Help me pick a new lens!

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>I agree about getting 1 at a time. It will take some time to get used to using them. Might as well concentrate on 1 at a time. Which I guess means I should choose between the 55-250 IS & the 70-200 f4L first, and then think about upgrading my kit lens. Does anyone have specific experience with the 70-200 f4L USM (non-IS)? Anyone with experience with both the 55-250 IS and the 70-200 f4L?</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I have the 2.8 (non is ) version and its spectacular. I hear the F4 version is equally good. If you have the money the L lens is a better investment. Better autofocus, better build and sharper shots. If down the road you decide you don't want it you can sell it for almost what you paid. </p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"Here is what I'm thinking for now: Either get: 1) a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to replace my kit lens (around $415)"</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p>I agree with the comment Mike Hitchen made: what are the points of dissatisfaction with your kit lens? Mike asks how will do you view the images . . . I add, how do you use the lens?</p>

<p>If the kit lens is used outdoors and mainly at F7 through to F10, and you are adept at applying some Post Production (specifically sharpening) then I doubt many would be able to pick a difference between the two lenses in a 6x4 or 5x7 print.</p>

<p>OTOH, if, just as one example, the fact that the kit lens is F/5.6 from about FL = 30mm is a limiting factors to your photography . . . well that is a reason to look for a replacement IMO.</p>

<p>I have not read all the answers in detail, you should be aware that the Tamron zoom's, zoom ring (and Focus ring), turn the opposite way to Canon Zooms. This is annoying to some, but of no consequence to others.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Anyone with experience with both the 55-250 IS and the 70-200 f4L?"</em></strong><strong><em></em></strong></p>

<p>My daughter's kit is: 400D, EF-S 18 to 55 (kit), EF-S 55 to 250IS, EF35F/2. I have a 70 to 200F/2.8L and have used (in the camera store only) a 70 to 200F/4L.</p>

<p>I have never looked as a lens (or camera) as an "investment". It is a cost, but I understand the use of the word investment meaning "a better tool". There is no doubt the 70 to 200 is a better tool. There is no doubt that any of the four 70 to 200 lenses are crisp and of the highest standard. And I agree that many L lenses hold a considerable portion of their original price, for re-sale, it's just I don't buy lenses, to re-sell them. :)</p>

<p>Specifically the main differences which I consider important in a comparison are:</p>

<p>The 70 to 200<br />> is a constant Maximum aperture zoom throughout the range<br />> is faster (larger aperture)<br />> can be used at the maximum aperture with confidence that the image will be crisp.<br />> is sturdy and "feels" solid.<br />> can be used at either end of the zoom range with confidence that the images will be crisp.<br />> is, (for what it is), light weight and quite small</p>

<p>The 55 to 250<br />> has IS<br />> is (for what it provides), very inexpensive.</p>

<p>I also think it is important to try theses lenses, if only in a camera shop: and also consider how you are going to use them and what the resultant images will be. Prioritizing what your first "need" is; and buying that lens only, is a very good idea in your situation, IMO. <br /><br />WW</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>If you are looking for quality, go with the 70-200 f4L. I have the f4L and have zero complaints.</p>

<p>I also have the canon 10-22 which is amazing for landscapes.</p>

<p>If it is any consolation I bought my three lenses over a long period of time. First came the 50 1.8, which was a great learning lens. Next I bought the 70-200f4, which outside of the great image quality and reach made me appear to be a real photographer, not just an amateur (the long white lens). I use the 70-200 for most outside events, it allows for great candid pictures (which to me are the best and most memorable).<br /> Earlier this year I bought the 10-22 and I have found it to be a great lens, but I primarily use it for landscapes and architectural type shots. I have used it for portraiture once, but I found my 50 1.8 to be better for that purpose.<br /> For my next lens, I'm considering something between the 10-22 and the 50 1.8, it is a tough choice. Part of me leans towards a prime like Sigma's 30 1.4 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx or another zoom.</p>

<p>Good luck in your decision.</p>

<p>-<br /> Clayton</p>

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>Mike and William (Re: Tamron 17-50 2.8 vs Canon 18-55)<br>

