Telephoto Lens

[u8ky2]

Alright, so I am finding that a lot of the shots that I think would look good, I can't get because I only have the canon kit lens (18-55). Now, first, will my kit lens be a good lens for taking landscape since it is a wide angle? And second, what telephoto lens could you recommend for a canon rebel xs? I am hoping to at the most spend $600. It would be nice to have it a little cheaper, but if not, than oh well. So, any recommendations?

[RichardTaylor]

Your kit lens will be fine for a lot of landscapes, unless space (not a lot of room to get your subject in) is really tight.
What, and in what lighting conditions, were you wanting to shoot with a telephoto lens?

[ElCapitan]

The kit lens will be fine for landscapes. Not an ideal solution, but you can stitch photos together if it for some reason isn't wide enough.

I am strictly a Canon user, and have only used Canon lenses, so I can't vouch for any of the other brands. My first telephoto lens (also an addition to the 18-55 kit lens) was the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS. Right now, B&H has an instant $150 rebate making it $499. The 75-300 USM is considerably cheaper at $200. I haven't used that particular lens, so I am not sure if all you are paying for is IS, or if the 70-300 offers a better build and image quality.

I did like the 70-300, but it is not going to get the job done in poor light.

[Michael_2010]

Amazon has the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens on sale for $498. That lens was about $650 a few months ago. I got one a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty happy with it for the money. Not "L" glass, but a pretty good lens. If you spend two hundred bucks on the Canon EF-S 55-250mm, you will be wishing you had gone ahead and spent the additional money to get the EF.

Between the two lenses (18-55 & 70-300) you will have a good variance from semi-wide to telephoto. Later you might learn that you either need an ultra-wide or a much more powerful telephoto, depending upon your photographic interests. I wouldn't take that plunge immediately unless money is not an issue.

[u8ky2]

I did look at that lens and it had pretty good reviews. I also looked at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM. For $675 on amazon, why is this L series, white lens so cheap? Is it because it doesn't have IS? Is it really that big of an issue? Or, should I just spend the $498 for the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? I am also having a problem with the cropped sensor and the full frame sensor cameras. I know my is a cropped, but I hear you need to buy certain lenses depending on which type of sensor you have.

RichardTaylor... I am not sure what lighting condition I will be shooting in. It may be dimly lit or it may be brightly lit. I don't really want to limit myself by putting what I'm shooting into a category. I know I will be shooting a lot of birds with it, and pretty much anything that it far away.

What about the 2x converter? Will that work on the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? That will make it 600mm, right? But then it will also increase the aperture by 2. Is it really that big of a deal? I know for wide angle lenses, they have very large apertures... but if you are shooting a landscape, why would you want to blur the background? Wouldn't you want a small aperture? Sorry if these are stupid questions. I'm just trying to learn.

[Michael_2010]

The Canon Teleconverters only work on the Canon "L" series lenses. There are third party TC's that will work with the EF 70-300mm. I have the Kenko 1.4x and I can hardly tell the difference in IQ unless I'm doing some serious pixel peeping at my desktop. I think the Kenko 2x is actually cheaper than the 1.4x, but that is because no one wants it. You end up paying a high price in loss of IQ and what's the point if the end result is bad.

As you get deeper into this hobby you are going to be thinking a whole lot about various lenses. Best to take your time and decide what has real value to you based upon your interests. I'm just now getting into bird photography and I can tell ya that 300mm just barely brushes the surface. However, jumping up to that next plateau involves some serious bucks and I'm not ready to take that leap.

[u8ky2]

So would you recommend that I get the EF 70-300mm? Is that a good lens to add to my 18-55? Will it be good for bird photos? Or should I just save the money and keep the 18-55? $500 is quite a bit. But there have been MANY times where 55mm wasn't enough.

Also can anyone explain about what I wrote about apertures in my previous post? I am really curious about that.

I know this is WAY off topic, but what ways are there to make money off of my photos? I'm not looking to start a business or have to go somewhere. Is there a site online where you can sell your photos? I don't want to have to interact with anyone. I already have school and a job. This is just a hobby that I enjoy doing and was wondering if there was a quick way of making a little cash to pay for my equipment. Maybe like a photo contest or something? Thanks all!

[inkista]

Originally Posted by u8ky2

So would you recommend that I get the EF 70-300mm? Is that a good lens to add to my 18-55? Will it be good for bird photos?

Just me, but if you're seriously into birding, just save up the pennies and go for the 400/5.6L USM or the 100-400L IS USM.

The 70-300 IS USM is a good midgrade lens, but in the end, you'll find it's not long enough to fill a frame with a small bird enough of the time. And TCs are never the same as simply having a longer lens.

The 70-200 f/4L USM is cheap because it's not only unstabilized, it's also f/4. f/4 is kind of a neutral not-fast/not-slow aperture, and it won't be fast enough for use inside the house. Most folks who get a 70-200 do so for portrait shooting, and prefer to get the f/2.8 version, which zooms up into the four-figure range.

