Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:55 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 pm
Posts: 10
Hi all. I am having so much fun with my 4 month old 550D rebel but I feel I may be outgrowing the kit lenses that came with it. 55-250mm and the 18-55mm.
I am finding myself using the 55-250mm a lot more than the other. I love motorsport and my kids chosen sport, but I am finding this lens just short of zoom and clarity when and where I need it.
Would dearly love advice on lens selection to take me to the next step. I cant afford top dollar gear so a good mid range will have to do for now.
I also wouldnt mind sound advice on a mid priced macro lens also.
Thanks guys.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 850
Location: SE Texas
Tokina makes a truly good 100mm zoom for macro. I started shooting DSLR with a pre-owned 400D (XTi) that my wife acquired from a co-worker, and part of the package was a Tokina 100mm Macro lens. As I learned more, I realized this lens is a true gem, for use as a macro lens, as well as general telephoto. I bought my Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro IS because I felt the need for weather-sealing and Image Stabilization, and had an assignment for which 100mm was the desired focal length.

For dedicated use as a macro lens, however, the Tokina works as well as the much more expensive L lens. Image Stabilization is not needed on a tripod, and most macro shooting is not done in the rain. I am not sure what your locality's price point would be for the non-L Canon 100mm 2.8, but that would be another candidate for a good macro lens.

There are macro lenses in the shorter focal lengths, but keep in mind that live subjects may not tolerate a lens being within inches of them. Macro lenses of less than 100mm focal length, to get an image of 1:1, usually do require getting very close, if I recall correctly.

I am no macro expert, by any means, and do not need exact 1:1 images, but do frequently shoot at very close range, for which I can use either the Canon or Tokina macro lens, but other lenses can get quite close to a subject, too. One lens that actually does quite well, at very close range, is
your humble 18-55mm kit zoom. I have seen local Crime Scene Unit officers
using the 18-55mm to shoot entire crime scenes, to include VERY close shots, and long exposures in low light.

I hope my rambling has not caused you to fall asleep by this point! Others with more actual 1:1 macro experience will probably post replies. I will also defer to those with actual experience to discuss telephoto zooms. My longest Canon zoom is an EF 28-135mm, which is probably not long enough for the sporting events you shoot.

One thing regarding clarity with your longer zoom: It may not be as limiting as you think. If motion blur is the cause of lack of clarity, you may not need a better lens. Assuming the sport is played outdoors, try shooting in Time Value mode, at 1/250th of a second, and see if that makes a difference. On a sunny day, 1/250th should provide plenty of light for a good exposure. If the sport involves really fast movements, some motions, such as a kick or swing, may still be a bit blurred. You may like that effect, but if not, try 1/500th.

For what it is worth, I have used my 100mm macro lenses for my nephew's outdoor sports. I have been able to get close enough for some good images.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, D700, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm 2.8 STM, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 pm
Posts: 10
Thankyou so much for taking the time to reply Rex. Your post is most informative.
I know it must get tiring of folks like me seeking opinions and thoughts but a few more opinions on the zoom side would be dearly appreciated. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:20 pm
Posts: 218
Hi Juddas,

As I understand, your problems with your current zoom lens are:
1. You need more reach, and
2. Better image quality
The first lens to fit your needs is the Canon 100-400mm L lens. It is also quite expensive. There is alsothe Sigma 150-500mm lens, which is significantly more pocket friendly.

You can check prices and reviews to know how well they fit your needs.

Hope this helps.....
Jinay.

_________________
A picture is worth a thousand words, but a photograph should make you say just one - "WOW!"

Canon EOS 550D + 18-55mm Kit Lens + Canon 75-300mm III USM + Filters.
Panasonic Lumix FZ35

My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdm_01/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1154
Location: bit east of Melbourne
I would suggest you have a look at the Tamron 70-300 SP VC and the 17-50 Tamron the non VC version.

The 70-300 is a pretty cost effective way of getting better quality and more range.
For fast action or especially outdoors and a handy portrait and low light lens also consider the 85 1.8 usm.
If you do see yourself getting as into macro as already mentioned, they are a great idea especially as they also double as a low light and portrait lens

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 pm
Posts: 10
Quote:
Hi Juddas,

As I understand, your problems with your current zoom lens are:
1. You need more reach, and
2. Better image quality
The first lens to fit your needs is the Canon 100-400mm L lens. It is also quite expensive. There is alsothe Sigma 150-500mm lens, which is significantly more pocket friendly.

You can check prices and reviews to know how well they fit your needs.

Hope this helps.....
Jinay.


