Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Digital and Video Cameras

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-21-2013, 07:09 PM   #1
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,327
Default Recommend me a good Canon telephoto lens...

I currently have a 75-300 telephoto lens and do not find it that good. What is a better lens up to $300. I find that the distance is not quite there to see. I was told to look at the 55-250mm lens. Thoughts Thanks
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 07:09 PM   #2
KeithTalent
Administrator
Elite Member
 
KeithTalent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Fields
Posts: 43,966
Default

Try this: http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36

KT
__________________
My Top 100 Films of ALL TIME (currently)
Co-Founding Member of the Official Post-Signers Club
Movie thread Pt. 2:
KeithTalent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 07:13 PM   #3
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithTalent View Post
Thanks...

Can this post be moved there?
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 07:14 PM   #4
KeithTalent
Administrator
Elite Member
 
KeithTalent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Fields
Posts: 43,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
Thanks...

Can this post be moved there?
Yes.

KT
__________________
My Top 100 Films of ALL TIME (currently)
Co-Founding Member of the Official Post-Signers Club
Movie thread Pt. 2:
KeithTalent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 07:17 PM   #5
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,327
Default

Should this not go under digital and video cameras? Please move if so. Thanks
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 07:20 PM   #6
TridenT
Lifer
 
TridenT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
I currently have a 75-300 telephoto lens and do not find it that good. What is a better lens up to $300. I find that the distance is not quite there to see. I was told to look at the 55-250mm lens. Thoughts Thanks
What? Are you wanting MORE zoom? If so, you're going to have to shell out a lot more money. I don't think people really go past 300mm all that often.

But, if you need the zoom: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...l-L-Lenses.jsp
__________________
I'm a feminist!
TridenT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 09:05 PM   #7
AkumaX
Lifer
 
AkumaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 12,521
Default

what camera are you using?

the reason why your 75-300 is lackluster is because it is missing IS
the 55-250 is good because it has IS. however, it is an EF-S lens, so it will only work on crop frame cameras
you can upgrade to the 70-300, that one has IS. could be found for around $300 (wish you found me before I returned mine )
I also have a 55-250 if you're interested..
__________________
............................
HeetWear
(o_
(o_ (o_ / /
(/)_ (\)_ V_/_
AkumaX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 09:17 PM   #8
JohnnyRebel
Senior Member
 
JohnnyRebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Heart of Dixie
Posts: 744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
I currently have a 75-300 telephoto lens and do not find it that good. What is a better lens up to $300. I find that the distance is not quite there to see. I was told to look at the 55-250mm lens. Thoughts Thanks
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The Image Stabilization will help a lot with shots on the long end. Plus, it's a better lens. Save a $100 and get the refurb from Adorama. Pay an extra $7.95 for VIP and add a year warranty to this lens plus anything else you buy for the next year.


http://www.adorama.com/CA70300ISNR.html - $439.
JohnnyRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:07 PM   #9
Gintaras
Golden Member
 
Gintaras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,888
Default



"Today's images were taken by palemale.com's backup photographer."



"Her name, believe it or not, is Bird."

http://www.palemale.com/march192010.html
Gintaras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:43 PM   #10
Gintaras
Golden Member
 
Gintaras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRebel View Post
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. The Image Stabilization will help a lot with shots on the long end. Plus, it's a better lens. Save a $100 and get the refurb from Adorama. Pay an extra $7.95 for VIP and add a year warranty to this lens plus anything else you buy for the next year.


http://www.adorama.com/CA70300ISNR.html - $439.
Canon 70-300 gives you 480mm reach, while Olympus 70-300mm give you 600mm reach because of crop factor 1.6 Canon vs 2.0 of Olympus.
Olympus lenses doesn't have IS because Olympus camera body has IS....

Np matter what brand will you buy, it takes a time to get better use of long range of telephoto lense - handheld or with tripod.

So far, I've almost never used tripod for all pictures I've taken with 70-300
Gintaras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:59 PM   #11
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,327
Default

thanks...Ill look for the 75-300mm IS lens...have a few going on Ebay right now...I have the XTi Rebel
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:39 AM   #12
AkumaX
Lifer
 
AkumaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 12,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
thanks...Ill look for the 75-300mm IS lens...have a few going on Ebay right now...I have the XTi Rebel
make sure its the 70-300 IS
__________________
............................
HeetWear
(o_
(o_ (o_ / /
(/)_ (\)_ V_/_
AkumaX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 01:53 PM   #13
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AkumaX View Post
make sure its the 70-300 IS
right....it was a typo....thanks
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:01 PM   #14
gevorg
Diamond Member
 
gevorg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,833
Default

Alternatively, there is a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP for $350 AR.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1339/cat/23
gevorg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:08 PM   #15
Paladin3
Platinum Member
 
Paladin3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 2,044
Default

I still don't get what the OP dislikes about his zoom lens? Not long enough? Fast enough? AF speed? Image quality?

"...distance is not there to see." <---What does that mean? You want to be able to zoom in more on your subject from a distance?

