Printable View
I'm getting a new Canon camera soon, and I'm considering this lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm...9530404&sr=8-1
I understand why prime lenses are better, but I'm not going to carry multiple lenses on my bike (or pay for them, but that's another story).
I like photographing birds, but have no ambitions other than putting them on Flickr.
I know this lens will have limitations in low light -- anything else I should think about?
Make sure it isn't grey market. A lot of retailers give you two choices, with and without the full US warranty. You'll pay more for the "legal" US version, but the warranty is worth it I think.
We are a Canon household and have been using Sigma lenses. We have the equivalent Sigma lens (http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm...9531982&sr=1-1) and really like it. If all you're going to do it take pictures of birds, the sigma will save you about $100 to put into a few add-ons like a filter to protect the lens, a pouch for the lens, and maybe a harness to wear the camera so it's always within your reach. At the end of the day both lens are very good. The Sigma is 1/2oz lighter. With the Canon you're paying for the name. Both lenses have excellent reviews. My partner has been a professional photographer in the past. She's used Sigma lenses longer than any other brand and has never been unhappy with any of them. Consider saving the money and getting the Sigma.
Thank you! This is exactly the kind of information I need.Quote:
Originally Posted by HillSlugger
It is a similar lens to one of the two we have for our Canon D. Our is a 70 - 300 lens, but is probably a bit older model. It works great, although we've typically just used that lens for sporting events and air shows while using the smaller lens (not as much zoom) for things around the house and wildlife, ect. Both lenses we have are Canon lenses. We are also, obviously a Canon house hold as well. I've had a Canon SLR since I was in high school back in the early 90's. My first SLR was a 35mm film Canon Rebel.
I second this. I have the version this lens for Nikon cameras and am happy with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HillSlugger
Me, too. Have this lens for the Nikon, I mean. I have a D7000 body.
I use the lens for wildlife shots, as well, and photographing bike races. It's a tad slow for high speed action shots, but it captures some really nice images all the same. I'm happy with it.
Roxy
ETA: TSPoet is right. It's not good for wide angles at all. I often have to switch to the 50-105 lens that came with my camera to get wider shots. I have, however, gotten some really nice portraits from a ways back, and some really nice close-up shots of flowers and such, but I was standing a few feet away and zoomed in. Nice depth of field effects.
That lens will be good for wildlife/birds, but be aware it will not be good for scenery, portraits, etc.
The only non-canon lens I own is the Tamron 18-270 superzoom, and it stays on my Rebel in my car. I completely disagree about the Canon name - it's not only paying for the name, but the quality and build are better.
The lens you are looking at (or the Tamron or Sigma equivalent) will be nice, but I suspect you'll end up getting a second for those times when you want a wider angle.
I'm glad to hear from people who have the lens I'm looking at (or similar). I know I'll need others. I have some legacy lenses from my mom's film camera -- guess I will find out how well that works.
One complication is that I'm often with serious bird photographers who spend thousands of dollars on the best stuff (offhand I don't know anyone in that group who ever uses a zoom lens). My thinking about cameras has gotten so skewed just from being around them.
I'm using 2 film lenses on my Nikon DSLR. It works well enough, especially for the longer distance telephotos. This plan suffers at wide angles because of the difference in sensor sizes between film and digital.Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
My plan is to buy a 18mm-200/250/270mm "travel zoom" to cover all of the situations that my 70mm-300mm film lens doesn't work for and to get the wide angles that my 28-55(?) can't do. I've shot my dad's Nikon 18-200 a few times and, if I could only have one lens, it would be the 18-2x0.
What about not having autofocus with the film lenses? Is that a problem, or does manual focus work well enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Becky
I would likely be using the legacy lenses for landscapes, which aren't moving, so I assume I wouldn't miss autofocus that much.
this brings up another point - which camera might matter, some have "full sized" and some have "cropped" sensors - your focal length will be longer with the latter and wider with the former - so your lens choice might be a wee bit different.
If you are looking at a Rebel, I'm 99% sure they are 'cropped' (I hate loath and detest those designations - there are several reasons why I, and many others, feel cropped is better - yet the names which come from 35mm days indicate it isn't. My SO hates cropped sensors - he takes landscapes and portraits and car shots. I do wildlife mostly).
My SO would recalculate the 70-300 to be something different for a cropped camera - only makes sense if you are stuck in the full vs cropped thought process to do that, but I'll do it anyway :o - that makes the 70-300 about 100-450mm.
Great for wildlife, even worse for 'about town'.
Oh - and supposedly they are coming out with a new Rebel any day now, it should have the new processor in it.
My film lenses are new enough that they work with the focusing motor. Sorry that I can't help you there!Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
I'm really curious about why you think cropped is better -- I haven't heard or read about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TsPoet
For wildlife, etc, it gives you more zoom. That's the simple answer. There is more - DPMs, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by PamNY
Here's a decent article on it
http://www.digital-photography-schoo...-right-for-you
BTW - I share lots of my photos on G+, so you can see what types of pics I take there. Edit - guess you'd need to know my name, LOL - Torka is my real name and that's who I am on G+
I got my first digital camera before full frame sensors were available (Fuji S2pro)... when that camera died I got a D700 which is full sensor. Honestly it makes little difference to me. (I'm a professional photographer FYI) There are other reasons I really *love* my D700 that override any necessity to stand closer to my subjects...
Personally I'd stay away from Sigma lenses.... they have a very bad reputation for sketchy quality control and the construction is pretty cheesy. Certainly do not pay much for one if you go that route.
I was almost scammed recently a seller on Amazon (thankfully it *was* Amazon and the scammer had no recourse but to refund my money....) by someone who listed a lens as a Nikon Nikkor lens, then buried way at the end of the comments (and I think maybe even added after my purchase...) that it was actually a *Sigma* lens with a Nikon mount.... She thought she was being slick listing it on the low end of what an actual Nikon lens should sell for (which is not actually why I chose her.... it was because this particular model of Nikon lens is somewhat rare and it was between her's and one on B&H that was listed as a "7" - it is a lens that is out of production so used is the only way to get it and a 7 at B&H is second from the bottom.... pretty dang beat up...), but in reality her Sigma lens used isn't worth more than about $50....