How much reach is needed? [Archive] - RedFlagDeals.com Forums

Kaitlyn

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:05 PM

neltron3030

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:15 PM

So I'm in this mindset that I want long reach... I have a 55-250mm and feel it'd be nice to get a further reach.

I can think of shooting things like:
- Air shows
- Animals
- Zoo

I am currently with the T1i so I have a 1.6x crop factor - currently hitting 400mm with the 55-250.

I know when I took my S5 IS to the Zoo (432mm 35mm equivalent) there were a number of shots where I wish I could get closer.

What do you guys think? I've been eyeing the 70-200mm (better quaility, but 50mm shorter...) or should I try to get > 250mm reach?

Hope that wasn't a huge blabber... thanks guys :)

Hmmm...good question Kaitlyn...

I had the 55-250 and got rid of it for the 70-200 f4 non-IS. There is an image quality difference with the L glass but it isn't as versatile as the 55-250. The 55 vs 70 on the wide end is very noticeable as well.

Also, the 55-250 isn't an attention grabber, so you can smuggle it in to sporting events and such a lot easier.

For me, IQ trumps everything (so the 70-200 is the right call) but I do often wish I had the 55-250 in certain situations...mainly when more range (or IS) is needed.

Kaitlyn

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:19 PM

Hmmm...good question Kaitlyn...

I had the 55-250 and got rid of it for the 70-200 f4 non-IS. There is an image quality difference with the L glass but it isn't as versatile as the 55-250. The 55 vs 70 on the wide end is very noticeable as well.

Also, the 55-250 isn't an attention grabber, so you can smuggle it in to sporting events and such a lot easier.

For me, IQ trumps everything (so the 70-200 is the right call) but I do often wish I had the 55-250 in certain situations...mainly when more range (or IS) is needed.

I am happy with the 55-250.. it's really quite small and light for the versatility it offers. And you're right, it can also be brought more places. I've heard, read and seen that the 70-200 is very nice and sharp too though, so it's tough! And then of course the internal battle of wanting more reach - though prices seem to skyrocket for canon branded lens above 200mm...

Honestly didn't think too much about the wide angle. I think I'd be shooting MOSTLY at 150-200mm with the lens...

twilight_samurai

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:21 PM

I think something else to consider is that the longer you go, the more difficult it becomes to hand-hold the camera, so you *might* need to use a tripod, depending on how steady your hands are.

Kaitlyn

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:22 PM

I think something else to consider is that the longer you go, the more difficult it becomes to hand-hold the camera, so you *might* need to use a tripod, depending on how steady your hands are.

Well that's what the IS is for :). But yes, absolutely as you get longer the need for a tripod certainly increases.

neltron3030

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:24 PM

One thing that I do like about the 70-200 also is the constant f4 aperture throughout the range.

For the money, you can't beat the 55-250mm. There really is no inexpensive viable comparable lens IMO.

N_Raged

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:30 PM

How about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS? Though it's probably a small upgrade from your 50-250, you do get a bit more reach and USM focusing.

Kaitlyn

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:31 PM

How about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS? Though it's probably a small upgrade from your 50-250, you do get a bit more reach and USM focusing.

That's pretty much why I haven't considered it. It doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade... would rather stick with 55-250mm

CH40Z_008

Nov 7th, 2009, 08:41 PM

Tamron 18-270 VC?

rayt-

Nov 7th, 2009, 09:54 PM

I bought a 70-200mm f/4L non-IS a couple months ago after posting here. This lens is extremely sharp and my favourite. Only wished I could use it more often. Also, I do find myself using it closer to 200mm more often than not. Now I want a f/2.8L. :(

Kaitlyn

Nov 7th, 2009, 09:57 PM

rayt-

Nov 7th, 2009, 10:01 PM

Mostly handheld or tripod? Wish you had the IS?

