New here! Help with lenses?

[rachel_d3]

Hello, I am pretty new to the DSLR world and I have just purchased a canon EOS rebel t3. It came with the 18-55 mm lens, and so far I

am not impressed by its performance. I'm not sure if I'm not using it to its full ability, but it seems to have a very poor zoom range!

Can anyone give me any tips on how to get the most out of this lens, or point me in the right direction for others with better zoom range?

I am into taking nature shots so I was hopin to have good clarity and zoom

[SCL]

<p>The kit lens is said to be quite adequate for what you are shooting. As you may be aware, the greater the zoom range on a lens, the more it becomes a jack of all trades and master of none. Most lenses offer increased sharpness and contrast, reduced flare and distortion, when stopped down 1-2 stops from the widest aperture. However, high ISO can introduce noise into shots, so particularly for nature/landscape shots, lower ISO and a tripod can work wonders. If you're unfamiliar with post processing, understand that virtually all shots will require some post processing, so you need to make sure you're comfortable with using the appropriate software to achieve your goals. Good luck, and if you have further quwstions come back with them, lots of people willing to help.</p>

[rachel_d3]

Thanks for the reply! With a little more toying around, I've found that the kit lens is pretty accurate in capturing for my

basic needs, but it still isn't as great with zoom as my old digital camera. Ideally, I would like a lens that has a great ability to zoom, produces clear photos, and is able to focus quickly. I would be using it to capture distant wildlife and other potentially difficult subjects. I've looked into some such as the Canon EF 75-300mm, but I'm not sure. So, if anyone has some suggestions for other

lenses, that would be great!

[SCL]

<p>Well - distant wildlife is another issue entirely. Most nature photographers who want to capture distant wildlife or birds are looking at 300-400mm prime lenses. I have used a 300 prime lens with a 1.5 & 2 teleconverter, but most often a fixed 400mm prime lens. The advantage is that I don't have to worry about aperture changes or reduced aperture on the long end of a zoom, but usually these aren't cheap when you're looking at autofocus lenses. My best work has been with manual telephotos for wildlife. The lens you mentioned didn't get very high marks for sharpness compared to some of the other EF zoom offerings on the long end. Performance (& unfortunately prices) is dramatically improved in the general range you mention with Canon's "L" glass zooms. If you are on a really tight budget, you could look at 3rd party mfr's manual focus prime telephoto lenses which would mount on your body via an adapter - some of which can rival Canon's best when stopped down (something I often use on my Nikon & Leica bodies).</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong>What was your previous camera?</strong><br /> <br /> <strong>***<br /></strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>". . . it [my new DSLR] still <em><strong>isn't as great with zoom as my old digital camera."</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that this means your previous digital camera had a "large zoom compass". That means it could zoom from a wide angle view to a Subject a very long way away and make it appear as a close telephoto image.</p>

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

<blockquote>

<p>"I would like a lens that has a great ability to zoom, produces clear photos, and is able to focus quickly. I would be using it to capture distant wildlife and other potentially difficult subjects. . . if anyone has some suggestions for other lenses, that would be great!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many 'point and shoot' style cameras have a very long telephoto range. For example I have a Canon Powershot SX40HS and we would need to use a 500mm lens on a T3 to get close to the same telephoto view as we can get on the SX40HS.</p>

<p>But a 300mm lens, like the one you suggested, will get you relatively close and you may choose to then crop the image in Post Production.</p>

<p>If you are comparing the telephoto range of a previous P&S style camera to your new Canon T3 (and I think that you are), it is important that you understand that telephoto lenses, especially long telephoto lenses, for DSLR Cameras can become quite expensive items.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[rachel_d3]

My previous camera was a Canon Powershot sx170. It's a good digital camera, but the clarity was often poor and I had to

be in the exact right conditions in order for a photo to turn out how I wanted it. Using the max zoom on that camera would

result in a grainy, unclear photo. So I would only usually zoom on the Powershot to about half of its abilities. That's the

main reason I decided to switch to the T3, so that I have more options to switch the settings to my needs. I understand

the prices of telephoto lenses can be quite pricy, but I'm not looking for anything professional. Just something that can

achieve sharp images from several feet away. I plan on taking a trip to Panama in the next year, so I need something that

will be able to capture the wildlife and culture. What would you suggest that's not too pricey but would still perform well for

my needs?

