| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2005 09:03:48 PM · #1 |
I need to find an inexpensive way to get more distance on my lens. I looked on ebay and found a 2x telephoto lens, but before I buy it I want to know if this is a wise choice. Sould I buy the telephoto or buy something else?
later days,
j
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 21:09:32. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:09:01 PM · #2 |
A 2X Telephoto won't get you much farther.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:12:51 PM · #3 |
What telephoto lens do you currently have? Are you just looking to buy a Teleconverter?
How much are you looking to spend? |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:17:07 PM · #4 |
| I'm willing to pay up to $100 and all I have lens wise is a 18-55mm. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:21:17 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by irika:
I'm willing to pay up to $100 and all I have lens wise is a 18-55mm. |
Your screwed.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:22:49 PM · #6 |
haha.
I figured as much.
If anyone has any other advice on this subject let me know.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:23:00 PM · #7 |
No, seriously, there are plenty of second party lenses to look at in that price range. The 2X for the lens you have is in my oppinion a poor choice.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:26:46 PM · #8 |
it might be a good idea to save a little bit of money to get decent lens for under $200.
I have quantaray 28-200 that was $199. It was my main lens and usually still is. Its not comparable to a canon L lens, but it sure works like a champ for me.
James |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:26:50 PM · #9 |
Here is an option for you, the lens costs $124.95
Tamron 75-300mm f/4-5.6
It's going to be extremely hard to find a telephoto for $100. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:28:09 PM · #10 |
Here is one that will give you a good bit of reach and still fit your budget. And it's made by Canon, if that matters.
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 21:29:04.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:56:26 PM · #11 |
If your budget is $100, I'd say save some more. The canon ef-75-300 is a decent lens and will get you as far as you need to go for most things. Ritz sells a similar lens (Quantaray 70-300 f4-5.6) for around $150 I think...You might want to look into that one, but the canon will yield better results in the long run.
Seriously though...hold off and save your money up for the ef 75-300 at least.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:10:11 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by deapee:
If your budget is $100, I'd say save some more. The canon ef-75-300 is a decent lens and will get you as far as you need to go for most things. Ritz sells a similar lens (Quantaray 70-300 f4-5.6) for around $150 I think...You might want to look into that one, but the canon will yield better results in the long run.
Seriously though...hold off and save your money up for the ef 75-300 at least. |
Yup save for the Canon...I had (3 days) the Quantaray 70-300 boy it sucked...hit or miss on picture quality and a tripod becomes a permanent part of your camera when using the Q-ray.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:12:47 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
Originally posted by deapee:
If your budget is $100, I'd say save some more. The canon ef-75-300 is a decent lens and will get you as far as you need to go for most things. Ritz sells a similar lens (Quantaray 70-300 f4-5.6) for around $150 I think...You might want to look into that one, but the canon will yield better results in the long run.
Seriously though...hold off and save your money up for the ef 75-300 at least. |
Yup save for the Canon...I had (3 days) the Quantaray 70-300 boy it sucked...hit or miss on picture quality and a tripod becomes a permanent part of your camera when using the Q-ray. |
I don't know how good the Canon lens is that I posted, but it is only $109.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:14:56 PM · #14 |
form what i've seen, this 70-200 L is an amazing lens for the money. nedless to say, $570 may be a bit much, but this looks to me like a lens that will probably last you a long time if you take care of it.
edit for price correction
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 22:15:38.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:44:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by irika:
I need to find an inexpensive way to get more distance on my lens. I looked on ebay and found a 2x telephoto lens, but before I buy it I want to know if this is a wise choice. Sould I buy the telephoto or buy something else?
later days,
j |
If you are talking teleconverter probably a bad choice for the kit lens.
One the 18-55 if a EFS lens and you couldn't use any TC's with a protruding end like the canon TC's.
TC's generally only work on fast lenses of f/4 or faster, 1.4x TC's add one stop and a 2x TC will add two whole stops. Auto Focus will hunt on a 2x if it even works.
