Canon Lens

[Rahb]

I want to get a bigger lens (something like a 70-300mm). When looking around I find them (low end) from around $269-$159. I don't want to make a purchase on a lens now while i'm a complete amatuer, and then wind up never using it once I have made some headway. To me that is a lot of money to waste just to find out that it yields poor results. I'm looking at the Quantaray 30-700mm as my choice. Does anyone know if it is a bad buy or if it will offer good quality? It scares me that "Canon's" lens is almost $100 more. I don't want to be buying something that will disapoint me.

Also, would a teleconverter be a waste of $$$ or will it help me get up close to my subject when yards seperate us?

:hail:

 

[Big Mike]

Welcome to the forum.

I rarely hear anything good about Quantaray lenses, especially compared to Canon lenses.

Canon has a few versions of the (70 or 75) to 300 zoom lens. Some can be found fairly cheap. It's pretty much a consumer level zoom....which means it's cheap (compared to better lenses) and it's not going to give you the best quality. The quality may be plenty good enough for you, only you will know.

Teleconverters....the really good ones are expensive, and only work with very expensive lenses. There are cheaper ones that will work with most lenses...but as with lenses, you get what you pay for, in terms of quality. I've got a cheap Tamron TC...and it does it's job...but the image quality does suffer.

Take note that a teleconverter will steal light from the lens. If you tried to use a TC with that 75-300 lens, auto focus would not work...because the maximum aperture of the lens is not big enough to let in enough light...with the TC on the camera.

You can still manual focus with that combination, although the viewfinder will be a little darker and harder to see.

 

[Rahb]

If quantaray has a bad record, what about Tameron lenses? I am aware that this are all low end, but will they be truly "poor" quality?

 

[JonK]

tamron, sigma and tokina would be the best of the independent lens manufacturers...that said you still should do some reseaerch as they do have some poor performers amongst them.

 

[Rahb]

Do you know if this lens would be an acceptable quality lens to last me a while and yeild good results for a beginner? http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/255111122.htm?bct=t13024003%3Bcifilm-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcicamera-lenses%3Bcislr-lens%3Bc13025027

 

[JonK]

i googled that lens as on the site you linked they don't tell you what the maximum apertures are; they only listed the minimum as f22.
the maximum aperture at 70mm is f4 and the maximum aperture iat 300mm is f5.6
f4 is pretty slow for 70mm and you'll have a problem if you plan on doing any lowlight shooting with ISO's around 100, 200, 400
I can't comment on the image quality for the obvious reason that I've never used the lens.
Basically when it comes to lenses you get what you pay for...it's that simple with camera lenses.
The amount of money you want to spend will only get you a slow, average image quality zoom in the range you're looking at.
If you want in-depth reviews you'll have to do some searching on the net.

hope that's of some help.

 

[jackfrost]

some of these lenses have designations such as DL, DG, LD, III, USM, APO... and some do not.

whats the differences?


here's the one I was looking at:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=163657&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

[JonK]

marketing ploys....seriously tho they are abbreviations for different delinetaions of lens coatings etc.
for example LD = low dispersion...some coating that helps cut down on flare; III= third incarnation of that particular lens; APO= apochromatic coating (google it); USM=ultra sonic motor for focussing and so on and so forth ad infinitum

the more abbreviations the more they cost apparently

here's a review someone wrote on that lens for what it's worth:

http://www.epinions.com/content_215949676164

 

[Big Mike]

Each company has it's own codes and letters...a lot of it seems to be marketing...just to make you think it's better.

LD is Low Dispersion
USM is a Canon thing, it means Ultra Sonic Motor...although there are two types of USM...one being better than the other.

If you look for reviews of the lenses, you can usually find out all about it...or look on the manufacturer's web site.


*edit* Jon beat me to it again...

 

[JonK]

:mrgreen:

 

[Rahb]

Well, after going through hundreds of reviews, I have come to the conclusion that canon, Quataray, Tamron, ans Sigma are all selling HORRIBLE lenses that are no better than sticking a magnifine glass up to a point and shoot for there low cost lenses. Every review on every lens aroun 70-300mm and $160-$240 complained of focus speed blury pictures, light glare, and purple pigmant (?) The only people with a positive reivew were people who very casually take pictures and they even say that it does not yeild a "professional" result in print. Things look grim for a person with such little fundage to get a clear telephoto lens to try and get creative with as a hobby. I think my 35mm-80mm canon lens does a GREAT job.....seems they got the low end small lenses right, but the mid range zoom lenses are worthless. I can't see dropping ~200 on a lense then being dissatisfied.

A part of me wonders if it is a result of profectionist photographers who expect emaculate results, or the photos are THAT bad with these lenses. That's one pricy dice roll. I was just looking for something to take some portraits in parks (that way i can step back and get differnt angles and such instead of being in their face) sporting events (Dallas Stars Hockey) and like animals or rivers and landscapes. It seems that for the landscape/portraits that these lenses may do ok, but for sports and animals it won't. Anyone else care to through and opinion out there either way?

here are the lenses I considered:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7445

http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/251664561.htm?bct=t13024003%3Bcifilm-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcicamera-lenses%3Bcislr-lens%3Bcilenses-for-canon

http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/255111122.htm?bct=t13024003%3Bcifilm-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcicamera-lenses%3Bcislr-lens%3Bcilenses-for-canon

Rahb

 

[JonK]

It seems that for the landscape/portraits that these lenses may do ok, but for sports and animals it won't.

that's basically correct....well indoor sports they would not be good - outdoor in good light they'd be ok.
If you're just shooting as a hobbyist like you say...then one of those lenses should do you fine....sounds to me like you won't be satisfied with them tho so you may have to plunk down the cash for a decent lens.
How bout the Canon 70-200 F4...awesome lens and reasonable priced for an L series...or the new Canon 75-300 IS USM...in the same ballpark as the F4 but not quite as fast aperture-wise but with the added bonus of image-stability technolgy.

I'd look for a used Canon 70-200 f4 L
here's one:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4L-Box-Great-Cond-USA-1D-L-70-200_W0QQitemZ7594533291QQcategoryZ30066QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[Rahb]

Well, unfortunately
i can't drop 400-500 on a single lens for a hobby. my wife would kill me. If i was dropping that kind of money i would go ahead and save for an extra 200, and get the canon rebel xt digital body and use the lens i have now....then get a badass lens. however, neither are options for me.

I would really hate to be stuck with subpar poor quality results from my camera, but it looks like that is exactly what i will be stuck with until i win the lotto or earn a second income. I'm going to borrow a 200mm lens (i think he said it was) from a co-worker this week, and see how it works for me, then i will explore more options from there.

 

[JonK]

sounds like you need to get your wife interested in photography

 

[Rahb]

....nope.....won't happen