Ya, 2.8 sure is nice... and expensive. hehe

Pretty much all hand held. Well I mainly use it outdoors so I don't really need the IS. Depends when you shoot though. It's pretty light though and shouldn't be a problem lugging it around for hours. When I first got it, it was very front heavy with my T1i, but it feels a lot more comfortable with a battery grip. My hand is almost too big for just the body alone because I couldn't really put my pinky on the body too to support it. :S

Kasakato

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:07 AM

The only lens at reasonable price that comes to mind is the 70-300. Though, as already stated, its not much of a gain over the 250.

300mm is more or less the cut-off point for consumers. Anything longer and you get into the super-tele range, also known to carry super-prices. In short, its not practical.

Kaitlyn

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:08 AM

300mm is more or less the cut-off point for consumers. Anything longer and you get into the super-tele range, also known to carry super-prices. In short, its not practical.

As I am learning :(. It sucks seeing/trying out the better lens and instantly seeing the advantages and knowing that it also comes at a significant cost :(

Kasakato

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:27 AM

As I am learning :(. It sucks seeing/trying out the better lens and instantly seeing the advantages and knowing that it also comes at a significant cost :(

A nice lens is always great to have, however its still not going to turn a poorly composed picture into an award winning one. A $300 lens and a $2000 lens still "see" things in the same place. Practice and who knows what you can expect down the road. :) I started with a 50mm 1.8, then moved onto the 18-55. A year later and I have won a few awards plus a CTV 6 o'clock new feature; anything is possible! Not to mention I have been financially rewarded for some things, allowing me to purchase better gear. Its truly a rigorous cycle in the photographers advantage.

Kaitlyn

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:30 AM

I started with a 50mm 1.8, then moved onto the 18-55. A year later and I have won a few awards plus a CTV 6 o'clock new feature; anything is possible! Not to mention I have been financially rewarded for some things, allowing me to purchase better gear. Its truly a rigorous cycle in the photographers advantage.

- You moved from 50mm1.8 to the kit lens...? Or a different 18-55?
- How did you get financially rewarded for some things?
- How did you end up on CTV? :)

Babo

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:36 AM

Can always get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter which will get you some more reach with any of your lens. The main trade-off being losing light

Kasakato

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:44 AM

- You moved from 50mm1.8 to the kit lens...? Or a different 18-55?
- How did you get financially rewarded for some things?
- How did you end up on CTV? :)

I started on film with a 50mm 1.8 Pentax. Moving to the D40 meant I got the 18-55 Nikkor which was fun to shoot with. Similar to yourself I wanted more reach so I picked up the 70-300. That was fun for a while until I discovered the 18-55 was too slow, so along came the Tamron 17-50 2.8. While shooting some darker stage stuff I found the 70-300 was also too slow, so bang, the 180 2.8 shows up. Im happy with the trio...for now.

I always try to go out and shoot for contests whenever given the opportunity. I win some, loose most, but getting out and practicing is always a positive experience. Some benefits are intangible such as the networking it allows, others are tangible: money. An example is the winter festive photo contest the camera club around here runs. I won enough to heavily subsidize the purchase of an SB600.

Getting published by CTV was more or less a lucky thing, though it can be attributed to carrying my camera around at all times. Full details: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kensekiguchi/3954865770/

Kasakato

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:46 AM

Can always get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter which will get you some more reach with any of your lens. The main trade-off being losing light

On an f/4-5.6 lens? Thats a bit iffy, especially for focusing.

zoomzoom

Nov 8th, 2009, 12:52 AM

When you are considering the any of the four 70-200 from Canon, you have to also consider WEIGHT along with the price factor. The f/2.8 is a heavy lens - you should take that into consideration before purchasing.

The best value from the group is probably the 70-200 f/4LIS. It is suppose to be the sharpest of the bunch and is half the weight of the f/2.8s. The IS does come in handy (get IS if you can afford it). Depending on your budget, this particular lens is currently around $1200.

If you need more reach, the Canon 100-400 LIS lens is also a good choice... on a crop, you'd have a 160-640mm lens. This lens has a push/pull zoom rather than a normal ring control for the zoom.

NewsyL

Nov 8th, 2009, 01:55 AM

So I'm in this mindset that I want long reach... I have a 55-250mm and feel it'd be nice to get a further reach.