Or should I just save the money and keep the 18-55? $500 is quite a bit. But there have been MANY times where 55mm wasn't enough.

Then it sounds like you need a telephoto zoom. I would say consider the $250 for a 55-250 IS. As stated above it's not the greatest lens in the world, but it's certainly at least as good as the kit lens, and it costs less. Stop it down to f/8, and you can get quite good results from it. You could blow more money and go for the midgrade, but if you're eventually just going to end up with a $1000+ L anyway, it might be better to save up the pennies for that instead, rather than hopping up one step at a time, and losing money with each lens transaction along the way.

Also can anyone explain about what I wrote about apertures in my previous post? I am really curious about that.

Yes. It's a really big deal. I'd actually recommend going with a 1.4x tc, and only decreasing your maximum aperture by a single stop, rather than 2 stops.

F-numbers are often confusing to newbies because everyone at first assumes a linear scale. The f-numbers, however, are NOT a linear scale, they're a square-root-of-two scale. This is completely non-intuitive. But just know that going from f/11 to f/16 is the same as going from f/1.4 to f/2. The whole-stop f-number scale goes like this:

f/1.4 -> f/2 -> f/2.8 -> f/4 -> f/5.6 -> f/8 -> f/11 -> f/16 -> f/22

The maximum aperture on your lens is the widest that lens can have its aperture set at any time. The 70-300 being an f/4.5-5.6 lens, means that at 70mm, it can only open to f/4.5. And @300mm, it can only open to f/5.6.

Assuming you use the lens @300mm most of the time, if you add a 1.4x tc, it becomes an f/8 lens. If you add a 2x tc, it becomes an f/11 lens.

Canon dSLRS (aside from the 1-series) stop autofocusing when the lens's maximum aperture hits f/8. The camera's autofocus system needs light to "see" by to focus the camera. It uses the lens at its maximum aperture, and f/8 and f/11 are too dim for the AF system to autofocus accurately. This is why Canon's 2x tcs only work with L f/2.8 lenses. You can get a 3rd party non-reporting TC and fool the camera into thinking there isn't one on there, but you're still going to be sending less light to the AF sensors, and your autofocusing performance is likely to take a hit no matter what you do.

In addition, 2xs tend to be softer than 1.4x tcs, because they're doing more extreme things to the light. There is no free lunch. Using a tc is not like shooting with a longer lens. You're going to take a sharpness hit. This is why most of us crazy birders end up with at least a 400mm lens.

[Michael_2010]

Only you can make those lens decisions based upon your needs and budget. I definitely wouldn't skip a meal in order to get a lens. Inkista might be right about the EF-S 55-250mm. You wouldn't have much invested and it would give you a chance to see how important that focal range is for you.

I did exactly that. I bought an XSi with the 18-55mm kit lens. I got bored with that and got the 55-250mm. It is an okay lens and it does give you more reach. I never was all that happy with my copy of that lens. It just seems to produce soft images throughout its focal range. I don't regret buying it, but that was money that could have gone toward something better.

You may want to go to a camera shop and look through a few lenses. You might end up very disappointed with the capability of 250 & 300mm, because both lenses will require that you get reasonably close to birds in one way or another.

[RichardTaylor]

There are other threads on this site re birding and also long lenses.

+1 on Inkista's comments re lenses.

Here is why you need long for serious birding or other subjects where you want reach.

(1) 200mm (real) on a 1.6 crop camera. Look at the shooting distances for this mid sized bird.


(2) 400mm (real on a 1.6 crop camera)


Re aperture.
See this tute, on this site, on aperture. You may want to have a look at the whole tute (5 parts) as it covers the basics of exposure.

Exposure (3): Aperture


Re lenses and sensor sizes.
EF-S lenses should not be used on full frame or 1.3 crop cameras without problems (some of them major).
On a 1.6 crop camera you can use both EF and EF-S lenses.

Generally speaking higher mega pixel, and full frame, cameras will show up lens defects more then the smaller lower megapixel cameras.

My thoughts on lens purchases for tele lenses.
And this is from personal experience (and I started with the 75-300 as part of a twin lens kit)
(1) You buy a 55-250 becuse if the IS and it is small and compact) - $US 200
(2) After a while you realise you want something with more reach, faster focussing better IQ so you buy the 70-300 IS - $US 500 (this lens is not a total waste as I still use it when I have to travel a bit lighter and really don't need the 400mm)
(3) You realise that 300mm is not really long enough and you want better IQ, especially wide open, and even faster focussing.
So you buy a Canon 100-400 $US 1650, for versatility
or a 400mm F5.6 at $US 1329

However the above lenses are really only good light lenses for moving subjects so then it starts again for shooting hand held in low light are for subjects tat move in low light.
Think F2 or F2.8 lenses. So it starts again.

Buying your first $1000+ lens is a hard pill to swallow, however you only have to do it once and will save $$$ in the long run.
The other benefit is you don't have to agonize over lens decisions etc.




.