[William Michael]

<p>It mostly depends on how close that you can get to the "wildlife" (i.e. exactly what you mean by <em>"several feet away" </em>and how big is the wildlife.</p>

<p>I think that a 300mm lens would be the minimum requirement for most 'wildlife' - but, for example if you are shooting a bird that is 12 inches high and it is 40ft away then a 400mm lens would be better and a 500mm lens will frame the bird 'perfectly'.</p>

<p>On the other hand, wildlife the size of a person and at 40ft from the camera could easily be shot with a 75mm to 300mm zoom on your camera.</p>

<p>If you could roughly quantify size (of 'wildlife') and distance (shooting distance), at least we could get an idea of what a 300mm lens will achieve. <br>

<br>

***</p>

<p>I just researched the specs for the SX170 and a 75 to 300 zoom will get you a telephoto field of views a bit closer than your old powershot at its maximum Focal Length (optical zoom).</p>

<p>But note that many powershot models also have a 'digital zoom' - if you were using that function on your SX170 then the image would be very grainy and of poor quality, but it would be a lot bigger. </p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I think that there are two versions of the 75 to 300 and I believe both are old lenses. A more modern lens is the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - and importantly this lens has IS (image Stabilization), but neither of the 75 to 300 lenses have IS.</p>

<p>I think that a zoom lens to 300mm is the limit you can reach without moving into more expensive territory. Arguably the best <em>value for money</em> 400mm canon lens for 'wildlife' is the EF 400 F/5.6 L USM. I am not sure what 3rd party brands offer.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Leslie Reid]

<p>Looks like you and I are on a similar trajectory through digital cameradom—my first digital was a Canon SX-130, and I moved from that to a T3i; I didn’t upgrade from that until last week. What I settled in with for my main lens on the T3i was a Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 IF Macro — it was affordable, reasonable quality (if you post-process to deal with high-ISO noise and chromatic aberration and don’t plan on making really big prints). I needed a zoom lens that would cover medium wide-angle to medium telephoto, since I’m usually shooting in places where I don’t want to be changing lenses (salt spray, dust, fog). Also, I usually have the camera with me, so the combination had to be small and light enough to give me no excuses for leaving it at home. The lens turned out to be the perfect fit for my needs—at the moment, probably 85% of the photos in my photonet gallery are with that lens; the rest are either from the SX-130 or are T3i photos with a Canon 50mm EF F1.8 STM lens that I use in low light. Note that you don’t need the same telephoto reach that the powershot gives you, since you’ll be able to crop in a lot more than you could with the powershot images. </p>

[Andrew Gosden]

<p>I have the Tamron 70-300 VC and have been generally happy with it. I think it's around $400 but I have not priced it lately. Whether 300mm is enough zoom depends on how large the wildlife is and how close you can get. I rented the Tamron 150-600 VC for a trip and it was also a nice lens, but big and heavy compared to the 70-300. It runs around $1000.<br>

I owned the Canon 75-300 and it was okay but the Tamron 70-300 VC, or the Canon 70-300 IS from what I've read, are both a step up.</p>

[rachel_d3]

Wow thank you so much! You have been extremely helpful and I really appreciate it. the wildlife I like to capture varies

from insects to elephants and anything in between, with the distance varying as well. I will deffintely look into the lenses

you've listed above!

[Ken Katz]

I would recommend a Canon 55-250 IS:

 

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-s-55-250mm-f4-5-6-is-stm-telephoto-zoom-lens-refurbished

 

Low cost (refurbished lens from Canon), with a warranty, imaged stabilized, and good image quality. Much better

option than any older 75-300 lens. The Canon 70-300 IS or similar Tamron 70-300 VC is likely to be better but at a much

higher cost. Best of luck.

