Printable View
Is anyone out there using a dslr telephoto lens. I got a canon 90D for Christmas last year and I have a decent small lens, but i am looking to order a good telephoto. I was looking at the sigma/tamron 150-600. they arn't a bad price(I know with lenses and everything else you get what you pay for, but the boss said no to the 12k L lens). but I was also looking to the 400mm ones, just wondering if anyone has some first hand experience with them
You can get good glass at a decent price on a prime and then use extenders like the 180mm macro and. 2x extender an older 400 f 5.6 is a couple hundred bucks
That might not be a bad way to go. One of the main thing i was looking for is being able to zoom in and out with out having to change my lens(like at a zoo for example). Of course I have never had a big zoom lens like a 400 or 600 so I don't know if that is too much lens or no.
If you’re in Westminster and want to try them out let me know
I might take you up on that sometime when we get down there.
When I did have a 70-200 I found myself only using the 70 or the 200- when I added the extender on that I’d usually be using a tripod.
That was one worry is if it will have to be on a tripod all the time. The sigma claims to have a great image stabilization, I just don’t know how great it works
Mikes camera will rent lenses. I rented one for the comet pictures for a weekend. $45 or so for a $1300 lens.
Good way to try before you buy.
I love Nikon Sigma adapted on micro 4/3. I can't speak for cannon or tamron, but the Sigma F1.8 35-55 is renowned as a must have lens in the GH4/5 world... (when adapted to 4/3 it is a F1.4) and it's more reasonable than branded. Heavy, but good glass.
The smaller sensor will make the lens more telephoto than it is. I would recommend unless you really need to be taking pictures at things far away you stay under 300mm. The 70-300 lenses are normally cheaper and a decent telephoto zoom lens.
The lens is where you want to the spend the money, as the body will be replaced next year by something better, optically not much changes about the lenses if they do make a new version.
If you can rent/borrow before you buy to ensure you want it, that is your best bet. Many camera stores will rent as well as websites.
I rent big glass when I need it. I have had consistently great experiences with LensProToGo, and one of the crappiest experiences with any sort of transaction ever with BorrowLenses.
I'm partial to the F2.8 70-200 IS II personally. It's what I rent most commonly when I have the need for reach. Will be curious how you like the 90D, as I thought about picking one up myself as a replacement body. If you ever need to borrow some glass, come on by. I've got the 24-135 F4L and the absolutely fantastic 10-22 ultra wide.
Thanks for the offer I might take you up on that. I wish I could remember as much about photography as I did when I was in high school using my brand new rebel g. Got out of it when digital hit the scene and just got back into it in the last year and a half. I like the 90d a lot, about twice as much camera as I need. My parents had gotten a t7 when they first came out for a trip to Alaska and I went to buy a t7i, but that kid at Best Buy is a hell of a salesperson. For the price I would recommend one if you don’t plan on going mirrorless. I was tempted to go mirrorless, but I don’t think the tech is there for the price I wanted yet.
Unpossible. High School was the age of the FTb.Quote:
Originally Posted by fitterjohn
O2
Lol I did graduate in 2004....... though the teacher did question multiple time where I got that camera and if it was stolen.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
My day-to-day lens is a Tamron 18-270 EF mount. It's a good all-purpose lens that lends itself to most situations.
For viewing wildlife from afar, it's hard to beat the Canon 100-400 UL IS L-series. I used it to great satisfaction in Africa and it was by far the most popular lens on my Antarctica cruise 10 years ago.
Do you have the new version or the old dust pump?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I rented (Lens Rentals) and took some incredible shots of the space shuttle back in the day with the dust pump version of the lens. Really liked it and would like to add the new version to the stable some day.
O2
I bought the lens in preparation for my trip to Africa in 2009. Have been very happy with it over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
So the push-pull lens. Yhea, that's the one I used for the shuttle. Very versatile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
O2
Yep. Took a little getting used to and I didn't like it at first but I've adapted over the years.
I do like that canon 400, but it’s a bit more then I want to spend, but it’s tempting. I was looking at that tamaron for an everyday. Is it a giant improvement over that canon kit 80-300? The 90d came with a 18-135 I think it was and it’s does fairly okQuote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I grit my teeth and when I wanted to upgrade camera bodies a couple of times, kept the money and bought glass instead when I had saved enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by fitterjohn
Then, once I had the glass, I upgraded bodies. It's nice just being able to bypass buying kits and focusing only on bodies. (there's a setup for 'ya)
Story from my previous generation of [film] Canons:
I had an FTb and a couple of OK after market lenses (poor college student at the time).
A local store advertised a SMOKING deal on the Canon A1 body - had to be below cost so I headed in to buy one.
Got the box in my hand and started toward the front to checkout and the guy says "You need a lens for that!" I replied, nope, I already have the lenses.
He tried to say that I NEEDED to buy a lens for that price and I showed him the ad, which said NOTHING about lenses, just the price for the body.
And that's how I added an A1 to my stable in the late 1970s.
O2
I use an archaic medium known as "film". 4x5 sheets in a camera that's at least 135 years old, or that new fangled 220 format. I have a 35mm with a 70-210 zoom lens, but that's really too complex with the built in exposure meter and all...[blaster]
I've always wanted to play with a view camera!
O2
I’ve got some of those cameras in my collection. I’ve got both grandparents cameras from back when they were 18 in the service.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
I totally agree with upgrading glass over the body, except the last body I had still shot 35mm so I was forced to get a bodyQuote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
I just found out the old lady bought me the sigma 150-600 lens for the reason” you don’t ever just get anything for yourself”. Which means 2 things:
1. She hasn’t noticed the giant safe full of guns, pile of ammo, or Camaro in the garage
2. I need to be worried about what she bought to justify buying me a camera lens
I found on a previous generation of DSLR that I often wanted to change lenses right around 100-150 mm zoom range so the 18-135 caught me changing lenses a lot right when I wanted to just zoom. The 18-270 covers the range decently but of course there are always trade-offs when using a superzoom. The 100-400 is obviously better at 200+ and I'd be better off with a better WFOV lens down below 24 mm but the 18-270 gives me the range when I need it -- and honestly, a lot of my best shots are the ones I took when I could instead of swapping lenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by fitterjohn
Yep, that's the way to do it. Upgraded bodies are nice but the real distinction comes from the glass you're using. I skipped 4 generations of Canon EOS Rebels because I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
This picture is cropped and reduced 50% in each direction (so total 75% reduction) but I only got it because I had the 100-400 lens on a 3/4-size compact sensor camera (EOS Rebel T2i) with a 2.0x Extender II --- so effective lens of just over 1000 mm.
Attachment 83026
Forgot to add: this picture I got with the 18-270 on the spur of the moment. It's been reduced to 16% original size in both directions.
Attachment 83027
-yes, if speed isn't important.Quote:
Originally Posted by feal
-try to avoid that if at all possible.Quote:
and then use extenders
I'm almost positive that for the price a prime telephoto is going to be faster than a zoom telephotoQuote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
Why would you avoid an extender? aside from losing 1 or 2 stops ? this was taken with a 400 5.6 with a 2x ver ii (supposedly the ver iii is a lot better). Used, the setup ran me ~600$ 4 years ago. the extended range the extender gets me for its size/weight/cost is definitely worth any loss of sharpness that i normally wouldnt notice either - granted i dont make a living taking pictures
https://i.imgur.com/2cOKah3.jpg
............
That is a nice hooter shot. The sigma 600 showed up that the gf got me. Unfortunately I have been to busy to do much but open the box and make sure it fits the canon. But we are heading to South Dakota on the 1st so hopefully I get the chance to get some good use up there.