Thankyou for your reply Jinay.
I have caught the prices on those you have mentioned and yes sir....they are expensive. :shock:
As this is still a learning curve for me im not quite sure I can justify that amount of money to the Minister of Finances (my lovely wife) :lol:

Thanks
Peter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 pm
Posts: 10
Quote:
I would suggest you have a look at the Tamron 70-300 SP VC and the 17-50 Tamron the non VC version.

The 70-300 is a pretty cost effective way of getting better quality and more range.
For fast action or especially outdoors and a handy portrait and low light lens also consider the 85 1.8 usm.
If you do see yourself getting as into macro as already mentioned, they are a great idea especially as they also double as a low light and portrait lens


Thankyou for your reply also Maxjj.
I have been looking at the Tamron 70-300 amongst others in this range. Your advice is great and I thankyou for that. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: long lens
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 103
Location: East Of England UK
Hi
I'd suggest the cannon 70-300 f4-5.6 (non L version). I have this lens and have been very pleased with the performance and sharpness. I bought it after reading a review which suggested it was a "hidden L lens" and I would agree.

Check out my flickr page for some horse event driving pics taken with it
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hairyfrog

Some of these appeared on the British Driving Association web site so can't be all bad :)
Thanks

_________________
EOS 40D / Ixus 500 / S95, Canon 24-105 F4L, 50 F1.8, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, Canon 10-22 IS, Speedlite 430EX II, 580 EXII
My flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/hairyfrog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1154
Location: bit east of Melbourne
Hi hairyfrog, the 70-300 usm canon lens is very good, unfortunately the new Tamron not only matches it, it is a bit better and its also cheaper than than the canon.
The new Sp version is very good.

:D

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: tamron
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 103
Location: East Of England UK
Not used the Tamron Max so could not comment ... sounds like there are plenty of options!

_________________
EOS 40D / Ixus 500 / S95, Canon 24-105 F4L, 50 F1.8, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, Canon 10-22 IS, Speedlite 430EX II, 580 EXII
My flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/hairyfrog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:42 pm
Posts: 100
Location: Surrey, England
Quote:
Hi
I'd suggest the cannon 70-300 f4-5.6 (non L version). I have this lens and have been very pleased with the performance and sharpness. I bought it after reading a review which suggested it was a "hidden L lens" and I would agree.


With respect, I spent a long time deciding whether to get the Canon or Tamron 70-300 - and having tried both can honestly say the Tamron beats the Canon on most fronts. Its AF system is faster and quieter, the image stabilisation is far more effective, and the build quality is better (Canon 70-300 is similar to the kit lens build-wise).

I'm not sure where the "hidden L lens" reviews came from - when I was shopping, the Tamron was new and the Canon was the established option - reviews were comparing the Tamron to the Canon 70-200L F/4 in terms of image quality.

Here are some examples I posted back when it was new.

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=230092#230092

and some comments including the URLs for my research'

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26819

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: respect
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:18 pm
Posts: 103
Location: East Of England UK
Strangely enough I researched also! I did not just make up the hidden l lens statement as you seem to be implying. Some people...Anyway best of luck to op in whatever he chooses...

_________________
EOS 40D / Ixus 500 / S95, Canon 24-105 F4L, 50 F1.8, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, Canon 10-22 IS, Speedlite 430EX II, 580 EXII
My flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/hairyfrog/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:42 pm
Posts: 100
Location: Surrey, England
Quote:
Strangely enough I researched also! I did not just make up the hidden l lens statement as you seem to be implying. Some people...Anyway best of luck to op in whatever he chooses...


I'm not implying anything, I just didn't find that Canon version to be as highly rated, neither when I tried it nor on review sites.

Everybody wants to feel they've put their money into the right product, and I'm sure you've done just as much research as I have, but ultimately "some people" prefer certain models over others.

It's a discussion that could go on for a long time!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:01 am
Posts: 1154
Location: bit east of Melbourne
the 70-300 is usm has been well reviewed and well rated, its has been called a hidden L lens, just like the 17-55 is usm. Keep in mind that that mostly relates to lens sharpness, some L lenses are not as sharp as you would expect, but there is more to a lens than sharpness. The Canon lens has been around for around 5 or 6 years now, IS was still reasonably new and as a package was good value.

The Tamron has been out for maybe a year and it appears it maybe be better in some things, but not all.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 339/cat/23

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprod ... 253/cat/11

Ultimately I don`t think it matters in the end, 12 month ago, prior to the Tamron and the 70-300L there really wasn`t another option and the 70-300 was a very good buy. Now there is other options.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 6D,7D, Canon 40 2.8 STM, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 15-85, Canon 85 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L Macro, Canon 70-300L +Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group