Zoom lenses

[0bli0]

here is an early morning picture from our african safari - bigma (50-500mm) @ 417mm. handheld @ 1/250 of a second

juvenille male lion - Londolozi, ZA

here is one using the 24-70L @ 50mm. handheld for 1/2 a second @f/11

waterfall - Tokyo Disneyland

lastly, here is one taken sitting on my bum with my elbows resting on my knees - also with the 24-70L @24mm, F5 for 1/3 second

mister at night - Tokyo Disneysea

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Jan, I would probably say that prime lenses 300mm and above would need a tripod for the majority of the people. Some people would need to use a tripod/monopod all the time for a 70-200mm f/2.8 whether it has VR/IS or not as it is a heavy lens. The 80-400mm lenses that Nikon and Sigma put out are very large. Not quite as long as the 70-200mm f/2.8's, but are thicker and heavier. Now that I look at it, the 200mm f/4 lens will probably need mono/tripod. Its really dependent on the person using the lens. Me being 6' 275 (and at one time a heavy weight lifter) can hand hold lenses that my DW, at 5' 4", wouldn't even think of touching.

Plus, I think that any lens that comes with a mono/tripod mount probably means that you should think about using a mono/tripod with it.

I think that you overstate the need for a tripod. I'm a pretty small guy and I lugged a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 all over the Animal Kingdom with me and never used a tripod. It's a bit over seven and half inches long and just over three pounds.

The 70-200 f/4.0 that Jan is talking about is just under seven inches and a mere pound and a half. You'll definitely not need a tripod for size/weight reasons. You'll want one when shooting in low light especially when using a 1.4x extender on it. Still, I know of plenty of people that are quite happy using theirs handheld.

 

[handicap18]

I think that you overstate the need for a tripod. I'm a pretty small guy and I lugged a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 all over the Animal Kingdom with me and never used a tripod. It's a bit over seven and half inches long and just over three pounds.

The 70-200 f/4.0 that Jan is talking about is just under seven inches and a mere pound and a half. You'll definitely not need a tripod for size/weight reasons. You'll want one when shooting in low light especially when using a 1.4x extender on it. Still, I know of plenty of people that are quite happy using theirs handheld.

Your quite right Mark. Thats why I stated that some people would use one, meaning that some people wouldn't use one. For low light a tripod is highly recommended for any size lens, but even that can be accomplished hand held depending on the person (and looking at 0bli0's pics).

In the end it really comes down to personal preferance and what each person is willing to or can handle. As they say YMMV.

Now that I think of it, I belive there was a picture posted earlier in the year of someone with a 1000mm f/5.6 lens maybe?. Yeah, that you absolutly must have a tripod for!!!

or how about the 800-1250mm zoom?

Though this one only weighs a little more than 3lbs. Guess because its an f/8-12.5. But at 1250mm and f/12.5 you better have some seriously bright light. :teeth

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Though this one only weighs a little more than 3lbs. Guess because its an f/8-12.5. But at 1250mm and f/12.5 you better have some seriously bright light.

Now if you used that on a small sensor body, you'd.....never mind.

 

[smnornes]

I have a digital Canon EOS DS6041. I use a Tamron 18-200 mm, 1:3.5-6.3 macro lens as my "everyday" lens. I also have the Canon 18-55mm lens that I got with the camera body. The Canon lens pretty much just stays in my bag now that I have the Tamron lens.

I'm in the market for a new zoom lens. I'd like to go to a 400mm, I think, especially with another Alaska trip coming up. How would a using a 100-400mm lens work? I never use a tripod right now. I'm assuming with a lens like this, the tripod would be a must? What about size and mounts? Do I need anything special with the camera body I have? I'm going to use this lens almost exclusively outdoors, photographing wildlife and nature.

Any recommendations? Thank you!

 

[tinksdad]

I'm a Nikon guy, but the Canon 100-400mm looks like a very nice lens. Check out SLR.Gear for their take and some reviews on the lens. I prefer the twist zoom vs the push/pull but that's not a huge deal. That kind of a lens will set up back a dollar or two, but it will work on the future Canon camera that you will end up getting so should be a wise choice. You might look at the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, it's a very highly touted lens.