[rachel_d3]

Thank you everyone! I'll give the other lenses some research too in the morning! I may have more questions then :)

[Andrew Gosden]

<p>Kenneth - I had forgotten about that lens, I guess because I haven't used it. At that refurbished price it certainly seems like a bargain.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>There are three (3) versions of the EF-S 55 to 250 lens.</p>

<p>The EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS and EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS MkII are very similar and we still use the original version of that lens and it has proven very good value for money purchase.</p>

<p>The more recent EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (as per the link from Kenneth) is a noticeable advancement on the other two.</p>

<p>On another line of thought and depending upon your budget you might look at purchasing a refurbished or second hand EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. This is an old model lens, but was still in production until 2014 when the MkII was released. (Where i live) there are quite few original versions on the market privately and in camera stores as used items, because their owners are upgrading to the MkII version of the lens. If you live in the USA, Canada or some areas of Europe I expect that you'd have much the same thing happening but more-so.</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>On another line of thought and depending upon your budget you might look at purchasing a refurbished or second hand EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

William beat me to it, so I'll second his recommendation of the 100-400. I have the newer version, and it's one of my most used lenses. Despite its huge zoom range, it delivers excellent image quality and has a good image stabilization system that allows you to shoot hand held even at longer focal lengths. And it's really not as heavy and bulky as you might think.<br>

<br>

As an all-purpose longer telephoto zoom, I don't think you can beat the EF 100-400. <br>

</p>

[Ken Katz]

While I can find many used 100-400L's at attractive prices on line, keep in mind that it is a professional grade

lens and it weighs about 3 pounds, while the 55-250IS weighs about 13 ounces. I think that this lens is

too big a step for a beginner who recently upgraded from a Powershot to a Rebel t3, and even used would cost much more than what was paid for the Rebel kit.

[rachel_d3]

Thank you all so much! I have looked into the options you have suggested so far, and I'm really liking the Tamron 18-200

and the canon EF-S 55-250 for both the price and quality. With these lenses, I would be looking to use them for everyday

use, which is why I might even be leaning more towards something like the Tamron since it is able to capture both far and

close subjects. I do a lot of traveling, so I would need something that I could use for almost every occasion, whether it be

buildings, people, moving wildlife, or anything else I come across. My question then would be, would I really miss the

extra 50 mm the Canon lens gives me? Would the Canon lens be able to capture closer subjects as well? And would the

Tamron lens be good in achieving the level of zoom and image clarity I would need to top my previous Powershot? (Keep

in mind I only used the zoom on the Powershot to about half of its claimed abilities due to the digital zoom being grainy)

[dcstep]

<p>The state of the art Canon, entry level, wildlife and bird combo is the EOS 7D MkII with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. I can guarantee that, with good technique, that combo will produce shots worthy of huge wall hangings. For those that can afford it, it's my go-to recommendation for Canon shooters.</p>

<p>How would I suggest cutting corners? I think used Canon equipment from reputable dealers is a safe buy. Used 7D2s are now quite common. The Series II 100-400L, not so much. The lenses can be considered investments, since the do retain their value quite well and you'd expect to pay 90% of retail for a used S-II 100-400mm. I don't like the 400/f5.6 in your case, because you'll be shooting under the canopy in Panama, where low light will be a problem. The lack of IS will hold you back quite a bit. </p>

<p>A used EF 300mm f/4L IS would be a good option, combined with a used EF 1.4x TC-III. That gives you IS, a decently fast AF and relatively larger aperture.</p>

<p>What about something like the Tamron 150-600mm. It's IQ is not up to that of the Canon's mentioned, but it can take pleasing pictures and the focal length is excellent. It's available used for under $1,000. As a starting point, it's a good option. It is a bit heavy, but not crazy so.</p>

[Ken Katz]

Tamron has made many versions of this lens (18-200, 18-250,18-270,16-300) with some of the earlier versions

are without image stabilization (VC lenses).

 

Irregardless of the price, do not get such a lens without VC (or IS or whatever the manufacturer calls it)!

 

Some of the latter versions seem to be optically better than earlier owns, so look at reviews before buying. All such

"superzoom" lenses offer convenience at the cost of more optical compromises, so I would expect a Canon 18-

55IS & 55-250IS to be sharper than the superzoom. The 50mm difference is represents a material difference in capturing distant subjects (like wildlife). Carrying 2 lenses and having to change them as needed

is a drag so you need to decide this. For still photos, digital zoom is just like cropping so it has little value to me

and I always turn off the feature in any camera that has it. Best of luck.

