| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2010 10:35:42 AM · #1 |
For my first SLR i'm going to get a 400d with either a 55-250 IS or a 70-300 NON IS.
Any ideas? |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:38:03 AM · #2 |
Personally, I don't need IS as I'm part tripod. But mere mortals find it handy when using shutter speeds much slower than the length of their lens.
;-)
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 10:42:54. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:38:43 AM · #3 |
Get whichever is faster and better reviews. If image quality is better on none IS, I would get that, otherwise get one with IS. IS for me is the second factor for a lens, first the speed and quality.
my 2 cents |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:42:11 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Get whichever is faster and better reviews. If image quality is better on none IS, I would get that, otherwise get one with IS. IS for me is the second factor for a lens, first the speed and quality.
my 2 cents |
By 'faster' what do you mean exactly? Also is USM worth it for an amateur?
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:48:37 AM · #5 |
Faster is lower number of F stop. For example, i would get something starts with 3.5 instead of 5.5
I think I would also do some research on the lenses to see if any reviews or samples. i bet there are some here in DPC. IS not a big deal, you always stabilize your camera one way or another, USM is not that important either, it's just a quieter (probably bit faster focusing) lens, that's about it. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:53:50 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
Faster is lower number of F stop. For example, i would get something starts with 3.5 instead of 5.5
I think I would also do some research on the lenses to see if any reviews or samples. i bet there are some here in DPC. IS not a big deal, you always stabilize your camera one way or another, USM is not that important either, it's just a quieter (probably bit faster focusing) lens, that's about it. |
USM also allows manual prefocus while AF mode is on; you can't do that with non-USM lenses. Makes a big difference sometimes. Regarding whether IS is "worth it", I just got my first IS lens, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, and the IS on that just blows me away. I don't have IS on my 70-200mm, and wish I did. But I'm getting older, and I'm not as steady as I used to be.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:56:02 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by adamelliott111:
By 'faster' what do you mean exactly? Also is USM worth it for an amateur? |
Lens "speed" refers to the widest aperture available. Let's pick apart the nomenclature in the 55-250's full name:
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
The EF-S refers to the fact that it's made for APS-C (1.6-crop) cameras, and cannot be used on cameras with a 35mm "full frame" sensor.
The 55-200mm refers to the range of focal lengths available
The f/4-5.6 means that the widest available aperture setting is f/4 at the wide angle end, and f/5.6 at the telephoto end. The smaller the aperture value, the more light gets in, counter-intuitively.
For reference, f/4-5.6 is considered a "slow" lens, and most consumer zooms fall into this category. A "fast" zoom will have f/2.8 as a widest aperture, and this will be constant throughout the zoom range. An f/2.8 lens will gather twice as much light as an f/4 lens, and four times as much as an f/5.6 lens. Fast zooms are larger, heavier, and *much* more expensive.
ETA:
With regard to IS, it is very useful for longer focal lengths, especially when you are using a slow lens, because your shutter speed will be slower. Do keep in mind that IS does not stop subject motion, so it's no good for shots of moving subjects where blur is caused by too slow a shutter speed to stop the subject. For people, that's typically around 1/50 second, but a lot faster if they are moving quickly, such as during a sporting event.
I agree that IS is secondary to the optical quality of the lens.
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 11:01:20. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 10:57:55 AM · #8 |
USM is supposed to be faster focusing. My USM lens seems to get focus lock in poorer conditions compared to the non-USM. As to whether you need IS or not, I think it depends a lot on what you are shooting. With moving objects, handheld at full reach, IS definitely helps. This was taken with the 55-250 you are considering:
With less active subjects, perhaps you can get away with non IS. Photographers didn't have IS for years and did fine, but it's nice to have.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:23:37 AM · #9 |
So, would you recommend say getting the 400d with IS lenses (kit lens IS and 55-250 IS)
or
450d with non IS lenses.
I want to shoot a bit of everything really, and would like the flexibility to do so. Hopefully costs being below £500
Thanks for the help guys.
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 11:24:41. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:33:33 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by adamelliott111:
So, would you recommend say getting the 400d with IS lenses (kit lens IS and 55-250 IS)
or
450d with non IS lenses. |
I'd say get the IS lens. I think it will help. I previously used a 28-300mm non stabilized Tamron. I get more keepers at at 250mm with IS than I got without the IS. I am very pleased with the 55-250 IS, especially for a budget lens. I don't hesitiate to recommend it. However, I do eventually I want to upgrade to a 300mm with IS and USM. The extra 50mm and hopefully faster focusing will be of benefit at airshows and in marginal light.
