Lens suggestions

[feistyblue]

Last year I bought the Canon 70-300 USM lens for my 300d (Rebel) and I love it. However, I can only use it on Auto mode or on a tripod because I am simply not strong enough to hold it still!

The only other lens I have is the kit lens, which just doesn't met my needs at all except for taking portraits where my son/subject is very close! I like to take a lot of candid photos of children and animal shots so I need something with a bigger range than the kit lens but that I can actually handle out of Auto mode.

I'd be grateful for suggestions/recommendations please.

Thanks

Claire

 

[ukcatfan]

Could you please explain why you need to use auto mode when you have a hard time keeping it still? I normally think it would be the opposite where you would need to use a priority mode or full manual mode. Shetter priority is probably your best bet. I believe the typical rule for preventing blur is 1/focal length. For example at 70mm on the lens you would need a 1/112 sec (1/(70*your camera's 1.6x crop factor). That is not an actual shutter speed available, so you would pick the next fastest one in the range. It is probably 1/125. For 300mm on the camera, you would use around 1/500 sec. You will likely need to increse your ISO to get the shot at the tele end.

Kevin

 

[photo_chick]

What you have is actually pretty good for shooting kids....

This is just my two cents here for what it's worth and this is related more to composition than lenses....
I shoot a lot of kid shots. Mainly my own, and sometimes or other peopel. I primarily use the kit lens when I shoot digital. (I am lens poor for my Rebel) I do have two telephoto zoom lenses but I never use them for shooting kids. I am actually awaiting my income tax refund to buy a good 50mm lens.

It is usually much better when you are shooting kids to move into the action rather than zoom in from a distance with a lens. Actually physically getting in there will make the viewer of the image feel like more a part of what was goign on, rather than a passive observer to the image.

A lot of what is in my own gallery ws shot using the kit lens.
www.daniellecowden.com

Granted I am not really a pro nor would I call myself an expert, though I do shoot kids occasionally for money. I am just someone who shoots a lot of kids and is working on a BFA in photography. (if I ever finish)

 

[allie5]

Interesting. I do agree with Kevin that you would get better results on manual - shutter priority would be my choice of program.

Ive just got a 30D and didnt buy the kit lens - I got the 17-85mm IS USM instead. However, I do like to shoot close up shots and Im looking at buying the 70-300 IS as well. Ive not had it long but from some experimentation, the 17-85 is going to be a great walk around lens for snappin the kids indoors and in the garden, although like you I NEED the bigger zoom for other stuff.

If you are having problems with supporting a long lens then the 17-85 might be for you or consider the longer zoom 28-105. Choosing an IS lens helps with the "wobble factor" at the telephoto although they do tend to be dearer. I am at the moment considering the Canon 70-300 non IS option for £179 or the IS option for £370!! After reading your post, Im thinking the extra cash might be well spent for the IS version!

For your info, the 17-85 IS lens I have isnt "long" but it is a chunky bit of kit - this means it balances with the weight of the camera quite nicely to give good feel and solid grip. I have small wimpy girly hands (not helped by the fact Ive suffered two broken wrists which are still very weak) and I know Im going to have trouble when I attach a monster lens...ah, the sacrifces we make for our art LOL!!

 

[MICKEY88]

I'm curious as to how you hold your camera, usually a longer lens is actually easier to support than a short lens...

also I tend to disagree with photo_chick,

if you are talking candids of children ..my experience has been that a telephoto works better to get candid action shots, if you get too close children get distracted and stop what they are doing, that is something I've read often, and verified in 30 + years of shooting

 

[Groucho]

If weight is the primary concern and you still want a longer range, you may want to look at a telephoto prime lens - it will be a good bit smaller and lighter than a zoom lens that reaches the same focal length. You may want one that's slightly shorter than the zoom, since you can't back it out, but you can crop the photo later. You'll probably get better optical quality as well, and save money compared to the zoom.

 

[0bli0]

fwiw at least 70% of the kids' candids i take (both of my kids and professionally) are taken with the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 (on a 1.3x body). i'd guestimate than another 20% are taken with the 24-70 (merely as it's the lens that's on my body most of the time). i have found just sitting down at the kids' level for awhile works great to become invisible (or ignored).

 

[MICKEY88]

point of clarification,,,while photo_chick and 0bli0, both make very good valid points.. and I would never question 0bli0's techniques, simply because althought the boards are full of great photographers, and I usually see at least one photo per day that makes me say WOW....0bli0's work is the most consistant at doing that, from my point of view...




if you have the time, getting closer isn't a bad idea, I was thinking from the perspective of, you look out your window and the kids are doing something that could be a once in a lifetime shot. and you want it to be obvious to the viewer that you caught the kids in the act, then a longer lens is better to avoid interrupting the action and changing the behaviour of the kids...

 

[feistyblue]

I should have added that I am nowhere near confident to be shooting in full manual mode yet, despite having done just that throughout my teens, having reverted to point and shoots in my early 20's I have totally "forgotten" how to take proper photographs!

Even taking photos in "p" mode with my zoom lens leads to hideous blur, the lens is just too heavy for me. It's a real shame because I love it to death and know I'm not getting the best out of the lens or camera using them in auto mode only.

It's definitely a zoom I need - my son and his friends are far less natural when I'm close enough to them that they notice! Besides without the zoom I couldn't have gotten this shot which I'm quite pleased with as I couldn't have got close enough without! I got a ton of this fella - he looks so cuddly!

 

[allie5]

The solution might be then, to have a look at some of the new bridge cameras that are due out soon with 18x optical zooms. They have pretty decent manual control and will be considerably lighter to carry than a DSLR.

