I know it has been posted a lot, regarding lens but thought I would ask here for me.
I would like to be able to shot wildlife and scenic type of photos. Something different from what I have done in the past.
I was given a budget of approximately $1500 and was originally going to go with these two:
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
But now I am thinking (and confusing myself) about this one:
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens
Can anyone help me here? I am an amateur and really not sure what would be the best route to take.
I see some of your pictures are in the 50-55mm range, so does this mean you already have an 18-55mm lens? Or something around that range? If so, you wouldn't want the 18-135 unless you didn't intend to use the 18-55 any more. However, 135mm on the long end would likely leave you wanting for more zoom power. The 70-300 seems like a good option if you can handle the 300mm end handheld. That gets to be a bit long for good handheld pics. So you might want a tripod too.
I find 200mm sufficient for most zoom subjects. I do have a 300mm prime that gets busted out once in a while but my 55-200mm sees more use than the 300. I currently have an 18-70mm and am looking to get the 70-200mm f2.8 to compliment it.
I suppose it really comes down to how close you want to get to your subject.
The Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm is a heavy lens, but with the hills and mountains in the Pittsburgh area, you will be able to get photos of birds and other wildlife better with this lens. Take hikes adding a five pound weight to your camera bag and then decide.
Thanks guys!! Yes @mikehamm I have the 18-55, it is just ok to me. I think I am leaning toward the 70-300 being it is about $1000 less than the 400.
@chewyteeth You are correct, that is why I was considering purchasing 2 lens, plus a few extras or the one 100-400mm. I do like the good meal and shopping idea!! :)
@hjbenson Thanks Harry! Too many hills here, that is for sure!
Maybe someone has other recommendations?
I am just confused and actually miss posting here. Just tired of macro shots.
you could always hire the 100-400 and see. but personally the top end of that is pretty useless, I know I never go beyond 135mm, which on a cropped sensor is probably more like 200mm anyway. I'd try the 70-3900 if I was you, and do get the tripod.
I just purchased the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm and as Henry mentioned, it is a bit heavy, but I use a monopod with it, and it works great. It's a wonderful lens for wildlife photography and worthy of your consideration. LOVE this lens!
If you want to shoot birds, the 70-300 will be disappointing... I have that lens and when I aim it at a bird in a tree, I feel let down pretty much all the time since the birds like to keep their distance from people. That lens is great for anything else that needs more zoom than I get with my kit lens. When I decide to get another lens, I'll probably go with a nifty fifty, or a better wide angle.
I have a Sigma 150-500 zoom that I really like. I do all my nature shots handheld (only have used the tripod on the moon and sunset). I don't find it too heavy (and I have arthritis, mild, in my wrists and hands). It has image stabilizing. It was $1200 up here, so likely less in US. The glass is decent. Have a look through my albums and see what I have been able to do...most are still cropped to bring them better visiblility, but they are still sharp.
I must agree with Jeff regarding the 70-300, It is not in the same class as the 100-400. It lacks sharpness if you are trying to get something at a distance. Being lucky enough to have both lenses, I would definately recommend the 100-400L, but it comes at a price, it is as others have mentioned, rather heavy. Maybe try to borrow one or hire one for a day, see how you get on with it. Good luck with whatever you decide.
That's quite a range in both quality and budget. For wildlife, by far the 100-400 L series is the way to go. It comes with a hefty price tag, though, and (like others have said) it's very heavy. Personally, I went a slightly different - and slightly more expensive - route, but gained more versatility. I opted for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and paired that with a canon 2x Teleconverter. So I have a very fast L series lens up to 200mm, and with the 2x it provides the same f-ratio as that 100-400 with image stabilization and no detectable drop in quality. Note that the 2x Tele is compatible with that lens, but because of the design it is NOT compatible with all lenses.
Thank you all so much for all the input and responses. I am completely overwhelmed at the response and have some things to think about I see. I did not realize this would be a tough decision for me, but it has become one. I was leaning toward the 70-300mm but now I am thinking of the other options all of you mentioned.
