DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Too many choices - don't understand well enough...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/18/2007 11:47:50 PM · #1
Ok, so I finally purchased myself a new camera - a Canon Rebel XTI. I would have preferred something higher end, but this is about all my budget can afford for a while still. It only comes with the 18-55mm lens and I am wanting to purchase a telephoto since my favorite photography is wildlife.
I have been reading and researching on numerous websites the different lenses available, both by Canon and other manufacturers, but still really don't understand what I am looking at or what the differences really are. For instance - what is the difference between the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens? Another question would be is there any noticeable difference between using say a Canon lens or a Tamron?

If anyone can provide some tips or pointers or even suggestions for a good telephoto that isn't horribly expensive I would appreciate it.
After I get the telephoto squared away I am also going to work on getting myself a nice macro!!

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide!
 02/18/2007 11:50:13 PM · #2
The only thing id say on the tamron, while quality is comparable and price is competative. Ive heard grumblings from nikon users about having to have the Tamron's calibrated to their camera's due to autofocus issues. But its an easy fix if sent to tamron.

BTW nice to see an S5X00 user lol

Message edited by author 2007-02-18 23:50:33.
 02/19/2007 12:13:39 AM · #3
The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM has "IS" which stands for Image Stabilization. Basically, there is a gyroscope inside the lens to detect motion, and a moveable lens element which moves with the detected motion in order to cancel out the motion.

So whereas the general recommendation is to shoot a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (so 1/300th of a second for a 300mm lens), with IS turned on, you can generally shoot at about 1/2 to 1/4 of that speed (i.e. 1/150 down to 1/75) without too much worry of blurred image (due to your body shaking).
 02/19/2007 09:41:22 AM · #4
"So whereas the general recommendation is to shoot a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (so 1/300th of a second for a 300mm lens), with IS turned on, you can generally shoot at about 1/2 to 1/4 of that speed (i.e. 1/150 down to 1/75) without too much worry of blurred image (due to your body shaking)."

I already use a tripod for just about everything so in your opinion do you think I would be ok with a lens without the USM? I mean, ideally yes I would like to have it, but right now my biggest factor is cost and the ones without the USM are less than half the price of the ones with USM.
 02/19/2007 10:05:13 AM · #5
Originally posted by ArpeggioAngel:
"So whereas the general recommendation is to shoot a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (so 1/300th of a second for a 300mm lens), with IS turned on, you can generally shoot at about 1/2 to 1/4 of that speed (i.e. 1/150 down to 1/75) without too much worry of blurred image (due to your body shaking)."

I already use a tripod for just about everything so in your opinion do you think I would be ok with a lens without the USM? I mean, ideally yes I would like to have it, but right now my biggest factor is cost and the ones without the USM are less than half the price of the ones with USM.


By the way you mean "IS" rather than "USM" here. IS = Image Stabilization = what dwterry was talking about. USM stands for Ultra-Sonic Motor which is a type of motor used for the autofocus mechanism (basically it's faster and quieter).

So in answer to your question, if you're confident that you will always use the tripod and not need to handhold those longer exposures then yes, save the money and get the non-IS lens.

As for USM it's nice to have it, but it doesn't make any difference to the quality of your pictures, merely how fast the autofocus will work (although generally lenses which are better optically are more likely to have USM). So if you're strapped for cash then yes you can live without it.

splidge
02/19/2007 10:43:09 AM · #6
Originally posted by splidge:
Originally posted by ArpeggioAngel:
"So whereas the general recommendation is to shoot a minimum shutter speed of 1/focal length (so 1/300th of a second for a 300mm lens), with IS turned on, you can generally shoot at about 1/2 to 1/4 of that speed (i.e. 1/150 down to 1/75) without too much worry of blurred image (due to your body shaking)."

I already use a tripod for just about everything so in your opinion do you think I would be ok with a lens without the USM? I mean, ideally yes I would like to have it, but right now my biggest factor is cost and the ones without the USM are less than half the price of the ones with USM.


By the way you mean "IS" rather than "USM" here. IS = Image Stabilization = what dwterry was talking about. USM stands for Ultra-Sonic Motor which is a type of motor used for the autofocus mechanism (basically it's faster and quieter).

So in answer to your question, if you're confident that you will always use the tripod and not need to handhold those longer exposures then yes, save the money and get the non-IS lens.

As for USM it's nice to have it, but it doesn't make any difference to the quality of your pictures, merely how fast the autofocus will work (although generally lenses which are better optically are more likely to have USM). So if you're strapped for cash then yes you can live without it.

splidge


Thank you for the correction...as much as I read about this stuff you would think I should understand it by now, but I learn better when "talking" with others about it.

Yeah - I use a tripod all the time even for just my little Fujifilm with standard lens on it...I have a slight shake in my hands that messes me up even with a small lens so I would definately be using it with a larger lens!
 02/19/2007 10:50:27 AM · #7
you might also want to have a a look a this

//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

very extensive
 02/19/2007 10:56:27 AM · #8
One of the Sigma 70-300mm lenses has had a lot of good comments about it.
The Canon 70-300 IS is reported to be a great lens for its price, and better than the non-IS versions.