Manufacture's generally Optimize their TC's for longer focal lengths...Canons case only certain lenses will even work, Kenko 300 Pro DG (Hoya glass same as tamron TC) is optimized for 200mm >
You should stay away from a TC in your situation.
You should persue a lens like nsbca7 or krazyivan mentioned but remember the budget glass will have you in the digital darkroom (photoshop) a lot more trying to sharpen and pull extra detail from the shots.
I had the Canon EF 55-200mm ($209) that was an ok lens pretty much exactly the same build and picture quality as the 18-55mm kit lens, plastic mount and all.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 11:06:36 PM · #16 |
Ok then an additional question. What kind of quality would be had using 2x extender with the Canon 75-300 EFS USM lense on the 20D?
|
|
|
|
03/25/2005 01:07:33 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Ok then an additional question. What kind of quality would be had using 2x extender with the Canon 75-300 EFS USM lense on the 20D? |
Right off your 75-300mm would go from a 4-5.6 to a f/6.3 on the short end, meaning loss of light and dof. This would limit when and where you could shoot. Outdoors would in the sun would be fine. Most manufactures right up front will tell you the AF may work but to count on Manual Focus with a 2x convertor on a slow lens.
You would have to go with a generic TC as Canon TC's support a short list of L series zooms and Primes.
Picture quality is always degraded a bit (towards soft) when these elements are added, if your lens is soft it will be softer with a TC. Canon and Minolta say that there is little to no quality loss when used with high end glass, but each of those TC's (2x) are near $400 a piece.
I will let you know here tomorrow or over the weekend as I have a Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG ($150) coming in the mail tomorrow or the next day. I went with the Pro 300 because it is Hoya glass which is identical to the Tamron TC, I went 1.4x because I don't have time to fool around manually focusing birds, planes and action type shots.
I'm going to use it with my 70-200mm 4L but I will throw my Tamron 28-300mm 1:3.5-6.3 XR Di on their for fun to see what kind of quality I can get out of it - should be about the same as your Canon 75-300mm.
Message edited by author 2005-03-25 01:09:23.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2005 01:14:34 AM · #18 |
Telephoto lens choices for under $100, even used on eBay is tough. The Canon 80-200 mentioned below is common there.
Tamron and Sigma make a couple of 70-300 lenses, and one of these is probably your best bet. The best of them, imag quality wise, is hte sigm 70-300 APO for about $200. The have a non-APO lens for $150. The cheaper one is on eBayfor $114, new.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2005 02:01:56 AM · #19 |
Do not get an extension tube !!!
It will only get you upto 110mm if you have a 2x version and it will give you a very poor image. They are ideal on high quality lens. If you use them on a consumer grade lens, the image quality will be bad. Check Bob Atkins review of extension tubes.
Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Quantaray, Vivitar/Phoenix all make sub $150 70-300mm zooms. My personal recommendation is the DL version of the Sigma 70-300mm zoom. It's a bit cheaper than the Canon's version and maybe optically better. Shutterbug did an evaluation of it and you can find it on their website. I have the Canon 55-200 ($200+) and the Sigma 70-300 APO ($200) and both are good consumer grade lens. The Sigma may focus a bit slower though, althoug if you get a cheaper non USM (USM lenses focus faster than non USM lenses) Canon lens, the difference will be smaller. My Sigma is slower to focus than my USM Canon, but it's not that big of a deal unless you are shooting mostly moving subjects. The DL version is less than $120, check out this site
//digitalfotoclub.com/sc/product-features.asp?id=744523120
I think Sigma 70-200mm DL zoom is a bit cheaper than a Canon, maybe optically better or atleast comparable and comes with a lens hood (Canon charges about 20 bucks if you want one).
I know you are a college student but skip out on a beer and pizza night
or two and save the extra 20 bucks and get the Sigma or a Canon.
Message edited by author 2005-03-25 02:21:56.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 10:10:56 AM EDT.