Ive had some decent shots with our 12x optical Kodak -I think there are a few on the Wild Animals thread - and with technology getting better and better, these new bridge cameras are going to be a force to be reckoned with.

Nice shot of the lion BTW.

 

[MICKEY88]

I should have added that I am nowhere near confident to be shooting in full manual mode yet, despite having done just that throughout my teens, having reverted to point and shoots in my early 20's I have totally "forgotten" how to take proper photographs!

Even taking photos in "p" mode with my zoom lens leads to hideous blur, the lens is just too heavy for me. It's a real shame because I love it to death and know I'm not getting the best out of the lens or camera using them in auto mode only.

It's definitely a zoom I need - my son and his friends are far less natural when I'm close enough to them that they notice! Besides without the zoom I couldn't have gotten this shot which I'm quite pleased with as I couldn't have got close enough without! I got a ton of this fella - he looks so cuddly!

maybe the solution is shooting in shutter priority mode with a high shutter speed, or a monopod....

 

[MICKEY88]

The solution might be then, to have a look at some of the new bridge cameras that are due out soon with 18x optical zooms. They have pretty decent manual control and will be considerably lighter to carry than a DSLR.

Ive had some decent shots with our 12x optical Kodak -I think there are a few on the Wild Animals thread - and with technology getting better and better, these new bridge cameras are going to be a force to be reckoned with.

Nice shot of the lion BTW.

new bridge cameras are really good, but they will never replace slrs, there simply is no way to make the perfect lens in one unit.

after years of shooting with 2 pro 35 mm slrs, I decided I was tired of dealing with lenses and bought a minolta A2, all the reviews raved about it being one of the best and talked about how it challenged digital slrs, I could shoot 7 frames per second..it is an awesome camera..I have some fantastic shots that came from it, but I couldn't deal with the tradeoffs, so I bought the Minolta 7D and now cary more lenses than ever...LOL

 

[photo_chick]

I'm curious as to how you hold your camera, usually a longer lens is actually easier to support than a short lens...

also I tend to disagree with photo_chick,

if you are talking candids of children ..my experience has been that a telephoto works better to get candid action shots, if you get too close children get distracted and stop what they are doing, that is something I've read often, and verified in 30 + years of shooting

I often disagree with myself!

I get in and talk and play with the kids. Then they forget I have a camera at all. I am just their friend playing with them at that point. That is when they really open up.

 

[MICKEY88]

I often disagree with myself!

I get in and talk and play with the kids. Then they forget I have a camera at all. I am just their friend playing with them at that point. That is when they really open up.

post#8 I clarified, my earlier post, we were talking 2 different situations..so I don't really disagree..

but I must ask, does it cause problems for you when you disagree with yourself, or have you learned how to negotiate peacefully....

 

[photo_chick]

post#8 I clarified, my earlier post, we were talking 2 different situations..so I don't really disagree..

but I must ask, does it cause problems for you when you disagree with yourself, or have you learned how to negotiate peacefully....

I only have probelms disagreeing with myself when I have an attitude about it or take myslef seriously! I have been told by family members it is very entertaining to sit and wtch me verbally work through something and argue about it with myself.


Most of the time I just ignore myself, I am full of it and I know it!

 

[Groucho]

It's definitely a zoom I need - my son and his friends are far less natural when I'm close enough to them that they notice! Besides without the zoom I couldn't have gotten this shot which I'm quite pleased with as I couldn't have got close enough without! I got a ton of this fella - he looks so cuddly!

Like I was saying, a prime lens (as opposed to a zoom lens) might be a good option, you can get just as much or more focal length in a lighter package, and probably with better optics.

 

[feistyblue]

Thanks Groucho. Could you clarify exactly what type of lens you mean as over here in the UK, I understand prime lens for my camera to mean an L lens, but I get the feeling you mean something else!

 

[ukcatfan]

Over here, when we refer to a prime lens, it is one with only one focal length and cannot zoom. For example, a 50mm lens. These offer much wider apertures than zoom lenses and typically have better image quality.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

Like Kevin said.

"L" lenses is a marketing term that Canon uses to designate their premium-quality lenses. No other company uses the "L" term but it doesn't mean that their lenses are any worse, they just don't use that term. Pentax does have "Limited" and "star" lenses that are in a similar mold, I'm not sure that Nikon does premium differentiating.

But yeah, a lens is either a zoom or a prime. Primes are generally smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, and have better picture quality than zooms - all you give up is the convenience of being able to zoom in and out. A month or so ago, I did a comparison for a Canon user, between (IIRC) the Canon 70-200 2.8 and equivalent primes - a 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8, and 200mm 2.8. The three primes lenses combined cost less and weighed less than the single zoom lens. Not by much, but I think the 200mm 2.8 prime was about half the weight of the 70-200mm 2.8 zoom, which should make it a lot easier to work with if you're finding the weight of a big zoom to be too much.

 

[jann1033]

i usually use a 100mm non zoom lens for taking photos of my granddaughter. i'm far enough away but not that far...it is a cheap phoenix macro which was $140 or so ( it's also cosina promaster a few other names). it weighs less than a lb i'm sure...in a zoom i'm sure it would not be any good but the prime is sharp....guessing you mean the 70-300 non IS since the IS is only about a 1lb+...even though i hate to say this given the is problems i have had the IS does make a big difference as far as holding a lens steady so you could consider that lens as well( think it's around $550 or so)...and i know i have to be sure of my technique as well as in holding it right, stabilizing myself by standing right( weakness and tremors in my arms and hands) but i can hold my 70-200f4 and rebel xt body ok as long as i am careful and rest after a while, don't think i could do it all day ie at disney or someplace( about 4 lbs total but that is pretty much my limit without a mono or tripod)