Forgive me for being a rookie, but I just bought a Canon EOS Rebel T2i...

PearmanCasa · Apr 9, 2012

The camera came with the stock EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5 lens. Now, I have dabbled with photography for years. My parents bought my first Kodak Instamatic when I was a child and then I moved up to a Canon AE-1, then to a Minolta (the model escapes me). Then, the wonderful digital cameras came into play! Yea!! I started off with the standard point and shoot Canon Powershot models and was satisfied with them. Well, my husband and I now live in the mountains and we have a steady stream of wildlife coming into our back yard. The deer will come down to eat and then hang out on the hillside behind our cabin. We have a huge variety of birds, numerous chipmunks, squirrels, foxes, rabbits, bears, and mountain lions. These are generally what I am seeking through the lens, but I won't lie. I tend to flood my memory cards with photos of my dog, Harley, and occasionally a human face here and there.

I'm pretty computer savvy and electronics don't scare me. Unfortunately, the time away from a "real" camera that required more than turning it on and aiming in the right direction has taken a toll on the ol' gray matter and I have forgotten more than I remember. So, I'm in a bit of a pickle now. I have enough sense to realize I need more than the lens that came with the camera. What I wouldn't give to have the lenses I had for my AE-1 fit the new camera! Unfortunately, that isn't an option. So, if I intend to get more out of my camera, it's going to take more from my pocketbook. *sigh*

Shortly after we moved back to my home state of Colorado from North Carolina, my husband got sick and he's now on permanent disability. That means I can't spend thousands of dollars and yet, I know there's bound to be a lens I can afford to give me the zoom capabilities I am missing with the stock lens. If I haven't lost you already with my tendency to ramble on, here are the questions I am looking for assistance with:

Which lens would best benefit me for shooting wildlife and landscapes from at least 50 - 100 feet away? And, would that same lens make it impossible if I wanted to switch from a buck standing on the top of the hill to a fawn feeding in the yard just 20 feet in front of me? Is there a lens that will give me great zoom capabilities and not limit me to far-off subjects only? Would you recommend a used lens vs. a new one and if so, is price the only reason? And, finally, do I benefit more from staying with Canon products only or are there other brands I could consider that would be worth the money?

Well, that about sums it all up. LOL Aren't you glad???

I would be deeply grateful for any and all input you can provide! I am hoping to get the lens ordered in the next day or so to have in time for lambing season at my brother in law's ranch. I think the new lambs would make incredible subject matter.

Thank you again! Have a beautiful day!

LuckySe7en · Apr 9, 2012

I don't shoot either but from what I hear, you'll need a wide lens for landscapes, well you don't NEED it but it's more ideal. And wildlife requires you to get up close. So you'll need something that can do both or buy two lenses. What's your budget?

minooo · Apr 9, 2012

How could you go to point and shoot after a Canon AE-1?

I believe there isn't really the lens you want. It is just a bad compromise. Two low cost lenses would do better than one better ultrazoom.

PearmanCasa · Apr 9, 2012

minooo said:
How could you go to point and shoot after a Canon AE-1?
I believe there isn't really the lens you want. It is just a bad compromise. Two low cost lenses would do better than one better ultrazoom.

It wasn't entirely by choice! LOL My sister and her family were going to San Diego for vacation and couldn't afford a good camera. Like an idiot, I let them take mine. They took it to the beach. Needless to say, they didn't provide the care they should have an it never worked again. I was going to college at the time and couldn't afford to have it fixed. I still have the camera, but it's still not working. So, I purchased the Minolta 35mm and moved to North Carolina shortly afterward. My budget was tighter than Dick's hatband and I couldn't afford to buy film, much less have it developed. So, I did without a camera for several years. When I met and married my husband and we started our construction company, I wanted a camera to take progress pictures for our portfolio and get an entry level Kodak digital camera, then later upgraded to a Canon Powershot. But, I want something with more gusto and finally saved and saved until we could get the T2i. I looked online last night and my whole AE-1 kit is only worth about $100.00! Talk about depreciation! Ugh!

Anyway, I have been toying with either the 70-300mm or 75-300mm, but don't know if that's the right move for me. I tend to be more compelled to get closer shots and more concentrated subject matter than a wide horizon shot. I guess I love the details you get with focusing on a particular subject, you know what I mean?

PearmanCasa · Apr 9, 2012

LuckySe7en said:
I don't shoot either but from what I hear, you'll need a wide lens for landscapes, well you don't NEED it but it's more ideal. And wildlife requires you to get up close. So you'll need something that can do both or buy two lenses. What's your budget?

My budget would probably make you laugh. LOL But, I put most of it into the camera itself and am only left with maybe $400 to use for lens upgrades. I know it won't be top of the line and I certainly won't be going into business as a professional photographer, but I've seen zoom lenses for under $200. For no more than what I will need it for, I was hoping that would work for me.

cgipson1 · Apr 9, 2012

Welcome!

1000_Islander · Apr 9, 2012

First, I wouldn't consider you a rookie; it seems that you have paid-your-dues over time with your cameras!
For perspective, I'm retired and have been 'doing photography' for over three decades. Because of my strong interest in quality photography I have fairly kept abreast of the craft, with both my skills (photographic and computer) as well as my gear.
My main DSLR is the T2i, the same as yours. I can well afford a 'better' camera, but the T2i is one of the lightest and that is a major factor with my arthritic shoulders. But the T2i is no slouch at all and yields very high-end images; I don't need 'weather-sealing' or high FPS.
I have better lenses for my prime interest now in bird photography, but for reasonable cost I would make a recommendation.
The Canon 55-250mm is only about $250, it's 255 at B&H and 230 at Amazon! The 55-250 covers a good range, and you should know that with your T2i there is a magnification factor of 1.6, so the long end would be 400mm. Your 'old' cameras did not have this factor! The 55-250mm is one of those rare lenses in any make that belies its low cost. User reports and reviews back this up time and time again.
I feel you would be happy to delighted with that lens!