A rule of thumb for large focal length lenses is to keep the shutter speed above your focal length. So at it's furthest reach, you will have to keep the shutter speed around 400. With the image stabilization, you can get that down a couple of stops but a tripod would be a GREAT idea. Plus that is a huge lens, and the tripod will definitely help steady the shots.

 

[AKLforever]

Im looking for a lens to zoom in on things far away, like 10X or 20X zoom, but can also take very clear shots as well.
Im not sure which one I would need, telephoto or zoom? Or are they the same thing?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

While not quite technically accurate, the term telephoto is used for lenses that make things look much closer. A zoom is any lens that lets you zoom in and out. Some zooms go from extremely wide angle to regular wide angle, so no one would call those telephotos.

As for what you should get, it depends on what your budget is, what camera you have, what you want to do with it, how much you are willing to spend, and how big of a lens you are willing to carry.

 

[MIDisFan]

Mark, I was looking at your WDW pictures and was wondering what camera you were using during the 2005 trip. I was looking at the detail information and noticed those don't have as much information listed as the 2006 pictures. I am just curious because I would like to step up to a DSLR but am overwhelmed with all the controls. I am used to just setting my Canon P/S on auto and shooting. The most manual control I ever do is turning the flash off for some night time shots. My WDW trip is coming up in about a month and I'm not sure that would be enough time for me to learn enough.

I know the whole point behind a DSLR is for manual control, but do they have a auto mode that I could fall back on if I don't feel comfortable enough yet while I am WDW?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

On my 2005 trip, I used a Canon 10D. I upgraded to a 1D Mark II not long after that trip.

Most DSLRs (the 1D and 1Ds models are exceptions) have a full-auto mode in which they can be used essentially like a p&s. There are other modes that give you some control but still automate other things like exposure and focus. So with just about any DSLR suited for a beginner, you should be able to go from fully automatic to fully manual as you learn and as the need arises.

 

[handicap18]

Im looking for a lens to zoom in on things far away, like 10X or 20X zoom, but can also take very clear shots as well.
Im not sure which one I would need, telephoto or zoom? Or are they the same thing?

IIRC you recently picked up a Pentax. I'm not completely familar with Pentax' telephoto zoom line up. I know they do have a 50-200mm that the Pentax folks say is very good. Though I wouldn't think of it as a really long telephoto. Sigma makes a very nice 70-300mm. They have a few versions. One is about $130 and another that is closer to $200. The later has APO which is better overall. (from Sigma's site re: APO (APO Lens)
In order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.)

There are also 80-400mm lenses. They are MUCH more expensive, but do have the longer reach.

Others would be 100-300mm f/4, 135-400mm, 170-500, oh and Sigma's BigMa 50-500mm. These would be more expensive than the 70-300mm and also quite a big bigger and heavier.

 

[AKLforever]

IIRC you recently picked up a Pentax. I'm not completely familar with Pentax' telephoto zoom line up. I know they do have a 50-200mm that the Pentax folks say is very good. Though I wouldn't think of it as a really long telephoto. Sigma makes a very nice 70-300mm. They have a few versions. One is about $130 and another that is closer to $200. The later has APO which is better overall. (from Sigma's site re: APO (APO Lens)
In order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.)

There are also 80-400mm lenses. They are MUCH more expensive, but do have the longer reach.

Others would be 100-300mm f/4, 135-400mm, 170-500, oh and Sigma's BigMa 50-500mm. These would be more expensive than the 70-300mm and also quite a big bigger and heavier.

Wow, nice, thanks. That 50-500 seems like the one I would like. On amazon, I saw this one that was a Phoenix 650-2600mm Telephoto Lens with Mount. Thats seems a bit over kill, I was shocked to see something so far out there. Cheap too, for the range. But Im thinking the range is insane for me, lol. thanks

 

[Master Mason]

One of the things you really want to get rid of in the SLR mentality is the 10X or 3x or whatever zoom. What you want to look at is the mm range of the zoom, and the appeture range as well. Those are the 2 important parts of the equation in an SLR lens.