My interest in the Tamron was for a better quality photo & for the shallower DOF. I would mainly use it indoors with low light. My 50 1.8 is great for the DOF/background blur & quickness, but a little long for some shots indoors. The kit lens seemed fine until I saw what I could get sharpness-wise & background-wise from the 50 1.8. Now I'm thinking that at some point I'd like similar quality in a zoom lens that I can use when the 50 1.8 is too long. <br>

I look at my photos on the computer mostly, but I recently ordered a bunch of 8x10s of photos I took of the kids with my 50 1.8. I have gotten some good photos with my kit lens, but I'd like to get sharper ones with better color & background blur with a lens with the same range. </p>

[William Michael]

<p >Thank you for the precise response. Then, I think you are adequately addressing you requirements and the Tamron represents very good value for money. I have not used the Tamron lens, but I have colleagues how have and I trust their opinions.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As another thought for the longer zoom - and if you want to keep the F/2.8 speed - Tokina make a 50 - 150F/2.8. Obviously it is maxed at FL = 150mm. I have not used this lens either, but it is very popular amongst some well respected Wedding Photographers. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>Thanks, William. I'll look into that one, too. I think everything I have read points me to the 70-200 f4L as the highest quality lens of the telephotos I'm considering. What I'm concerned about is that the one I can afford right now doesn't have IS, and since I've never used a telephoto, I don't know if I can hand-hold it without camera shake. But I think I will mostly be using it in good light outdoors, so that should allow for a fast enough shutter speed to not have shake, right? Since I know that my kids move so quickly, the quicker the lens, the better! There might be times when I need to take photos indoors with a telephoto & no flash is allowed. In cases like that, would it be better to have one of the IS lenses like the 55-250 IS or the 70-300 IS USM? Obviously I need to find a camera store where I can hand-hold these & maybe try some test shots. Barring that, maybe I could rent them to try them out. Someone mentioned the 70-300 IS USM. How does it stack up to the other two? I definitely need to get my hands on some telephotos to test!</p>

[elizabeth_l.]

<p>Clayton, is your 70-200 f4 L the IS version or non-IS? I have a tripod, but plan to hand-hold 98% of the time.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Actually, Sigma makes a 50-150 f/2.8. The Tokina is a 50-135 f/2.8.<br />For indoor, low-light, the IS won't help at all with subject movement. Only flash or wider aperture will help you there. If your subject is not moving, then IS will get you slower hand-held speeds in low light. I use my 55-250 IS indoors - sleeping infant shots are good, moving toddler shots are not always good.<br /><br />DS Meador</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Some kinda absolute answers to the two questions:<br>

<strong><em>re 70 to 200 without IS "I will mostly be using it in good light outdoors, so that should allow for a fast enough shutter speed to not have shake, right?"</em></strong><br>

Yes, > 1/800s should be safe.<br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>"times when I need to take photos indoors with a telephoto & no flash is allowed. In cases like that, would it be better to have one of the IS lenses like the 55-250 IS or the 70-300 IS USM?"</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong>Most likely, but not always. If the subject is moving you will still need the Tv (Shutter Speed) to freeze the subject. If the subject is stationery - then IS is on more benefit, but a non IS lens is not an insurmountable problem – correct bracing, breathing & shutter release; monopod, tripod are options. But yes the longer the lens the more likely camera shake. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >on the “the 70-300 IS USM”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >It has a following. I have not used this lens. But again if you are thinking for inside use then ask “what are the likely subjects inside” - if they are moving ? ? ?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** <br /><br /></p>

<p >My biases / personal preferences, FYI: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >> fastest lens (largest) Maximum Aperture. </p>

<p >Main Reason - for any scene, if the Exposure Parameters are pushed to the limit, the faster lens always wins. There are other reasons, not limited to, but including: AF speed; brighter viewfinder; Tele-extenders . . .</p>

<p > </p>

<p >> Primes over Zooms. </p>

<p >Main reason: they are faster.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >> On Zooms – Non-Varying Maximum Aperture only. </p>