1000_Islander · Apr 9, 2012

"I have been toying with either the 70-300mm or 75-300mm"...............

The Canon 75-300 is a poor lens. I had the Canon 70-300mm and while it is better than the Canon 75-300, beyond 250mm it is not worth it. Get the 55-250mm!

PearmanCasa · Apr 9, 2012

Thank you, cgipson1!

PearmanCasa · Apr 9, 2012

1000_Islander said:
First, I wouldn't consider you a rookie; it seems that you have paid-your-dues over time with your cameras!
For perspective, I'm retired and have been 'doing photography' for over three decades. Because of my strong interest in quality photography I have fairly kept abreast of the craft, with both my skills (photographic and computer) as well as my gear.
My main DSLR is the T2i, the same as yours. I can well afford a 'better' camera, but the T2i is one of the lightest and that is a major factor with my arthritic shoulders. But the T2i is no slouch at all and yields very high-end images; I don't need 'weather-sealing' or high FPS.
I have better lenses for my prime interest now in bird photography, but for reasonable cost I would make a recommendation.
The Canon 55-250mm is only about $250, it's 255 at B&H and 230 at Amazon! The 55-250 covers a good range, and you should know that with your T2i there is a magnification factor of 1.6, so the long end would be 400mm. Your 'old' cameras did not have this factor! The 55-250mm is one of those rare lenses in any make that belies its low cost. User reports and reviews back this up time and time again.
I feel you would be happy to delighted with that lens!

Thank you SO much! I sincerely appreciate your input! I used to subscribe to Photography Today and was more familiar with the terms and logistics of things. If only I could regain what I've lost! LOL *sigh* But, since that doesn't seem to be in the cards, I rely upon the help of kind folks like you. Thank you again!

Mot · Apr 9, 2012

Welcome to the forum! It's a shame to hear about your AE-1; my one is what got me into this photography thing!

You mentioned that you were thinking of the 75-300 as an option for the telephoto lens for wildlife. While you'll definitely get the reach that you want there will be a few compromises on image quality. With the maximum aperture of f/5.6 you'll probably be shooting with a higher than ideal ISO meaning you'll get noisy images.

Here's a shot I've got with the 75-300mm that might be similar to what you're hoping to get.

I shot this wide open with an aperture of f/5.6 at 200ISO with a shutter speed of 1/400 (I was just asking for camera shake!) and while it's not noisy you can see how soft the image is. This is due to shooting at the maximum aperture and being fully zoomed at 300mm (sorry if you know this stuff already) and I haven't cropped at all. If you're happy with the image quality then I'm sure you'd be happy with the lens, I got mine for less than £50/$80! I wouldn't pay much more, I rarely take it out of my bag; it's too soft for my liking.

EDIT!

Here's a comparison shot. This was taken with the super sharp 200mm f/2.8 ~$1000 L lens. It's been cropped quite a bit because it doesn't 'zoom' as far but that wasn't a huge problem.

Dao · Apr 9, 2012

For consumer grade telephoto lens, you can take a look at these

Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD ($399 after $50 rebate)
Amazon.com: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Reviews:
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD (EOS) - APS-C Format Review / Lab Test
Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Note: I like this one better than the Canon EF 70-300mm IS lens. The front element of the Tamron will not rotate when focus while the Canon will.

If you are looking for the lower cost one, the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS lens is not too bad. (Note: The version II just came out not too long ago. From what I read, there are not too much of the difference between the old and new version. But the older one cost a little less if you can still find it.)

Reviews:
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - Retest @ 15mp / Review
Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

PearmanCasa · Apr 9, 2012

Mot said:
Welcome to the forum! It's a shame to hear about your AE-1; my one is what got me into this photography thing!

You mentioned that you were thinking of the 75-300 as an option for the telephoto lens for wildlife. While you'll definitely get the reach that you want there will be a few compromises on image quality. With the maximum aperture of f/5.6 you'll probably be shooting with a higher than ideal ISO meaning you'll get noisy images.

Here's a shot I've got with the 75-300mm that might be similar to what you're hoping to get.

I shot this wide open with an aperture of f/5.6 at 200ISO with a shutter speed of 1/400 (I was just asking for camera shake!) and while it's not noisy you can see how soft the image is. This is due to shooting at the maximum aperture and being fully zoomed at 300mm (sorry if you know this stuff already) and I haven't cropped at all. If you're happy with the image quality then I'm sure you'd be happy with the lens, I got mine for less than £50/$80! I wouldn't pay much more, I rarely take it out of my bag; it's too soft for my liking.

EDIT!
View attachment 5971

Here's a comparison shot. This was taken with the super sharp 200mm f/2.8 ~$1000 L lens. It's been cropped quite a bit because it doesn't 'zoom' as far but that wasn't a huge problem.

Thank you SO much! I love your photos!!! I'm sincerely feeling like a total newbie here because while I used to know how to work my AE-1, I can't seem to remember anything anymore. I hope I haven't gotten in over my head with the T2i! I think I'd be wise to purchase a book that makes utilizing all the bells and whistles more effectively. Otherwise, I'm stuck. LOL Thank you again!