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
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-23-2013, 08:46 AM   #26
bigi
Golden Member
 
bigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,389
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.
+1. This lens is a steal for $ it sells. VC works incredible, sharp and light.
__________________
"I'm sick of being so healthy" - H.Simpson
bigi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:14 AM   #27
twistedlogic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NAC View Post
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%).
So it was the lens fault that your photos where blurry?

+1 for the Tamron 70-300 OS. It has a very fast AF and very good image stabilization.
twistedlogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 10:39 AM   #28
NAC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedlogic View Post
So it was the lens fault that your photos where blurry?
I don't want to take this thread off topic, but no it wasn't entirely the lens' fault.

The lens in question was a Tamron Autofocus 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR Aspherical (IF). It does not have IS, no doubt I would have gotten better results with a IS lens. And my T1i and the lens were never calibrated, so it currently front focuses quite a bit. I recently did tests on a tripod with a remote and compared three lenses, the Tamron in question was front focusing much more than the other two. I might have dropped it at some point to cause the front focus. I didn't study that many pictures from the past, but I feel like results in past years were better than more recent pictures. I think I'll do that tonight.

A better photographer would have gotten better results than I did. But I also have no doubt a better lens would make things easier, and lead to better results.

For now I've stopped using it, I'm considering getting a 70-300mm IS myself. I think I'll try one out at a shop and see.
NAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 10:43 AM   #29
Maximus96
Diamond Member
 
Maximus96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 5,375
Default

for a good and cheap starter, I second, third, or whatever the canon 55-250mm, you won't miss the extra 50mm at the long end too much
__________________
Canon 5D III | 17-40L | 24-70L | 70-200L II | 50L | 85L II
San Francisco Bay Area Real Estate Photographer - Sammy Lo Photography
Maximus96 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 11:22 AM   #30
twistedlogic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NAC View Post
And my T1i and the lens were never calibrated, so it currently front focuses quite a bit. I recently did tests on a tripod with a remote and compared three lenses, the Tamron in question was front focusing much more than the other two.
Ugh, I feel your frustration.

My current body is back focusing quite a bit. Only happens with indoor light though, so I've just dealt with it. Doesn't matter what focus point or lens, they all seam to back focus. But as soon as I mount a flash, focus assist nails the focus.
twistedlogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 12:26 PM   #31
nataku00
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximus96 View Post
for a good and cheap starter, I second, third, or whatever the canon 55-250mm, you won't miss the extra 50mm at the long end too much
I had the canon 55-250 and the 70-300 at the same time. The 55-250 is a good performer on a budget price. Not ideal for low light performance, but good image quality during the day. Compared favorably to the Canon 70-300 IS that I kept, and the only reason I sold it was because a buyer responded on Craigslist faster for the 55-250 instead of the 70-300. If I were to buy one or the other for under $300, the 55-250 would probably be my choice.
__________________
i5-3570k w/ CM Hyper 212 EVO, ASRock Z77 Extreme4, Corsair Vengeance Black 2x4gb, EVGA 670gtx FTW, Corsair 550D, Seasonic X660, Crucial M4 256gb, 2x WD 1.5tb Green
HP ZR24W, Dell 2408WFP, Pioneer HTS-GS1 5.1 speaker set
Win7 > gamma-2 DAC > Elekit TU-882 amp > ATH-W3000ANV, ATH-W1000X headphones
nataku00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 12:55 PM   #32
AkumaX
Lifer
 
AkumaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 12,469
Default

Haha you guys wanting the 70-300 now.. I had one for sale for $300 a couple weeks ago, but nobody wanted it so I returned it
__________________
............................
HeetWear
(o_
(o_ (o_ / /
(/)_ (\)_ V_/_
AkumaX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 02:11 PM   #33
randomrogue
Diamond Member
 
randomrogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,462
Default

I can't speak on behalf of Canon but I have the Nikon 70-300 VR lens. A couple things to look for with lenses in this range. How are they at 300mm (or 250mm with that one example above)? My lens for example is good up to about 200mm. It's ok at 300mm but nothing to write home about. Better than a point and shoot, sure, but not what I was expecting. It just gets soft. Also, there seems to be some sample variation. Test it thoroughly when you buy it to make sure it's sharp enough for you and not front or back focusing. Personally I think any of these lenses on a camera that can't AF fine tune is risky business but if you get a good sample it's a really good lens. Keep in mind that it's also a really slow lens. Fine in good light. Not something you'll want to use at late night soccer matches.

