Telephoto lens suggestions?

[Kylersk]

I've got a Canon digital rebel with a 18-55mm lens. I'm thinking I may want to get a telephoto lense, but not sure what to buy. The price, even from the same manufacture, can bounce all over the place. I dont want dirt cheap nor do I want the most expensive.

[Steve Foss]

You can get 70-300 zooms from Tamron or Sigma for under $200. That's the dirt cheap end. They don't hold up to abuse and are slow to focus, which you can't afford with the Rebel (is it the original 6.3 Mp Rebel or the 8 Mp XT or 10 Mp XTi?). Pass those lenses by if you can at all afford to. Canon offers similar zooms for under $200, but they're only a bit better than the others.

But Canon makes a 70-300mm Image stabilizer that costs $560 and is several cuts above the previously mentioned lenses. That's the middle road. The image stabilization is a great option. Once you use it, you'll wonder how you ever did without. It has better glass than the cheap end lenses, as well, and a more rugged build.

If you have $1,200-plus to spend, the 100-400 L series image stabilizer is Canon's "L" series supertelephoto zoom, and is my go-to lens. It gets you an extra 100mm over the 70-300, offers more IS options, has top-of-the-line glass and the rugged professional L build quality Canon is known for. It also focuses much faster than the 70-300.

Those, as I see it, are your three main tiers of options. I shop for all my gear online, since none of it can be had in Ely, and I shop at Canoga Camera, which you can find online by putting those words together behind a couple w's and putting the usual at the end. Even if you don't buy from them, it's an easy way to compare features and price shop. If you go there, from the home page click on lenses, then on Canon, then on zooms for general use and zooms for professional use. The first two tiers of lenses I mentioned will be in the general use category, the 100-400L in the pro category.

Good luck!

[floating minnow]

I just thought I would throw one more in the mix.I have a Canon 100-300 which is a small step up from the 75-300.It still is a little slow so in low light a tripod is a must, but for the price it's not a bad lens. Online it's going for around $280.00

[Kylersk]

Wow, I've got ALOT to learn. Thanks for the reply, Stfcatfish.

Now more questions, what are a few 'stats' that I should look for in lenses?

[Steve Foss]

Stats?

1. mm rating, but you already know you're looking at zooms out to 300 and 400mm, so that's taken care of.

2. Price. Also obvious.

3. F-stop. The higher the minimum f-stop, the more light you'll need in order to get a good sharp image. Lenses with higher minimum f-stops are called "slow" lenses, not because they can't focus quickly, but because in order to allow enough light through the aperature to properly expose the image, you need to leave the shutter open longer (slower shutter speed). So a lens that opens to f4 is "faster" than one that only opens to f5.6, because at f4 you can use a faster shutter speed to get the right exposure than you can at f5.6. The higher the aperature number, the smaller the hole the aperature makes, and the longer you have to leave the shutter open to allow enough light through the aperature.

And the longer the shutter stays open, the more still you have to be able to hold the camera (and the more still the subject has to hold), or you'll get fuzzy images.

That's why people pay $6,000 for the Canon 400mm f2.8 and only $1,100 for the Canon 400mm f5.6.

This isn't, however, a "stat" you have to worry about much with the lenses already described in the previous posts. Most run from a minimum f-stop of about 4 at the lowest zoom setting up to 5.6 at the highest.

And, lastly, since these lenses are all "slow," image stabilization makes a big difference. It all but eliminates hand shake. Nothing can make your subject hold still, but if you have to shoot at a fairly slow shutter speed, which is common in cloudy or dawn/dusk situations with "slow" lenses, the image stabilization can make a huge difference. The two factors that make for motion blur at slow shutter speeds are hand shake and subject movement. IS almost eliminates one of them.

P.S. -- Please tell me which model of digital Rebel you have, the original, the XT or the XTi. It can make a difference. The older the model, the slower the focusing capability.

[Kylersk]

Thanks again.

I've got a digital Rebel XT 8 meg.

Also, 'stats' was the only term I could think of at the time, perhaps spec's would be a better term?

[Steve Foss]

Specs, stats, same deal. Not a lot of them when it comes to lenses unless you're a total engineer. The XT's a nice cam. It outdistanced the original Rebel by a mile, not because of the megapixel count but all the other features added. You'll like it.

[Swimmer]

Take Steves advice and you can't go wrong. I would like to add another option though. I'm in the same boat as you and my research has led me to look at the new Tamron 200-500mm supertelephoto lens that is made for digital cams. It "tests" out very well compared to other similar lenses like the Sigmas, and the reviewers seem to be very impressed with the sharpness of the images. I believe it is f4.6 and does not have image stabilization. The new Tamrons use technology to make them light in weight; they use the latest anti-chromatic aberation glass, and the reviewers swear they can hand hold at 500mm and get sharp images. Question for Steve...is it possible to hand-hold a 500mm lens and get sharp images? The 500mm would be nice if you want distant bird shots. My searchs for price have led me to the local Ritz where this lens in only $40 more than the cheapest online and about the same price as B&H Photo. $850 I think. I am torn between the less expensive Canon 300mm IS and the nice range of this lens. Good luck and let us know what you decide.

