Home Forums Gear Photography What Size Lens ?

What size lens to buy for pics that may be somewhat distant.

Example: I see a robin in a tree at say 80-100 yards and would like a pic that has the bird in my lap.What size lens.

I have never taken a pic of any distance in my life but I am considering buying a digital SLR and would like to know what to buy.Many of the package deals are attractive in price but I really don't know what they are capable of delivering.

What would be considered a general purpose telephoto if there is such a lens ?

Off to the bookstore to buy Digital SLRs For Dummies.

You're talking pretty a big lens. With a digital SLR it's my understanding that 200mm lens equals 11x binocs, so 400mm lens is about 22x.

The other thing to consider is shake, at that much magnification a lot of shake occurs. So it pays to look at a lens that has the anti-shake/vibration features but these add cost. Nikon calls it VR and I think for Canon it's called IS. This adds to the cost of the lens of course.

I have a 18-200 Nikon VR lens, I would love to add the 80-400 VR to my bag but it's about $1500.

Hope that helps a little.
J

284 you are asking a lot out of a lens to make a robin at 100yards look like its in your lap. A 600mm lens and a 2x extender should get it maybe..
Link http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7320

link http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7463

Sorry if my post was missleading.Just try to get an idea as what to look for.



I'm a newbie to this so I thought if I asked some questions at the far end of the spectrum I might get some input as to what to reasonalably expect out of a piece of equipment.

So maybe a general purpose tele lens might be in the 80-300 range?

Remember, I'm justing asking asking questions that may sound funny but I'm trying to learn instead of just ordering equipment or standing at the counter of the camera shop with a stupid look on my face.

I'm far from an expert but IMO a GP walkin' around tele/zoom lens would be in the 70/80-200 range. I'm not sure what they're offering in the package deals but if I was upgrading equipt. or starting anew, I'd buy just the camera body and go for a separate lens such as Sigma or Tamron for more bang for the buck. Heres a site that that shows pics taken with each lens,might give you an idea what they're capable of.

http://www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php

And some reviews.

http://www.dphotojournal.com/category/lens-reviews

Focal length examples.

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lens101/focallength/chart.html

JSR,Ifound a Tamron 28-300 Macro on one of your links.Would that possibly fit in as a lens for most purposes.As a newbie I'm trying to keep things the least cluttered as possible.I'm pretty much sold on the Canon Rebel series as I run into a guy once in a while that makes his living with one.Says they are real workhorses as well as taking a good pic.

284, I just bought the Rebel XTi with the 18-55 standard lens and then just got a Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM and have really enjoyed it so far. I plan to pick up another lens and it will probably be a 28-300 IS.
There are others here that can give you better info, just letting you know what has worked for me so far.
Good luck and let us know what you get.

284, I have a Canon 20D and my zoom lens is a 70-200mm 2.8 L. It has done a good job for me and will work great on your Rebel..
RL..

A camera body such as the Canon Rebel XT costs around $400.00, while a brand new XTi costs twice as much. Canon upgrades its cameras, at least every 18 months (XT, XTi). It means that cameras are not very expensive, but lenses that provide high image quality are. A top of the line Canon lens costs from over $1,000 to approximately $7,000 (depending on which lens). A high quality 300mm to 500mm zoom lens provides a sharper image, one which you can zoom-in and then crop without too much image degradation. But trying to do the same with a lens that may not be as sharp is more difficult if not impossible. You can compensate for the lack of sharpness by getting closer to the subject, at least if you plan to zoom/crop an image. Such a zoom lens (70-300mm) is usually sharper somewhere from 100mm to 250mm, range which is usually called "sweet spot" by some photographers.

A 300mm, 400mm, or 500mm fixed-power telephoto usually is much sharper than a...lets say, 70-300mm zoom lens. The fixed-power lenses not only provide sharper images, but gather much more light than the variable-power ones. They are usually more expensive, too.

Sigma has a brand new 50-500mm f/2.8 lens that seem very promising, but so far they haven't published its price.
-------
Now, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina offer great lenses around the following power:
10-20mm
12-24mm
17-55mm
17-70mm
18-50mm

Some of these lenses rival Canon lenses of the same power, and are priced below $500.00 each.

The sharpest and cheapest Canon lens costs around $70.00 (cheaper at e-Bay). This lens is the 50mm f/1.8, which is called "The nifty fifty" by photographers. The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper, but costs four to five times as much.