Someone above suggested that you can use a TC on it. I don't believe these are compatible with them. For Nikon they aren't at least. TC's are for the higher end lenses like the 300mm F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8.
randomrogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 02:55 PM   #34
Paladin3
Golden Member
 
Paladin3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 1,979
Default

DEAR OP: Most of what is being debated in this thread is the image quality of armature quality zoom kit lenses. Despite what many will say, none of them are head and shoulders above the others as far as image quality goes.

That said, you seem to actually want distant subjects to be larger in your frame. You need a longer lens for that, something with a bigger mm number, i.e.: 400mm, 500mm or 600mm. For those you will pay into the multiple $1000s.

300mm on a crop Canon body is actually a ton of zoom. If you need more I suggest you use your feet to move closer to your subject. There is no substitute for getting closer to your subject.

Try the following to help get better distance shots:

- Practice holding your camera steady. Use a tripod or monopod, or brace yourself when you shoot.

- Make sure you use a fast enough shutter speed, generally 1/250 or faster, depending on how steady you learn to hold the camera and how much your subject is moving.

- Try shooting at smaller apertures so from near to far you have more in focus. This is called Depth of Field (DOF). Plus most inexpensive zooms don't have their best image quality at their largest aperture. Avoid shooting an inexpensive zoom lens wide open if you can.

- Don't be afraid to fine tune the focus manually. As others have said, the AF on inexpensive lenses will often be off a bit. There is no substitute for tack sharp accurate focus.

Many photographers fall into the trap of wanting "better" lenses to improve their images, when learning how to use the equipment they have would help them improve far more.
__________________
"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!"

I never thought I would quote Rodney King, but "Can't we all get along?"
Paladin3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 07:25 PM   #35
fralexandr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,361
Default

the canon TCs aren't, but several 3rd party ones will work
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/32...onverter-300mm
there are hits to image quality though, that link suggests going no farther than a 1.4x on the 75-300

there are relatively few ways to get cheap higher mm lenses , so the best way is to get closer to the subject (which isn't always plausible).
mostly just the "long lens" vs "mirror lens." These typically come in 400mm, 500mm, or 800mm focal lengths. Most of them usually sacrifice quite a bit in the image quality department, though Tamron and Canon made some nice mirror lenses.
many require mount converters.
I eventually want to get a mirror lens for the donut bokeh .

Last edited by fralexandr; 01-23-2013 at 07:38 PM.
fralexandr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 09:54 PM   #36
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,319
Default

has anyone here tried to 2x teleconverters..just curious
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 10:20 PM   #37
AkumaX
Lifer
 
AkumaX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 12,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
has anyone here tried to 2x teleconverters..just curious
i had one for my sony dslr, it sucked lol

but i heard the official canon 1.4x is at least good
__________________
............................
HeetWear
(o_
(o_ (o_ / /
(/)_ (\)_ V_/_
AkumaX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:29 PM   #38
randomrogue
Diamond Member
 
randomrogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,462
Default

This would be an actual reason to get a high MP camera. You can crop a lot.
randomrogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 04:54 PM   #39
PixelSquish
Senior Member
 
PixelSquish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 980
Default

the 70-300IS is the lens you should save for.

i had it for years. the 75-300 was known for producing mediocre IQ. the 70-300IS was known for IQ far better than it's price point to the point where some called it close to 'L' quality - similar to how the 100mm 2.8 macro at the time was known for having essentially 'L' IQ.

the IS in that lens is also tip top and extremely useful when using focal lengths 200mm+

i sold my 70-300IS on Amazon Marketplace for $325 a few months ago after switching to MFT. take a look and see what you find there. mine was in very good condition.

Last edited by PixelSquish; 01-24-2013 at 04:58 PM.
PixelSquish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 07:10 PM   #40
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,319
Default

the 70-300IS is the lens you should save for.

This is what I am looking for....thanks
mrrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 08:38 PM   #41
el aye
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Syracuse NY
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingBITCH View Post
The 55-250 is horrible though. Canon can't give those away with DSLR purchases fast enough.
I disagree. The 55-250 was my second lens (after the nifty fifty) and I used it for a few years before getting the 70-300. The IS is better on the 55-250, but the IQ isn't quite there with the 55-250. I would hardly call it horrible, though. It is a great beginner lens that can be had for $150 or so, which is a bargain for the quality.

I am finding my 70-300 to be quite lacking after experiencing a truly sharp lens though, my 100 f/2.8 macro.
el aye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:09 PM   #42
iGas
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,064
Default

At that price and demand you are left with third party lenses, or get a good used FD 300mm f4. Or save your change and get the FD 500mm f4.5
iGas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 09:20 PM   #43
PixelSquish
Senior Member
 
PixelSquish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by el aye View Post
I disagree. The 55-250 was my second lens (after the nifty fifty) and I used it for a few years before getting the 70-300. The IS is better on the 55-250, but the IQ isn't quite there with the 55-250. I would hardly call it horrible, though. It is a great beginner lens that can be had for $150 or so, which is a bargain for the quality.

