Jump to content

Zoom or Prime? Canon fit in 200-400mm range


matt_grimes

Recommended Posts

I am in the process of upgrading my current Olympus OM-2n manual focus

setup to a Canon AF. I have acquired an Elan II with a Canon 28-135mm

IS Zoom which should meet my routine requirements. However, I will

miss my Zuiko 85-250mm zoom alot and need to find something to replace

it. Actually, I would like to find something with a little more

reach. I found that I used the 85-250 almost entirely in the

200-250mm range and often needed "just a little more".

 

I spent most of my money on the camera and IS lens. I figure I'll

have around $200 left for this long lens purchase. I am not

particularly experienced at nature photography but my goal while

hiking is to shoot wildlife rather than landscapes. It rarely seems to

work out that way though. I am not opposed to purchasing 3rd party

lenses and I expect to purchase used equipment. My hope is to get some

feedback from those of you that have "been there - done that" so I can

avoid buying a marginal lens. My limited research so far tells me I

probably want to avoid the Vivitar lenses, Tamron and Sigma can be

reasonable, and buy Canon if you can afford it. So.... I have a

couple of questions.

 

1. Will a 300mm lens give me that "little bit more"? or should I go

for 400mm top-end? (the odds of having a tripod along are slim)

 

2. Zoom or Prime? Ok, I know this is very subjective and everyone

has their own ideas. Maybe I should re-phrase the question... I like

the convience of zooms. If you were going to recommend a prime (can

only afford one) what would it be?

 

3. Of the Tamron and Sigma lenses what would be the better ones to

look for?

 

4. I could wait and save a little more money, but realistically,

would never spend more than $400 for another lens. Is there something

that would really be worth my while to save for?

 

Thanks,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$200 is not much of a budget for any lens but here is what you could do..

 

 

1. Will a 300mm lens give me that "little bit more"? or should I go for 400mm top-end? (the odds of having a tripod along are slim)

 

Yes, 300 is more than what you have and is a bare minimum length for

any wildlife photos. Little birds will still be little birds, big birds will still be little cause you cant get very close to them.

400mm of good quality is over $1000.

 

2. Zoom or Prime? Ok, I know this is very subjective and everyone has their own ideas. Maybe I should re-phrase the question... I like the convience of zooms. If you were going to recommend a prime (can only afford one) what would it be?

No long prime availble for that amount/length.

 

3. Of the Tamron and Sigma lenses what would be the better ones to look for?

Uh, Canon...

 

4. I could wait and save a little more money, but realistically, would never spend more than $400 for another lens. Is there something that would really be worth my while to save for?

 

Here are some options...Canon 75-300 USM for $175, pretty good lens actually. Canon 100-300 USM, a better lens for $250 or so. Another option is Sigma 75-300...We have one and it is sharper than both of these canons but not as robust. Also you did not mention if you had a tripod. Shooting long slow lenses need tripods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I happen to be please with Sigma on Nikon. I know that sigma makes a 130-400 and a 170-500, the latter will be my next lens. (I currently have a 24-120 and a 70-300, I am retiring my 70-300.)

<p>I would advise getting zooms to cover the wide range, and then you can spend money later on the primes you need. The main reason I have primes is I need a much faster lens at a certian mm.

<p>--Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob: Thanks for the candid answers. I appreciate the truth. As an amateur I know my expectations are too high for my limited budget. I can really relate to the "little birds" scenario. <chuckles> I learned that one not long after the "little/big planes" in the sky lesson.

 

It still doesn't stop me from trying though. Couple of weeks ago, while camping, there was a pair of eagles that kept coming back to the ridge we were on. My 250mm was adequate (filled nearly half the frame) but the manual focus hosed me again <sigh>

 

Sounds like the Canon 100-300mm might be a good choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you need more than a 200, I would recommend adding a prime 300 f/4 and perhaps later add a good 1.4X teleconverter giving you a 420mm f/5.6. Most 100-300 lenses do not have that great a reputation at the 300 end. While I do have a 500, I use the 300 more: its near-focussing capability is useful for semi-macros.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Sigma 70-300 DL, not the APO and it's fine for it's use. The APO is sharper, but if you're just shooting negative film and not slide film, you may never see the difference.

 

There aren't any 300mm or 400mm primes within your budget without going the MF route. If you're willing to go $400-, then there might be a few Sigma 400mm APO's around on the used market that'll work just fine. Just keep in mind that they're also a lot heavier.

 

But if you can get close enough to eagles to fill them 1/2 frame @ 200mm, then they were _really_ close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you get into longer focal lengths, how you use the lens may be more important than the optical quality. Handheld can be fine for a few minutes, but after awhile it get's tricky... the harder you try to be steady, the worse it gets. Using a tripod solves this, but then there are other issues, like how fast you can re-compose. This brings up the ball-head versus tilt/pan debate, with both having advantages in certain situations, Honestly, I haven't had much experience with this (long lenses and nature shots) but having used an old 400mm tele I learned these lessons quick. There is no easy (or affordable) solution unless you are very skilled at shooting handheld (or spend $$ on a fast pro lens) I like my old 400mm (by the way, it's manual focus and a slow f/6.3) but I am also looking towards getting a 300mm prime some day. By the way, one way to "cheat" is to use fast film, but then you can't really make large prints (if that's what you want... many of us tend to assume this will be the final goal... if 5 by 7 is OK then things get a bit easier)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the thoughtful responses. I have pretty much decided to stick with a zoom lens for now. I am leaning towards one of the following:

 

Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 LD IF

Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 AT-X

 

Any of these would seem to be a reasonable place to start learning. I think I should invest in a better tripod though. Something light enough to strap to my daypack. I have a monopod I can use in the interim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision was made fairly easily after finding a Tamron 200-400mm lens advertised for sale by private owner for $175. It should arrive next week. I had better get busy finding that tripod.

 

I got my first set of prints back from using the Canon Elan II. Very nice! I am impressed. This will be much more enjoyable than my old setup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...