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.
__________________
"I should have been a cowboy. I should have learned to rope and ride. Wearing my six-shooter, riding my pony on a cattle drive. Stealing a young girls heart, just like Gene and Roy. Singing those camp fire songs, oh, I should've been a cowboy!"
Paladin3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:24 PM   #16
SAWYER
Lifer
 
SAWYER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 14,917
Default

I have owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 and imo the 70-300 is not worth nearly double the price. You can regularly get the 55-250 for 120-150
SAWYER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 03:53 PM   #17
twistedlogic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin3 View Post
Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.
+1

Just adding IS to a lens will not get him further reach or help in low light where the subject is moving.
twistedlogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 04:46 PM   #18
RagingBITCH
Lifer
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 17,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAWYER View Post
I have owned both the 55-250 and the 70-300 and imo the 70-300 is not worth nearly double the price. You can regularly get the 55-250 for 120-150
The 55-250 is horrible though. Canon can't give those away with DSLR purchases fast enough.
RagingBITCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 05:12 PM   #19
SAWYER
Lifer
 
SAWYER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 14,917
Default

Horrible? Really?
SAWYER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 05:50 PM   #20
fralexandr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,400
Default

the 55-250mm IS is widely reported as superior to the 75-300 kit lens :S, I suppose if you're comparing to canon L glass, you could say the 55-250 is horrible, but then you're paying out ~600-$1k+...
The 55-250mm IS is pretty light compared to the other mentioned lenses, making it easier to carry around (390g).

Another option in the ops price range is the 70-300mm VC from tamron. It's currently available for $350 AMIR ($100) so it should be available for less than the canon IS, if you're interested. There are cheaper 70-300mms that are great if you want macro, but otherwise are probably subpar to the 55-250 IS.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300m.../dp/B003YH9DZE

pictures taken with the 70-300 VC
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/th...-post-41910308

-----
that said, it could just be motion blur that the OP is refering to, which would be reduced by proper shooting technique and sufficiently fast shutter speed.
The 75-300mm should be capable of decent shots. And as a general rule of thumb on non image stabilized shots, keep the shutter speed at or above 1/(focal length*1.6). 1.6 multiplier is for canon APSC crop factor. So if shooting the 75-300mm, 1/480 or 1/500 should be your slowest @ 300mm.

A helpful guide to "shooting" with a DLSR , the main thing is to find something comfortable and stable, various stable forms are discussed that can improve your usable shots when you need to shoot with a slower shutter.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/...roduction.html

Last edited by fralexandr; 01-22-2013 at 06:35 PM.
fralexandr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 08:33 PM   #21
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin3 View Post
I still don't get what the OP dislikes about his zoom lens? Not long enough? Fast enough? AF speed? Image quality?

"...distance is not there to see." <---What does that mean? You want to be able to zoom in more on your subject from a distance?

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.

I find that the distance to zoom onto a subject is not that good. I do not have the IS on my 75-300 and it was recommended that I buy the 70-300mm IS lens. I dont want a huge telephoto lens ( I am not a professional). I dont mind spending a few hundred on a used lens to see if I like it, if not I can resell it.
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 08:38 PM   #22
ElFenix
Elite Member
Super Moderator
Off Topic
 
ElFenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 94,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
I find that the distance to zoom onto a subject is not that good. I do not have the IS on my 75-300 and it was recommended that I buy the 70-300mm IS lens. I dont want a huge telephoto lens ( I am not a professional). I dont mind spending a few hundred on a used lens to see if I like it, if not I can resell it.
seems like you're saying the lens isn't long enough. if 300 isn't long enough you're looking at a very large lens for an SLR to get much longer.
__________________
I killed and ate the Fun Mod with some jellybeans and a little Chianti.

AnandTech Mean Moderator
ElFenix is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:26 PM   #23
JohnnyRebel
Senior Member
 
JohnnyRebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Heart of Dixie
Posts: 744
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin3 View Post
I still don't get what the OP dislikes about his zoom lens? Not long enough? Fast enough? AF speed? Image quality?

"...distance is not there to see." <---What does that mean? You want to be able to zoom in more on your subject from a distance?

Without understanding exactly what the OP finds lacking in his current lens (maybe it's just me) it's hard to recommend anything.
I'm pretty sure he means that his shots are not clear/sharp enough. Else, why would he be considering a shorter lens?
JohnnyRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 12:23 AM   #24
fralexandr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
I find that the distance to zoom onto a subject is not that good. I do not have the IS on my 75-300 and it was recommended that I buy the 70-300mm IS lens. I dont want a huge telephoto lens ( I am not a professional). I dont mind spending a few hundred on a used lens to see if I like it, if not I can resell it.
something is being lost in translation, we kind of need a more lengthy explanation of what is wrong.
What is the subject? and what is not that good about it?

If the 75-300mm isn't long enough any other 300mm will be about the same length (there are some inaccuracies in reporting focal length, but only up to ~10%)

If the lens doesn't "magnify" enough, you want the tree to appear bigger and cropping it isn't enough.
get a 2x teleconverter.
the 2x teleconverters can be had for cheap to expensive depending on if you want autofocus and stuff.

If you mean you can't focus close enough on small objects (small insects, flowers, coins, etc), you need a macro lens.
the relatively cheap tamron/sigma 70-300mm macro have 1:2 reproduction, or you could spend on a dedicated macro prime (i.e. 50mm or 100mm f/2.8 macro) lens
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-300mm...00+macro+sigma

Last edited by fralexandr; 01-23-2013 at 12:40 AM.
fralexandr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:14 AM   #25
NAC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 900
Default

FYI, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS is $500 new from Amazon.
IMO, better to buy new for $60 more than the refurb model at Adorama.

From reading reviews online - that appears to be an excellent lens, much sharper than the 55-250mm. I've learned that with photography equipment, you don't know what you were missing until you have something better. So the 55-250 might be an okay lens, nothing really wrong with it. And it is much cheaper, so depending on your budget it might be the only way to go. But once you have a better lens like the 70-300, your photos will be much sharper and you'll learn to always notice the difference between photos taken with the old vs. the new lens.

I learned the hard way - took years of photos with an inferior Tamron, never paid close attention. Now I'm paying attention and realize that while most photos look okay at 25% to view full screen, most pics are not clear at all when viewed at 100% (sometimes even at 50%).
NAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.