I am finding my 70-300 to be quite lacking after experiencing a truly sharp lens though, my 100 f/2.8 macro.
i had both the 100mm macro and the 70-300IS. i loved the 100mm macro it is indeed quite sharp.

but you can't compare a prime to a zoom lens with such range for sharpness. as a zoom with the range it has, the 70-300 is quite sharp, and very sharp for the price.
PixelSquish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 11:42 PM   #44
iGas
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelSquish View Post
i had both the 100mm macro and the 70-300IS. i loved the 100mm macro it is indeed quite sharp.

but you can't compare a prime to a zoom lens with such range for sharpness. as a zoom with the range it has, the 70-300 is quite sharp, and very sharp for the price.
Today zoom are pretty sharp, perhaps sharper than many primes at the center, but not as sharp at the edges (not too much of a problem), and distortion is higher than primes.

I think my 70-200L f4 IS is on par or slightly sharper than my 100L f2.8 IS macro. And, perhaps the new 70-200L f2.8 IS II is the sharpest lens in Canon lens lineup.
iGas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:16 PM   #45
Paladin3
Golden Member
 
Paladin3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 1,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrman View Post
has anyone here tried to 2x teleconverters..just curious
It you mean stack teleconverts, no.

Teleconverters (singly) are great on the faster, better quality lenses they are designed for, but they are not really suited for any lens if the resulting max aperture will drop below f/5.6. Forget about using them with the less expensive, variable aperture kit zooms like the OP was asking about, unless you absolutely have to in an emergency.

In the past I've used the following for newspaper work, almost always wide open for sports:

Nikon TC-201 2x on
180/2.8 (360/5.6)
300/2.0 (600/5.6)
400/3.5 (800/6.3) <---only when I had no other choice (got a nice shot once of Marilyn Manson shooting a music video on a closed set with this lens/tc combo)
50/1.8 (100/3.5) <---poor man's macro.

Nikon TC-14 1.4x on
80-200/2.8 (112-280/4)
300/2.8 (420/4)
400/2.8 (560/4)

Teleconverters cause image quality and the ability to achieve proper focus to worsen, but they can be a valuable tool when used on a fast enough lens. I pretty much only use one when there is no other option for getting the shot.
__________________
"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!"

I never thought I would quote Rodney King, but "Can't we all get along?"

Last edited by Paladin3; 01-26-2013 at 05:23 PM.
Paladin3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:57 PM   #46
finbarqs
Diamond Member
 
finbarqs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: West Covina, CA
Posts: 3,608
Default

reading through this post, the OP never clearly stated what he is shooting, or why his disappointment. It just seems like the OP wants a longer lens, not the extra stabilization.
finbarqs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 09:13 PM   #47
JohnnyRebel
Senior Member
 
JohnnyRebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Heart of Dixie
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finbarqs View Post
reading through this post, the OP never clearly stated what he is shooting, or why his disappointment. It just seems like the OP wants a longer lens, not the extra stabilization.
except that he was considering a shorter lens to solve the problem... Of course, he could make himself clearer if he really wanted help or was even reading the answers to the post.
JohnnyRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 05:32 AM   #48
Scooby Doo
Senior Member
 
Scooby Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iGas View Post
At that price and demand you are left with third party lenses, or get a good used FD 300mm f4. Or save your change and get the FD 500mm f4.5
FD's won't work on a canon, unless you physically remount them. Simple non-glass adapters won't work, FD's and FL's registery distance is too short. And glass adapters are generally bad.
__________________
Asrock Z77 Extreme 4
i5 3570K with DH14
G.Skill 2x8GB 1600
Corsair HX750
Cheappie Nvidia 610 :-(
Antec 902
Scooby Doo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 09:56 AM   #49
iGas
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,064
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Doo View Post
FD's won't work on a canon, unless you physically remount them. Simple non-glass adapters won't work, FD's and FL's registery distance is too short. And glass adapters are generally bad.
FD lenses can re calibrate to focus at infinity for EF bodies.

The other way around this is to buy EF lenses and bodies, or go Nikon.
iGas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:07 AM   #50
mrrman
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,319
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyRebel View Post
except that he was considering a shorter lens to solve the problem... Of course, he could make himself clearer if he really wanted help or was even reading the answers to the post.
what do you think i have been doing....I have stated what i am looking for and have made comments on suggestions
mrrman 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 01:16 AM.


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