50mm and I seem to like it. I'll put the photos on my Flickr when I've processed them. I may buy a 50mm, But which one?
....
Click to expand...
I have both a nifty 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4. The 1.4 is a much better build but both take great pictures. Obviously low light is better with the 1.4 but the 1.8 is great value for money, you can get one SH for around £60 or so.
 
Dael_Pix said:
If using a teleconverter, doesn't it lose image quality, making them less sharp?
If I bought a 300mm and used a 1.4 teleconverter, what focal range does it make it? It looks like a great lens, but it's a little too expensive for me.
Click to expand...

I've got a Canon 2x MkIII converter and also a Kenko Pro300 DGX 1.4x converter and while you do lose some IQ you dont lose too much. You do lose 1 stop with a 1.4x and 2 stops with a 2x, I use my 2x on my 70-200 f2.8L IS II which comes out at a 140-400 f5.6 but it still gives me very good IQ and AF speed. With the Kenko 1.4x it's similar, you don't lose a lot of IQ or AF speed and IMO the positives outweigh the negatives, but you do need good quality, and preferably fast, lenses for them.

With a 300mm lens and a 1.4x converter you would end up with a total FL of 420mm (300/10=30 x 4 + 300) but you would then get an equivalent field of view of a 672mm lens on a 35mm camera (Full Frame eg 5D3 or 1Dx). I've been using my 300 f4L IS and Kenko converter on my 70D quite a bit recently for shooting some local wildlife and birds and I'm getting some great shots despite the poor weather we're having.
 
To be honest I think I would rather buy the 150-500mm because if I buy a lens and a converter it'll come out more expensive.
 
It's a shame you're so far from me or you could of had a trip over and given the 150-500 a try out, or the 300 f4L IS and a converter to see what you think. The 150-500 is a great lens though, most of them seem better quality now than they were a couple of years ago so your chances of getting a good copy have increased a lot (QC for a friday afternoon wasn't too good a while ago). I'll keep an eye out for your pics in a few weeks, it'll take you a short while to get used to it, but I'm sure you'll love it.
 
modchild said:
It's a shame you're so far from me or you could of had a trip over and given the 150-500 a try out, or the 300 f4L IS and a converter to see what you think. The 150-500 is a great lens though, most of them seem better quality now than they were a couple of years ago so your chances of getting a good copy have increased a lot (QC for a friday afternoon wasn't too good a while ago). I'll keep an eye out for your pics in a few weeks, it'll take you a short while to get used to it, but I'm sure you'll love it.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a shame. We're only 90 miles away from each other.
I added you on Flickr some time ago. I'm called Dael_Pix

I'm sure the 150-500mm will be ok for what I want to use it for.

Now I have to see where the best place is to buy the lens....
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me what filter I should put on front to protect the element?

I've always gone for Hoya UV filters. But can't find one in a 86mm thread! And they are so expensive, therefore I don't want to spend more than £30 on one.
 
Hmm. I think I'll do without a filter for the moment and I'll see how I get on with the hood.
 
Ooo I've just noticed that you get a 3-year warranty on the Sigma when you send off for a cashback :)
 
I've recently bought the Sigma 150-500 and am slowly getting used to it. Had my best results so far at RSPB Vane Farm earlier today. I've never had to get used to a lens before so this is a new experience, however I think I'm getting there. Shame I couldn't afford a Canon 200-400 1.4x!
 
Both lenses arrived today.

I don't understand how you send the warranty off for a cashback?

It says to stick the warranty sticker on the warranty paper. It says on the claim form 'to complete warranty card as instructed on the warranty card and enclose a photocopy of the relevant section'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top