As stated above by  Bear_Music and Focuspoint, they suggest the non-IS option. They are also both experienced photographers who can either hold a camera very steady, or they use a tripod far more often than I do.
As far as the camera goes, the 400D is a bit older, but still a perfectly good camera. I'd prefer the 450D if I were buying myself, however the prices on bodies drop quickly and lenses are a more important part of the equation. You have to decide what features are important to you.
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 11:36:48. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:36:13 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
As stated above by Bear_Music and Focuspoint, they suggest the non-IS option. They are also both experienced photographers who can either hold a camera very steady, or they use a tripod far more often than I do. |
Actually, I was saying my new IS 100mm blows me away, and I wish I had the IS version of my 70-200mm...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:37:27 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Actually, I was saying my new IS 100mm blows me away, and I wish I had the IS version of my 70-200mm... |
You did. My error. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:40:30 AM · #13 |
Given your questions, I'm guessing you're moving from a point-and-shoot to the wonderful world of SLRs. There's a lot to learn. Search Google for tutorials; that's how I got started. To really get this subject, you need to understand how aperture (how wide the lens opens up to let light go through - not necessarily connected to how physically big the end of the lens is that you point at the subject), shutter speed, and sensor sensitivity (set by something called ISO) interact to affect the amount of light in each shot. But we can hit the basics here.
The first thing to understand is that unless you're on a tripod, your camera is moving when you click the shutter button. You can practice breathing, brace yourself, hold your elbows into your chest, etc. to reduce shaking. But no matter what, you can't keep perfectly still.
So how do we get clear handheld photos? Three ways: faster shutter speeds, lower focal lengths, and IS (Nikon calls it VR, and other makers use their own terms). Nothing's guaranteed; each of these improves the percentage of shots that will be clear compared to not using them.
Strikeslip referred to a good rule of thumb without IS: to get a clear shot, you want the shutter speed to be at least as fast as the reciprocal of the focal length. So if you're taking a shot with a 50 mm lens, you want the shutter to be speed to be no longer than 1/50s. At 200 mm, you want it to be no longer than 1/200s. In full daylight, you can usually zoom to whatever you want and still get fast enough shutter speeds. In lower light, if you're satisfied with lower focal lengths, you can still get clear shots with slower shutter speeds. Alternatively, you can open up the aperture more to keep your shutter speed faster (but every lens has a maximum aperture, so you hit a limit at some point).
Another way of thinking about the paragraph above is: the longer your shutter is open and the longer the focal length (more zoomed in), the more apparent shaking is in your photo.
So when you want to take a long zoom shot in lower light, and after you hit the max aperture, you have to either get a tripod or IS to get rid of blur caused by shaking. A tripod really eliminates it. IS improves your odds by quite a bit.
But note that neither one stops motion of your subject.
Here's an example. I took this shot on a rocking boat at dusk. Given the low light, I had to slow down the shutter or it'd be too dark. But I also needed to zoom all the way in to get details. So I shot it at 200mm but a shutter speed of only 1/125s:
Without IS, it would've been totally blurred.
Now, here's a bit of discussion of your question about what "faster" means for a lens.
There are two ways to change how much light gets into your sensor: shutter speed and aperture (which is how wide the opening into the lens is and is set by the F-stop number; lower f-stop equals bigger aperture). Getting enough light is a tradeoff - more open aperture means you can have a faster shutter speed.
Lenses are described by their focal length and maximum aperture. Because of some math I'll skip for the moment, the numbers aren't evenly spaced, but a lens with a max aperture of 5.6 will open up a lot less than one with a max aperture of 2.8, and 2.8 opens up a lot less than 1.8. Once you hit the maximum aperture, you can't get more light without slowing the shutter speed.
So a lens is "faster" if it has a bigger max aperture because it lets you use faster shutter speeds.
Every added feature on a lens adds cost, and usually adds weight. The most expensive lenses combine long focal lengths, wide apertures (think 2.8 or lower numbers), and IS. Another cost-adding feature is keeping the same max aperture regardless of focal length. Less-expensive zoom lenses have lower max apertures (higher F-numbers) at longer zooms.
For example, the lens I used on that lava shot has a constant max aperture of 2.8 throughout the zoom rangeof 70-200mm, and it has IS. It cost more than my camera!