Now I have the 70-200mm on my list too. The list is growing, when it is supposed to be getting smaller!!! ha ha ha
@scooter I see that you're in the US. There are several good lens rental companies that will give you the opportunity to try out various options and see what works best for you. Whichever way you end up going, I recommend getting the fastest glass you can afford. This is especially true if you want to shoot wildlife since you will often be shooting in low light and will still want a fast shutter.
I've used "Glass and Gear" with great success when renting lenses. Here's a link to their site: http://www.glassandgear.com/
If you're going to plunk down some significant cash on a lens, it's always nice to know you'll be happy with the purchase!
I have a 55-250 and use a 70-300 - the 70-300 is superior for shooting wildlife - the image is better quality and, of course, you can get closer.
But yes, the 100-400 is even better because it can get even closer!! So it all comes down to how much you're willing to spend and how much you'll use the lens and what you want to get out of it. :)
I have the 100-400 & a 70-200 f4 IS & mostly use the 70-200f4 (which is really just as sharp as the f2.8 but way cheaper) as the 100-400 is so damn heavy BUT when you really want the extra zoom for wildlife then you can't beat the 100-400 which I have used to the full extent (400mm) with no loss of quality.
"I was given a budget of approximately $1500" I am laughing at that it sounds so corporate.
18-200mm is SO versatile you can just keep it on your camera most of the time, even for trips. (Scott Kelby says so!)
I would recommend renting those 300+ lenses for a week before buying, to make sure the $ you shell out is for the right thing. www.BorrowLenses.com is great, or a local camera store might do rentals.
@kannafoot
I'm interested in those tele-extender things. Is that a good way to stretch out without hauling a whole separate lens around that you might not actually use that often? I assume there's some loss of light or clarity, but maybe negligible on high-quality lenses? Do they just screw on top, how does it work?
I'm considering a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, as a substitute for the very expensive 24mm f/1.4 L lens. I have a 50mm 1.4 which works great in evening or indoors, but is not wide enough for what I would use it for indoors, I have found.
@bonniebouman There is a loss of light in f/stops equal to the magnification of the teleconverter (not extender - they're two different items.) So a 2x tele will double the focal length of the lens at the cost of a 2 f/stop loss of light.
A teleconverter does not fit on that lens, from what I'm seeing. You do have to be careful to pair the lens with a converter that fits or you could damage the lens. The easiest way to tell on the B&H site is to find the lens, go to Accessories, and scroll down to find any converters or extenders that work with it. If its not listed in the accessories, it's likely not a good fit for that lens.
The teleconverter sits between the camera body and the lens and must be compatible with both. Also, for autofocus to work reliably, the effective f/stop must be f/8 or wider. So putting a 2x tele on an f/5.6 lens would likely disable the autofocus, as an example.
It's cheaper than the teleconverter, is a decent non-L series prime focus lens, and it has a very fast f/1.4 so you'll get that nice bokeh that would be lacking at f/3.6 (which is the 1.8 with a 2x tele.)
Now, if you were thinking of extension tubes for macro shots, that's a totally different conversation!
@bonniebouman Bonnie, the Canon Teleconverters are designed for the L series lenses and none of them fit on the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6. It's possible the Tamron converter would, but I'd recommend talking to one of the B&H specialists first. You can destroy your lens if it's not compatible. (The lens would strike the converter when zooming.) Also, you'd lose autofocus for much of the zoom range since that would become an f/7 to f/11.2 range.
Teleconverter = magnifies the focal length
Extenders = reduces the focal point. It doesn't turn it into a true macro by definition (i.e. a 1:1 ratio) but rather it reduces the minimum focal distance. The effect can be dramatic since depth of field is significantly compressed as well.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I find 200mm sufficient for most zoom subjects. I do have a 300mm prime that gets busted out once in a while but my 55-200mm sees more use than the 300. I currently have an 18-70mm and am looking to get the 70-200mm f2.8 to compliment it.
I suppose it really comes down to how close you want to get to your subject.
I just searched ebay .com http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-USM-Black-FEDEX-/170903695683?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item27caa77143
less than $500
leaves you $1000 then to get a decent tripod, have a holiday, have a nice meal in your fav restaurant and do a weeks shopping too.