 

[Groucho]

When it comes to telephoto or long-focal-length zooms... "if you wanna play, you gotta pay". You can get cheap 70-300mm lenses but I think you'll get mediocre results. You'll also find lenses getting slower (high F-stops) unless you really dump some money into it - and you have to expect those lenses to get fairly pricey, too.

I picked up an ~30-year-old Vivitar 400mm F5.6 lens late last year, it's a Pentax screwmount so you need a small adapter to use it on the K-mount bodies - ie, every Pentax for the past few decades. $90 for the lens, ~$25 for the adapter, and away I went. Quality is OK, it's reasonably sharp but the colors are a little dull (I posted a couple shots in the zoo thread that YEKCIM starts a week or two ago), and it's big and heavy and kind of a pain to focus correctly.

You can keep an eye on eBay to look for used lenses floating around... a telephoto prime will probably be your best bang for the buck. A K-mount Vivitar that looks identical to mine just sold for $185 w/shipping - maybe I should sell mine and see if I can make some money. But a Tokina 400mm F5.6 (with autofocus) sold on a Buy-It-Now for $464 - like I said, you gotta pay if you want to play.

You also may want to check local camera shops to see if they sell used lenses. My Vivitar came from a local little tiny camera consignment shop that is stuffed with old stuff, usually for a decent price.

Pentax does have a 300mm F4 lens on their roadmap for September, but I don't know anything about price. Generally, Pentax makes exceptional primes so I'd expect good things from it. It's also a DA (digital) lens, so it will probably be smaller and lighter than a 300mm designed for 35mm. They also have a DA 55-300mm coming later, and a DA* 60-250mm F4 targeted for December - the "*" is their top-line stuff, like Canon's "L", and this will probably be quite an expensive lens.

 

[bostran1]

I've decided I need more reach for my Rebel XT so I'm starting to look at zoom lens. Below are three lenses I have found and I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions or experience with the lenses.

I'm looking for something that reaches far (at least 200 and perferably 300)and is still sharp when zoomed in. Unfortunately, a sub-$200 price is very important for me. While IS would be nice, I think its out of my price range. One of the lenses is a Canon USM lens, I'm curious as to whether anyone thinks the extra cost is worth it for that lens. My understanding is that the USM functions to make the focusing faster. I have used the non-USM lens before and haven't really had a problem with the focus speed.

Anyway, here are the lens I have looked at with links. Any opinions and comments (and suggestions for different lenses) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG APO Macro Telephoto I realize this lens also has macro capabilities but could the others also function like that?

Also, just because I linked to the lens on Amazon does not mean that is where I am going to buy it from.

 

[ukcatfan]

Here are a couple lens review sites.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

http://www.photodo.com/products.html

You might also want to consider used to get more for your money. I bought two used lenses from http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx that I have been happy with.

Kevin

 

[ktulu]

I'm not too happy with my 75-300 and plan on replacing it as soon as I can, just not sure with what yet (wife has not signed off on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).

 

[bostran1]

I'm not too happy with my 75-300 and plan on replacing it as soon as I can, just not sure with what yet (wife has not signed off on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS).

Any ideas other than the one the wife won't approve?

Also, what don't you like about the lens?

 

[ktulu]

Any ideas other than the one the wife won't approve?

Also, what don't you like about the lens?

Lack of IS and I want a lens that will produce shaper photos. I've gotten photos that I'm happy with from that lens, but only after putting the camera on a tripod. If I was to do it over again, I'd save my money and either get the 70-300 with IS or the 70-200 f/4L if those are a bit more in your price range (and I'd go with the 70-200 f/4L over the 70-300).

 

[jann1033]

imo, i'd save my money until you can spend a little more than $200. i have the 70-200 f4( i spent $499 for it new, usually it's closer to 550 i think) and it's a really good lens. the 70-300 is around the same price. the reason i decided on the 200 vs 300 was the 200 build was better and i figured i could get a converter eventually for the extra reach.
just for what it's worth,
every lens i bought that was cheapish i regretted so now i wait but get a better quality( with a reasonable price, under $600 is my limit) and i think truthfully for me that is a better value than buying a cheap one and wishing i had a better on.