Message edited by author 2010-08-29 11:51:59. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:42:17 AM · #14 |
Yeesh. You guys answered most of what I said while I was typing it!
And Bear, I LOVE LOVE LOVE my 70-200 2.8 IS lens. It was freakin' expensive, but it's just magic. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:46:04 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
With moving objects ...
With less active subjects, perhaps you can get away with non IS. |
Steve, IS doesn't help you freeze moving subjects. Only fast shutter speeds do that. IS simply reduces the effects of shaking on the shooter's end. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:46:26 AM · #16 |
| I know tripods have been mentioned as whether to use an IS lens or not. However, it is worth pointing out that IS should be turned OFF when used with a tripod. Just a tip for the OP. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:49:45 AM · #17 |
To be honest I can't imagine why I would buy a non IS lens unless there was no IS equivalent.
If it was a matter of cost - I would save a bit longer to get the IS one or go for a refurb to secure it.
keep an eye on somewhere like this link
They sell SLR's and lenses, are very reputable, and the stock changes most days. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 11:53:44 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
To be honest I can't imagine why I would buy a non IS lens unless there was no IS equivalent.
If it was a matter of cost - I would save a bit longer to get the IS one or go for a refurb to secure it.
|
Depends on what you like to shoot. If you're always on a tripod, or shooting wide-angle, it's an expensive add-on. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 12:34:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Jedusi:
To be honest I can't imagine why I would buy a non IS lens unless there was no IS equivalent.
If it was a matter of cost - I would save a bit longer to get the IS one or go for a refurb to secure it.
|
Depends on what you like to shoot. If you're always on a tripod, or shooting wide-angle, it's an expensive add-on. |
Not an unreasonable comment - so long as you intend to carry on using a tripod for the life of the lens and don't fancy trying out a different style of shooting.
Additionally with IS it might just be that sometimes you could leave the tripod at home and still get the shot ? |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 12:38:35 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by Jedusi:
To be honest I can't imagine why I would buy a non IS lens unless there was no IS equivalent.
If it was a matter of cost - I would save a bit longer to get the IS one or go for a refurb to secure it.
|
Depends on what you like to shoot. If you're always on a tripod, or shooting wide-angle, it's an expensive add-on. |
Not an unreasonable comment - so long as you intend to carry on using a tripod for the life of the lens and don't fancy trying out a different style of shooting.
Additionally with IS it might just be that sometimes you could leave the tripod at home and still get the shot ? |
Oh, sure. Of course. That's why I love my IS lens. We could keep repeating these points forever. Both are relevant: if you never get off a tripod, IS is unnecessary. And if you get IS, you can get shots you'd otherwise need a tripod to get. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 12:43:07 PM · #21 |
That was the coolest thing I found when I got my 60mm EF-S USM macro. I didn't realize it at first, I thought I had broken the lens! :)
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
USM also allows manual prefocus while AF mode is on; |
|
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:30:53 PM · #22 |
Guys I just want to say that I appreciate everything that's been said. I'm only 15 so you've all taught me a lot :D
As for the moment I'm on a 'bridge camera'. It has some of the same adjustable setting as an SLR but it does have it's limits and no interchangable lenses.
Thanks again :)
Adam. |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:33:38 PM · #23 |
Just a quick addition...
Here are some shots that wouldn't have been possible without IS.
All the images below are shot without benefit of tripod, monopod, or even a good surface to brace on.
 0.5 sec
 0.25 sec
 0.25 sec
 1/30th sec, showing off auto-switching IS (mode 1/ mode 2). |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:38:31 PM · #24 |
| On the last photo, what do you mean in the explanation? |
|
|
|
08/29/2010 02:44:57 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by adamelliott111:
On the last photo, what do you mean in the explanation? |
The 15-85IS has an auto-switching IS system.. Older lenses may have a switch that selects Mode 1 or Mode 2, Mode 2 turns off the horizontal IS so that you can get nice smoothing panning shots, like the fourth image above. Most lenses that do not have this switch are locked into Mode 1 (IS on both axis), however, the newer 15-85 can sense that you are tracking a moving object and will automatically switch into Mode 2 without the need for flipping switches..
If you are able to afford it, the 15-85IS is an excellent lens, probably one of the best ever made. But, it's well over twice the cost of the lenses you mentioned that you were looking at, and it's a little short @ 85mm for tele work.
But, as for IS? That lens is a dream. |
|