I took these about 5 years ago with an Olympus C-750. It has a 10x optical zoom and a 4x digital zoom so the 2d photo was taken at 40x. They are right out of the camera without any further enlarging and cropping. If I remember right, the distance was maybe 75 yards, +/-.
It'll give you an idea of what power you need although I don't recommend even bothering with digital zoom.

Dick

Another option is to get into digiscoping. This is mating your spotting scope to your camera. A local author uses this method using a digital point and shoot, the quality is good enough to publish. There are several sites that talk about it. A great excuse to get a better spotting scope!!! Tom

As in my Kowa with its 30X eyepiece ???????????

if this was a good idea every photographer in town would be using it.

they may be publishable but so are the pictures of aliens in the national enquirer.

to get a decent long range lens you are looking at 500, a good one is 1000-1500 and a great one is 5000. there are no shortcuts in good glass.

Yup, and unfortunately no cheep way either.

Digital magnification or program tricks trade resolution for "enlargement"

Believe me I am looking for a telephoto lens as well.

And a decent long range 500mm lens would for example bring a license plate into clear focus at what distance?

I was at the camera shop yesterday and this is what I was doing with various lenses out in the parking lot.

Thinking of a career change?

Smart azz!!! Nah, just tryin' to bring things into a perspective that I can understand.I tried a few 200mms and I just didn't think they would fit the bill if for example I'm out in the woods and would like to take a pic of a deer or fox from my treestand or the neighbors daughter when she's home from college and sunnin' in the driveway.

I'm serving my pervert apprenticeship and ya can never tell when there's gonna be a test.

the "decent" lens i was talking about would be around 300 mm. you can get several in that range for around $500.

the 500mm lens you got it confused with is the $5000 package.

sigma makes a 50-500mm for around $900 nicknamed the "bigma" . i like it pretty well from the images i have seen but IN NO WAY would it ever be confused with the canon 500 mm prime. that is the lens that sells for around $5600 brand new and is truely 10x the lens the bigma is.


i use the 100-400mm canon L series for my long range shots. check out the hummers or any of my posts on here for that matter. mine cost $1700 a few years back but it can be had for $1400 new at this time and around $1100 used. seldom are these used lenses abused.

i am contemplating the 500 prime but still have questions as to its usefulness as it weighs 9 lbs. many of my shots are action and i am still trying to get feedback on its ability to be handheld. problem is, i only know 3 guys that have one. one has a nikon 500 prime and says it is definately not a handheld lens. the other 2 have canon. 1 won't get off any info as he feels threatened by anybody that may out do him and the 3rd just got his.

5k is a lot to put out for something that may not suit your needs.

as for you question on the license plate.

with my 75-300 canon i took a shot of a car that was about 115 yards away. with the 8.2 mp of the 20 d i was using i could blow it up well enought to read it though it was blurry.

with the 100.400 this eagle was 2-250 yards away. this is a crop and a full length zoom. even though its not a l-plate if it was i could read it

this may nott be much of an eagle shot you you alaska folk but for 5 miles from my house in n. cal . it is awesome

Posted on another thread about the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS that I got as a birding walk around lens. I try my best to get within 20 feet to do bird shots. You can get shots further out but you loose definition. These shots were taken with the 70-200 on a Canon D.






As I stated in the other posting I also purchased 2 Canon 2X TeleCons. So I can get up to 800MM with the 70-200. Tripods, remote shutter switch, shoot with mirror up, mount a Better Beamer, focus manually are all used as things I do to try to over come the limitations that high magnification imposed on a photographer.

i agree with the 70-200 2.8. i have one of those also.

you just can't get the range you can with a 100-400.

there is also no way you get 800.

there is a 1.6 crop factor on a 20-30 d. that is 1.6 x 200 = 320. that is 320 x 2 = 640. this is the same as the 400 without an ext.

the IS 70-200 2.8 is $1700. add the $350 ext and you are over 2 k. the IS 100-400 is $1400.

the non IS 70-200 2.8 sell for around 1K but you have no image stabilization so you better have a tripod. add the $350 ext and you are still at the 100-400 price.

the 70-200 2.8 is a great lens for 100-150 feet and is my choice for sporting events but it is just not a long distance lens, even with the 2x.

the 100-400 is the minimum long distance lens and goes up from there but so do the prices.

you should have both, even if it takes a while, but i have to tell ya.

if i could only have one lens for everything , it is the 100-400 hands down.

BTW crawfish, those are some really nice shots!