[dcstep]

<p>The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II is about as sharp as it gets:</p>

<p><a title="Blue Darter Damselfly" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7428/27965145102_dffaa5408d_c.jpg" alt="Blue Darter Damselfly" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Hand-held.</p>

<p>You get what you pay for.</p>

[Leslie Reid]

<p>Beautiful photo, David--one definitely does get what one pays for, and those of us on tight budgets have ever-growing wish lists (to which a new lens just got added for me--great info on lenses here!). Anyway, I got curious about the question of whether moving from a 16x zoom to a 200mm lens on a T-3 crop-sensor camera was going to be a problem, so I retook the same photo with the Tamron 18-200 at 200mm on the T3i, the SX-130 at its maximum optical zoom (14x, about 15% less zoom than the 16x that the SX-170 has, so it's close), and the Canon EF 75-300mm at 300mm on the T3i. All were hand-held (HHAC: hand held after coffee) from the same location, and I didn't do any post-processing to sharpen or adjust white balance for the T3i images (shot in RAW), so this isn't a test of image quality. The first photo is the Tamron 18-200, the second is the SX-130, and the third is the Canon 75-300.</p>

<p>Bottom line for me was that I didn't feel at all hampered by the smaller maximum zoom when I moved from the SX-130 to the T3i+Tamron. One thing I found useful when I was recently contemplating a new lens: I looked at the exif data for a random sample of images I'd taken over the past year and a similar sample of images that I'd taken and liked over the past year to figure out 1) where I was shooting most successfully and 2) where I was trying to shoot. That helped a lot in making the decision.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Leslie, Rachel wants to photograph distant wildlife. IME, 300mm is about the least focal length that she can get away with. Looking at your comparison and considering her goal, it looks like the Canon with the 300mm would be the way to go, of the examples you show. Is that what you're saying? </p>

[Leslie Reid]

<p>Nope, David. Realizing that the only person who knows what they can afford and how they want to use the lens is the person who's going to be making the decision, I'm not making recommendations or trying to influence the decision one way or the other. I'm merely describing my experience with a lens I'm familiar with and trying to provide info that might help in the decision making. </p>

[rachel_d3]

Again thanks to everyone for all of the responses! I have just begun to use the T3, and I've already learned so much from

this wonderful community! but I am overwhelmed with all the different options! Please keep in mind that I am not looking

to spend a fortune on a lens, I just need something that will achieve my desired everyday use.

Since I am just beginning to use my T3, I'm not currently looking for a professional grade lens. But I am looking for

something that I would be able to use to take distance shots as well as closer ones. I can't say for sure the exact distance

I'd need to be able to shoot (since it obviously varies based on the occasion) but I would like to be able to capture animals

in a zoo, or the places I encounter while travelling for example. The bottom line is that I purchased my T3 in hopes of

improving my photography skills. The Canon Powershot sx170 simply did not perform to my liking, and the zoom ability

was poor. That being said, my ultimate goal is to purchase a lens that will perform better than my old digital camera was

able to, yet still be within a reasonably low price range. Ideally, I would like an easy to use lens that would work with all

different kinds of situations.

 

I have noticed that many of the greater distance lenses may not be good for closer shots, so help with finding a lens

that balances out all my needs is greatly appreciated!

[SCL]

<p>Hi again Rachel - it seems from your comments that most of the distant wildlife you describe is in zoos, not something like going on an African safari. Plus you seem interested in smaller critters, close up. If this assessment is right, you don't need a 400mm range, 300mm max should fulfill most of your needs, and if you are shooting really small critters, like the dragonfly shown earlier, small spiders, flies, and misc. bugs, you could use your present zoom with a short automatic extension tube. So essentially you would have a kit consisting of 2 lenses...your present kit lens and a longer one somewhere in the range of 75-300mm, ok for nearby birds, but not close views of distant ones. When I was in a rainforest in Peru several years ago photographing hummingbirds, I found that I really needed 3-400mm to do justice to them, but the longest lens I had was only 124mm, so stalking skills became important. My point is that often people think great animal photographs always require expensive, big, long focal length lenses, when often patience and good stalking skills can produce outstanding results.</p>