I can think of shooting things like:
- Air shows
- Animals
- Zoo

Air shows and wildlife.... you need to get past 400mm and it will cost $$$.

I shoot with a Sigma 50-500 on a stabilized body, pretty much 100% hand held, most between 400 and 500mm. With a 1.5x crop factor I reach out to about 750mm. Previously I shot with a reach out to 432mm. That extra 300 makes a difference.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/75485754@N00/

That Canon L 70-400mm would be ideal and you could use a teleconverter for extra reach on bright days. A lot of wildlife shooters use manual focus due shooting through brush.

Alternatively, consider a lens like the Sigma 150-500 HSM OS or the 120-400 HSM OS, as both have optical stabilization. I think they 're available in the Canon mount.

.

kennyluo

Nov 8th, 2009, 01:05 PM

I went to toronto zoo once and felt 70-200 + 1.4x combo was a little short (max 280mm) on a rebel XS

Depend on ur budget, if you can throw in 1k+, maybe take a look at 100-400L...

I will probably be soon offloading the 70-200 f4 IS because the 100-400L performs really well in my initial test shots (surprisingly) and i get 120mm more then 70-200 + 1.4x combo, yet performing comparably well...

i have heard that the recent dated 100-400L is a lot sharper than the older one (mine is UX05)

this is a full sized test shot done by rebel XS handheld with L JPEG no NR

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XS
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/400)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 320
Exposure Bias: -2/3 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2777/4079703908_4340ab7cce_o.jpg

NuggyBuggy

Nov 12th, 2009, 08:38 PM

I am currently with the T1i so I have a 1.6x crop factor - currently hitting 400mm with the 55-250.

I know when I took my S5 IS to the Zoo (432mm 35mm equivalent) there were a number of shots where I wish I could get closer.

What do you guys think? I've been eyeing the 70-200mm (better quaility, but 50mm shorter...) or should I try to get > 250mm reach?

I don't get it. You say you felt like 432 (effective) mm was too short, but you're looking at a lens which will you give you an effective 320mm ?

If 432 effective mm are too short for you, it seems like you have to go longer than 250mm... unless it wasn't really too short in the first place.

Kaitlyn

Nov 12th, 2009, 08:41 PM

I don't get it. You say you felt like 432 (effective) mm was too short, but you're looking at a lens which will you give you an effective 320mm ?

If 432 effective mm are too short for you, it seems like you have to go longer than 250mm... unless it wasn't really too short in the first place.

Where I'm at right now is liking the 100-400 for the range it covers. Unfortunately it's twice as heavy and a lot more $$$.

The 70-200mm is very sharp and in comparison to me 55-250, it would perform a LOT better at 200mm (vs 55-250 @ 200mm) and would be much, much more forgiving for cropping.

The 100-400 is sort of a "best of both worlds" sharp + longer range :)

kay188

Nov 12th, 2009, 09:05 PM

Can always get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter which will get you some more reach with any of your lens. The main trade-off being losing light

Not if you have an EF-S lens.
Teleconverters are not made to accept EF-S lenses.

I say get the 70-200 F/4L IS/nonIS.
With 15 MP from your T1i, you'll have cropping ability to crop towards your subject while sustaining the sharpness from the L lens.

gotak

Nov 12th, 2009, 09:50 PM

Where I'm at right now is liking the 100-400 for the range it covers. Unfortunately it's twice as heavy and a lot more $$$.

The 70-200mm is very sharp and in comparison to me 55-250, it would perform a LOT better at 200mm (vs 55-250 @ 200mm) and would be much, much more forgiving for cropping.

The 100-400 is sort of a "best of both worlds" sharp + longer range :)

Someone over on tpmg was selling a 400 5.6L for $1100. I would have gotten it if I had the cash ;)

Would that lens work for you? Or too much $$$?

Kaitlyn

Nov 12th, 2009, 09:52 PM

Someone over on tpmg was selling a 400 5.6L for $1100. I would have gotten it if I had the cash ;)

Would that lens work for you? Or too much $$$?

That's tempting and price is nice, but really I'm quite concerned about being "stuck" at 400mm... it feels quite limiting as oppose to something with some zoom.