;)
@chewyteeth You are correct, that is why I was considering purchasing 2 lens, plus a few extras or the one 100-400mm. I do like the good meal and shopping idea!! :)
@hjbenson Thanks Harry! Too many hills here, that is for sure!
Maybe someone has other recommendations?
I am just confused and actually miss posting here. Just tired of macro shots.
Thank you all so much for all the input and responses. I am completely overwhelmed at the response and have some things to think about I see. I did not realize this would be a tough decision for me, but it has become one. I was leaning toward the 70-300mm but now I am thinking of the other options all of you mentioned.
Now I have the 70-200mm on my list too. The list is growing, when it is supposed to be getting smaller!!! ha ha ha
Thank you all!!! You are all the best! :)
I've used "Glass and Gear" with great success when renting lenses. Here's a link to their site: http://www.glassandgear.com/
If you're going to plunk down some significant cash on a lens, it's always nice to know you'll be happy with the purchase!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-USA/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html
I tried googling the extended I think goes with that lens, but it says it is no longer available.
With a tripod, not an issue, but since I hand-hold virtually everything IS was a must for me.
This is the Extender. It's still available:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732111-USA/Canon_4410B002_Extender_EF_2X_III.html
But yes, the 100-400 is even better because it can get even closer!! So it all comes down to how much you're willing to spend and how much you'll use the lens and what you want to get out of it. :)
18-200mm is SO versatile you can just keep it on your camera most of the time, even for trips. (Scott Kelby says so!)
I would recommend renting those 300+ lenses for a week before buying, to make sure the $ you shell out is for the right thing. www.BorrowLenses.com is great, or a local camera store might do rentals.
@bonniebouman @sjodell @pocketmouse @abhijit
Thank you guys so much for all of the information!! I have everything written down and will explore my options.
Thanks again all!! This community is wonderful! :)
I'm interested in those tele-extender things. Is that a good way to stretch out without hauling a whole separate lens around that you might not actually use that often? I assume there's some loss of light or clarity, but maybe negligible on high-quality lenses? Do they just screw on top, how does it work?
I'm considering a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, as a substitute for the very expensive 24mm f/1.4 L lens. I have a 50mm 1.4 which works great in evening or indoors, but is not wide enough for what I would use it for indoors, I have found.
The quality loss is directly related to the lens quality and the teleconverter quality. For the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, I assume you're referring to this lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html
A teleconverter does not fit on that lens, from what I'm seeing. You do have to be careful to pair the lens with a converter that fits or you could damage the lens. The easiest way to tell on the B&H site is to find the lens, go to Accessories, and scroll down to find any converters or extenders that work with it. If its not listed in the accessories, it's likely not a good fit for that lens.
The teleconverter sits between the camera body and the lens and must be compatible with both. Also, for autofocus to work reliably, the effective f/stop must be f/8 or wider. So putting a 2x tele on an f/5.6 lens would likely disable the autofocus, as an example.
In your example of the 28mm f/1.8, if you're looking to double the focal length and still avoid the L series lenses, you'd be better off getting a 50mm f/1.4 like this one instead of the teleconverter:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html
It's cheaper than the teleconverter, is a decent non-L series prime focus lens, and it has a very fast f/1.4 so you'll get that nice bokeh that would be lacking at f/3.6 (which is the 1.8 with a 2x tele.)
Now, if you were thinking of extension tubes for macro shots, that's a totally different conversation!
I have that one! -->
* 50mm f/1.4
* 17-55mm f/2.8 EF-S
* 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Maybe a teleconverter would go on the longest, the 18-200? We know one goes on a 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens, because that's what you have.
So tele-converter = long-distance
tele-extender = macro?
Wow, i thought they were the same things.
Teleconverter = magnifies the focal length
Extenders = reduces the focal point. It doesn't turn it into a true macro by definition (i.e. a 1:1 ratio) but rather it reduces the minimum focal distance. The effect can be dramatic since depth of field is significantly compressed as well.