You may also want to check //www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
 02/19/2007 11:40:27 AM · #9
Originally posted by ArpeggioAngel:
a good telephoto that isn't horribly expensive

Well there's your problem.

There are "good telephoto" lenses, and there are inexpensive telephoto lenses. There is, unfortunately, no overlap between the two groups.

First, define your budget. What's the most you can reasonably be expected to save up and pay for (or finance) a good long lens? Be real specific and do some soul searching. A "good" lens in this category will likely cost more than your camera did. (significantly more depending on how you define "good").
 02/19/2007 01:48:07 PM · #10
Unfortunately my budget is rather tight and my credit is shot so I cannot get financed (have tried a few places already just in case). I spent pretty much what was left of my tax return on the camera. I think right now I am going to go with the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens since I have a vacation coming up next month and I would like at least one telephoto lens for that. Then after vacation I will start saving again to upgrade to something bigger and better!!
 02/19/2007 05:27:43 PM · #11
Originally posted by ArpeggioAngel:
Ok, so I finally purchased myself a new camera - a Canon Rebel XTI. I would have preferred something higher end, but this is about all my budget can afford for a while still. It only comes with the 18-55mm lens and I am wanting to purchase a telephoto since my favorite photography is wildlife.
I have been reading and researching on numerous websites the different lenses available, both by Canon and other manufacturers, but still really don't understand what I am looking at or what the differences really are. For instance - what is the difference between the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens? Another question would be is there any noticeable difference between using say a Canon lens or a Tamron?

If anyone can provide some tips or pointers or even suggestions for a good telephoto that isn't horribly expensive I would appreciate it.
After I get the telephoto squared away I am also going to work on getting myself a nice macro!!

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide!


My suggestion here would be patience grasshopper. Learn the camera to it's fullest. Learn to use the lens thatyou have to it's fullest. There is nothing wrong with the XTI it is a very capable camera. While you are learning that camera, do some reading and learn about lenses and their components function in photography. While you are doing so save your money. Then when you are ready, buy good glass the first time. That will save you money in the long run. Later on you can purchase a new camera body and have good glass to put on it.

You mention wanting to do wildlife photography. None of the lenses you listed are not really in true wildlife league. A good wildlife lens usually starts at 400mm with the lowest f stop you can afford. If you are talking about zoo-wildlife you are looking at good lenses. Getting close to animals in the wild is 1. tough as they steer clear of man and 2. dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. Nothing will ruin your day more than a close encounter with a bear. Yogi and booboo they are not. I am not trying to discourage you, but spending money over again to upgrade a lens is IMHO a waste when a little patience and saving can get you what you need the first time. That is why I am about 2/3 of the way I need to be for that Canon 400mm f2.8 I want for sports and wildlife. I figure that in about 24 months I will have saved enough. You have not bought a camera, you have bought a system, learn first and buy smart the first time. Good luck.
 02/19/2007 05:37:17 PM · #12
Originally posted by gryphonslair99:
Originally posted by ArpeggioAngel:
Ok, so I finally purchased myself a new camera - a Canon Rebel XTI. I would have preferred something higher end, but this is about all my budget can afford for a while still. It only comes with the 18-55mm lens and I am wanting to purchase a telephoto since my favorite photography is wildlife.
I have been reading and researching on numerous websites the different lenses available, both by Canon and other manufacturers, but still really don't understand what I am looking at or what the differences really are. For instance - what is the difference between the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens? Another question would be is there any noticeable difference between using say a Canon lens or a Tamron?

If anyone can provide some tips or pointers or even suggestions for a good telephoto that isn't horribly expensive I would appreciate it.
After I get the telephoto squared away I am also going to work on getting myself a nice macro!!

Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide!


My suggestion here would be patience grasshopper. Learn the camera to it's fullest. Learn to use the lens thatyou have to it's fullest. There is nothing wrong with the XTI it is a very capable camera. While you are learning that camera, do some reading and learn about lenses and their components function in photography. While you are doing so save your money. Then when you are ready, buy good glass the first time. That will save you money in the long run. Later on you can purchase a new camera body and have good glass to put on it.

You mention wanting to do wildlife photography. None of the lenses you listed are not really in true wildlife league. A good wildlife lens usually starts at 400mm with the lowest f stop you can afford. If you are talking about zoo-wildlife you are looking at good lenses. Getting close to animals in the wild is 1. tough as they steer clear of man and 2. dangerous if you don't know what you are doing. Nothing will ruin your day more than a close encounter with a bear. Yogi and booboo they are not. I am not trying to discourage you, but spending money over again to upgrade a lens is IMHO a waste when a little patience and saving can get you what you need the first time. That is why I am about 2/3 of the way I need to be for that Canon 400mm f2.8 I want for sports and wildlife. I figure that in about 24 months I will have saved enough. You have not bought a camera, you have bought a system, learn first and buy smart the first time. Good luck.


Very very good advice, you will not be happy with cheap lens and will not get much for them if you try to sell them latter. Quaility lenses will hold there value.
The kit lens is not to bad once you learn its sweet spots.
Good luck
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 10:14:59 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 10:14:59 PM EDT.