Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

500mm zoom ef lens for under £1000?

chemtom24

By chemtom24
in Discussions - Eyepieces

Recommended Posts

chemtom24

chemtom24

Posted
Posted

:(can anyone reccommend, (or even find one), a zoom lens seomthing like 200-500mm canon ef /ef-s fit for under a grand? ive looked on Used Lenses | Second Hand Camera Lenses | Used Secondhand SLR Lenses but there isnt much on there.

its mainly for wildlife imaging as most animals dont allow me to get near enough with my 55-250.

im looking for a cheap and cheerful one really - i know plenty of people say u get what u pay for but i am more than impressed with my 55-250 and that was only cheap. im an amateur, im nto going to pick up on subtle differences that others might :)

so any sites to check out, reccommendatiosn welcomed as i dont really know where to look without it costing thousands :eek:

thanks

tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psychobilly

Psychobilly

Posted
Posted

The Bigma - Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG the OS version...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-500mm-f-4-6.3-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

Have a look to see if Digigood have them on ebay...

Bigwings picked one up a few months ago must have been mis-listed on amazon he got the OS version for the non-os price... he's posted a few pics with it on here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDUNN1

LDUNN1

Posted
Posted

.....you can could get the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS (mk1) with a 2x converter to give you an effective 400mm f5.6

.....I believe this is a preferable solution to the 100-400 option for multiple reasons. It is equally as sharp as the 100-400 (with teh converter on the 70-200), slightly sharper without it & faster (f2.8 between 70-200) - good for portraits too at this focal length. & it has a slightly wider range in total. the 100-400 is a 'trombone' design - it doubles its length when you zoom to 400mm - this changes the air volume inside - I am nervous about sucking in dust with such designs plus its handling balance changes considerably. The 70-200 has rotational zoom & does not 'grow' anywhere near the size the 100-400 does. You can pick the 70-200L f2.8 IS (mk1) up for around the £1k mark, maybe a little less, & a secondhand canon 2x converter will be under £200......still does not get you to 500mm mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDUNN1

LDUNN1

Posted
Posted

......I am not familiar with the 55-250, but it is an EFs lens f4-f5.6

The issue with the Canon converters is that some of them have the lenses protuding proud of the mount which makes them restricted on which lenses you can use them with. The Canon 1.4x is the one mainly effected, but it is something to watch out for - you may not be able to physically join then lens to the converter.

Assuming that the Canon 2x converter did fit on your lens it would then be quite slow - f8-f11.2

Any converter will degrade the image quality too - this varies depending upon the lens the converter is being used with, aswell as the quality of the converter in question IMO.

The canon converters are kind of 'matched' to the white L series lenses, so they may not work so well with EF-s lenses.

Most EF-S lenses do not have the same level of image quality that the L series lenses enjoy - understandable when you look at the price delta. i believe that when any converter is used with a 'less than almost perfect' lens, then it doubles the errors that exist in the base lens, then throws in some of its own. The resulting image is usually noticeably degraded. However, consider when you put that same converter on an L series lens - most are 'nearly perfect' optically so when you double the errors, they are still small & almost not noticeable, the converter then throws its own optical flaws in, but the result is still mostly acceptable.

Canon's 1.4x converter - both the mk2 & mk3 (recently introduced) work exceptionally well with most L-series telephotos. I don't think there is much between the mk2 & mk3 in terms of image quality.

The 2x mk2 while still 'good' is noticeably worse than the 1.4x converter. The new 2x mk3 has improved things a bit for the 2x, but it is still not up with the 1.4x - but then it magnifies the image more & would show up more image errors as a result.

Also be aware that most Canon's will NOT autofocus with lenses slower than f5.6, & non auto focus with lenses slower than f8.

Your viewfinder will also be very dark at f8 making manual focus harder.

If you are photo'ing the night sky 'Liveview' or hook up to a laptop would be your main option - but remember that you will then need much longer exposures too &/or have to increase the ISO setting & then the image quality drops due to increased noise.

there is some debate if you are better off using a converter or just cropping your image down / blowing the center up. I guess the deciding factor on that one it the lens you are using to start with - if you have a high quality L series 'pro' lens plus matching converter, the losses are slight & you are better off using the converter. if you have a more budget lens, the image quality will suffer more when a converter is used, & you may be better off just cropping / blowing up the center image.

There are cheaper converters out there that may not have the physical connection constraints that the Canon converters have - kenko do a range that is reasonably well respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDUNN1

LDUNN1

Posted
Posted

to the OP - another option for you could be the fixed focal length Canon 300L IS f4 plus 1.4x converter (or 2x). this would be around £1k secondhand too.