<p >Main reason: varying Maximum aperture zooms just slow me down no end – I have to “think” what lens it is I have, at each FL, and they are a PITA when using Av, IMO.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >> On IS - Fantastic invention, astonishing really. </p>

<p >I can always (99%) do without it, up to and including FL = 200mm. Plus, I actually like the challenge to shoot at slow Tv - even at the wide (Have a look at my "24 pushed to the limit" folder). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The one time at 70 to 200 when IS was useful, (actually required) for me was for panning sport, (snowboarding) – and for that I borrowed an IS version. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I can see for general “amateur” photography (not a derogatory use of the word), IS has great impact and that is why I suggested the 55 to 250IS for my daughter.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In regard to this last comment about IS: the ant’s pants in the 17 to 55 range is the Canon EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS – it is as close to perfect for a lens in that category, IMO.</p>

<p > <br>

WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>The Tokina is a 50-135 f/2.8.</em></strong><br>

DS, Thank you. My mistake, sorry for any confusion.<br>

<br>

I was referring to the TOKINA 50 to 135F/2.8 and my comments regarding it quality and acceptance were to that TOKINA lens.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

[claytontullos]

<p>I have the non IS version.<br>

I very rarely use a tripod with my 70-200 f4l... in fact almost never.<br>

Someone early suggested faster than 1/800 for a clear image. I can handhold with a much slower shutter. I took this image just a few minutes ago, handheld at 200mm iso 1000 f4 1/160th of a second. The sun was setting as I took this picture.<br>

1/160 is pretty consistently sharp, 1/100th is hit or miss with camera shake.<br>

He may have been referring to 1/800th being fast enough to freeze action.<br>

<img src="http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_3116.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong ><em >"Someone early suggested faster than 1/800 for a clear image. I can handhold with a much slower shutter. . . .He may have been referring to 1/800th being fast enough to freeze action."</em></strong><br>

<br>

The someone was I. No, I was not referring to 1/800s being to freezing action. Shutter speeds to freeze action, (such that movement is not noticed in the image) are dependent upon many factors including, (mainly): SD (Subject Distance), FL (Focal Length); Speed of the Subject; direction of the Subject's Movement relative to the lens' axis; Degree of final Enlargement. </p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I mentioned <em >“>1/800s should be safe"</em>, because Elizabeth was concerned: <em >"What I'm concerned about is that the one I can afford right now doesn't have IS, and since I've never used a telephoto, I don't know if I can hand-hold it without camera shake."</em><br>

and then she, in that context asked: <em >"But I think <strong>I will mostly be using it in good light outdoors</strong>, so that should allow for a fast enough shutter speed to not have shake, right?"</em><br>

<em > </em><br>

So my answer “yes” to that question was all about an F/4 lens "<em><strong>it in good light outdoors" </strong></em>on an XTi, one would be able to bump the ISO such that 1/800s or faster, would be doable whilst maintaining good image quality, i.e. <strong><em>would be “safe” (for a beginner, even with shaky hands).</em></strong><br>

<br>

Yes, also to Clayton’s comments. I agree, at FL = 200mm on an APS-C body and good technique 1/160s is possible and moreover consistently possible. And also agreed 1/100s at that FL is becoming dangerous, even with good technique. But I have successfully pulled 1/80s with a 70 - 200 on a 20D hand held, using a spread of three and keeping the middle one. In this regard, please note my other comment in that same post: <em>“</em><em>I actually like the challenge to shoot at slow Tv - even at the wide (Have a look at my "24 pushed to the limit" folder).” </em> <br>

<br>

My comment about 1/800s was not meant to seduce competition in regard to how slow can we go: I just wanted to re assure Elizabeth that outside in good light she would be safe with the 70 to 200F/4L, even with little experience or technique with a telephoto lens.<br>

<br>

I trust this explains my comments, more clearly. <br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>On a different subject...</p>

<p>Elizabeth suggested getting a 24 prime. The 24/2.8 is pretty good but it's about twice as expensive as the 28/2.8 which just might be a tad better.<br>

That said, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 would make those primes obsolete 9 times out of 10.</p>