[buzzsaw]

Gotta pipe in... I started out with that Tamron 200-500mm lens last December and noticed the C.A. on some of my pics... while my posture has changed for handholding big glass, I needed a tripod to get decent sharp pics with that lens. As you mentioned, it doesn't have Image Stabilization technology either... I outgrew this lens in less than 30 days and returned it and upgraded... Depending on your financial situation and how into this hobby you are would be the deciding factors in what you choose I would think.

[Abrams]

I have a rebel xt and the new tamron 28-300mm. I like the lens but I'm just starting to use it and become familiar with all the settings on the camera. I’m sure I’ll want something more like a 100-400 but what I have is a great start.

[Dbl]

And I will to buzz, if you are looking at something in the 500mm range you might be better off with the Sigma 50-500, generally regarded as a decent lens for birding. But you won't spend alot of time hand holding it, that is why it has the nickname "Bigma".

There is a reason you pay fairly high prices for the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc glass. The quality of these lenses is relatively easy to pick out once you start comparing them to some of the lower priced aftermarket lenses.

Here is just one quick example, sorry for the sports shots it is what I had handy. We have done this comparison before, last winter I believe, so it is a refresher.

Shot with a Quantary 70-300 bought at Ritz. Notice the pretty severe CA (in this case purple fringing) around the whites in the runner and general softness. In all fairness the focus point is just slightly behind the runner, it was chosen because of the extreme light, white to dark which is when CA shows up the most.

The next few shots are with the 70-200/2.8L non IS. I tried to pick shady conditions to keep the lighting the same as the top picture. No hint of CA with the same backlight conditions.

The last shows what good lighting will give you.

Glass does matter. Pay me now or pay me latter, If you get even semi-serious about photo taking, and it is additictive, you will more than likely want to start improving the quality of your pictures. We all have different standards of what we want in our equipment, photography, guns, fishing gear, dogs, etc. What works for you may not for others, do what makes you happy. These few photos point out some of the diffences in quality of glass from entry level to pro lenses. Good luck.

[Blaze]

Wow. It's almost painful to look at the difference knowing my quality is much more in the category of the first photo...(on a GOOD day)

[Kylersk]

Dbl, what brand of lens is the 70-200?

[WCS]

In addition to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L that Dbl demonstrated, Sigma makes a 70-200 f/2.8 that gets pretty high praise. Not quite to the high standard as Canon "L" glass, but the reviews put it pretty close and can be had for around 200-300 bucks less than the Canon. Canon also has the same lens with image stabilization (IS), but costs about $1600. Canon also has a 70-200 f/4L that cost less than the f/2.8 and is lighter, but you lose 1 stop. That may be the best choice if you don't need the speed. Canon "L" glass is great, but don't discount the 3rd party lenses. Sometimes they provide the best bang for the buck.

[Swimmer]

Buzz, thanks for chiming in on the Tamron 200-500...what you said kind of contradicts what I was reading on dp reviews and other sites. I take it you really didn't care for it, and that definitely puts a check on the neg. side for purchasing this lens. You went with a Nikon lense after that I take it.

Dbl, I wish that first photo was in focus to really do the test some justice. I bet you are loving the new 2.8 L!

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

Dbl, I wish that first photo was in focus to really do the test some justice. I bet you are loving the new 2.8 L!

---

I agree Swimmer, I was trying to show the CA tendencies more than anything else, and it does do that. It was shot by the new owner of that lens, my sister, who now understands why I moved on to better equipment I personally would never shoot a photograph that is out of focus I will try to dig up something that shows the sharpness comparison later and post something here.

Kylersk, WCS properly identified the lens and also as you can tell from his response been down this road like most of us have at one time or another. Unless you are shooting sports or need low light capability you can save a good amount of money by sacrificing an f-stop or two, but still get a quality lens. As has been stated before by many you need to identify what you are looking for and base a decision on that. I used the 70-300 for about a year because I could not afford something different, I just learned to shoot with it to avoid its shortcomings. You make due with what you have.

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is a very good lens no doubt, I have had some quality control issues with Sigma in the past so I am somewhat reluctent to go down that road again. Others have had very good results.

[buzzsaw]

Swimmer, I think it just comes down to how serious you plan on being and how much money you can throw at a hobby. I thought that Tamron was okay, then I realized how helpful VR was on the Nikon glass and stepped up and got the 80-400mm AF VR... all I can say and I'm pretty sure some people including Steve on this site will vouch.. once I switched to the Nikon glass, upgraded the the D200 and maybe the most important thing of all... learned my camera and figured out the lens sharpest F-stops as well as fine tuning photoshop... Everything started looking alot better, however not perfect... thats why we keep trying to improve.

[Steve Foss]

Excellent discussion, guys. Top glass gets top prices for just that reason, and that puts it beyond the reach of many. Canon and Nikon both make amazing glass in their upper price ranges. Top glass gets that designation not only because it produces sharper photos with fewer technical problems (like CA), but because those images have more contrast and color saturation as well, and top glass has a rugged build suited to pros, who take their gear in rugged places, that is lacking in consumer grade glass.

I will point out that, if the intent of the original post was to get a lens that will do for wildlife, the amazingly sharp, fast and nice Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS does not have enough power, generally, to suit. A zoom to 300mm is adequate for many situations involving larger animals or those smaller ones that come right in to you. A zoom to 400mm is minimum for most bird photography. A zoom to 200mm is great for shooting people and sports and family gatherings and that type of thing.

And, as we all know, it's most important to get the best glass you can afford and, if you find you love the shooting and develop the income, upgrade as you can or wish.