......OR the 400L f5.6 - BUT this does not have 'IS' (image stabalisation) - & for non-tripod use, I'd want IS - it is a great feature - if nothing else it helps you 'pan' your subjects prior to making the exposure as it smoothes out your hand held shakes with long tele lenses.......personally, I would not buy the 400L 5.6 purely because it does not have IS - & I suspect it must be ripe for replacement any time soon in the Canon telephoto L range, as I think it is the only one that does not have the option of coming with IS (you can buy the 70-200L with & without IS & at f4 or f2.8).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDUNN1

LDUNN1

Posted
Posted

.....IMHO, for £1k & sticking to the Canon brand options, I think you have two top choices:-

1) 70-200L f2.8 IS (mk1) - the mk2 will be too expensive but has improved image quality at the 200mm setting.

2) 300L f4 IS

......plus the 1.4x (mk2) &/or 2x (mk3 converter if you can afford it......or mk2 if you want to save £200). I don't think the mk3 1.4x is worth going for as you get minimal to no gain for the extra money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MjrTom

MjrTom

Posted
Posted

Personally I use the 300mm f/4 a lot and also use it with the 1.4x teleconverter for all my wildlife work. It is a spectacular lens :)

However it is not a very cheap solution, pushing the limits of your budget :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Photosbykev

Photosbykev

Posted
Posted

personally I would avoid the zoom lens with a big FL ratio, they are optically a compromise and you will struggle to get good contrasty images with them. If you then add a TC the quality just drops like a stone. The Canon x2 TC makes a good paperweight it certainly doesn't give even reasonable results, I've had two, the 1st I returned thinking it was a bad example, it wasn't, as the replacement was just as bad.

The Canon x1.4TC is a different fish all together and can give you excellent results in the right conditions, I use mine regularly on the back of a 600mm f4L and a 400mm f2.8L lens.

If I was after a good lens for wildlife at a reasonable price I would go for the Canon 400 f5.6L lens AND a good tripod. Without the stability given by a tripod you will only compromise your quality and be restricted to shooting wide open and at high iso to get a high shutter speed for hand holding the lens. With a tripod you would be shooting with the lens stopped down and at a reasonable iso and get better quality images than hand held.

Further down the road you could then buy the x1.4TC and I think you would get AF working in good conditions by doing the tape trick on the lens contacts.

If you chose to go with Sigma the 50-500mm gets a reasonable write up, the 150-500mm gets a poorer review but they are both inferior to a decent prime lens or Canon equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LDUNN1

LDUNN1

Posted
Posted

Kev, I would suggest that the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS is maybe the exception to the 'avoid zoom' rule.

I agree that the 2x converter is not as good as the 1.4x.....BUT it is usable if you don't mind a slight IQ hit.......I would suggest that the 70-200L f2.8 + 2x converter probably still gives results superior to many of the non-L series telephotos.

......& that the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4 or 600 f4 are still going to be better.......but then they cost significantly more again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Photosbykev

Photosbykev

Posted
Posted
Kev, I would suggest that the Canon 70-200L f2.8 IS is maybe the exception to the 'avoid zoom' rule.

I agree that the 2x converter is not as good as the 1.4x.....BUT it is usable if you don't mind a slight IQ hit.......I would suggest that the 70-200L f2.8 + 2x converter probably still gives results superior to many of the non-L series telephotos.

......& that the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4 or 600 f4 are still going to be better.......but then they cost significantly more again.

avoid the zoom lens with a big FL ratio
the 70-200L f2.8 lens has a short zoom range and it is a superb piece of glassware, I can't find much wrong with mine. I would strongly doubt fitting a x2TC behind it would give the quality of the 400L f5.6 Canon lens. Using a x1.4TC behind it would certainly give you the quality but be short on range for useful wildlife photography.

I typically shoot with the 400 f2.8 or 600mm f4 for my wildlife work and they allow me to stand off from the subject and not disturb them so I can achieve images with natural behaviour rather than stressed. I also spent a lot of time waiting for the target to come closer to me rather than chase it all over the place lol

It probably doesn't matter which lens is used as the quality will drop significantly if you don't use some form of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeWilson

MikeWilson

Posted
Posted

This is an interesting topic. Personally photography is secondary to astronomy but I can see that changing in the future if weather and life continues the way it is.

I missed a deal for the Sigma 55-200 (or is it 50-200mm) OS lens for £99 from Jacobs last week. Wish I went for it now. I had been photographing horses (and rider) last weekend and I really struggled under the bright light with my Cankn 50mm prime and Tamron 18-50 f2.8. Loads of Chromatic Abberation and not helped by having to crop excessively.

All the best,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.