Lens Suggestions/Advice Please - Sorry this is nothing new

[ReInvented2012]

I have read through tons of the forums on this subject and cannot seem to get exactly what I am looking for so I wanted to start a topic and see what sort of advice I can get.

I got a Canon T3i as a Christmas gift with the 18/55mm kit lens. It has treated me great for what I need it for (leisure photography). I do notice though that I am really limited on the shots I can get (close ups are just ok, and far away shots just arent possible). I cannot decide between the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Lens. These lenses would probably be used for long distance shots of animals that I enjoy doing. I was also looking into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for close up/macro shots. Would any of these be good for night sky photography? If not can someone suggest one?

So as you can tell by the lenses I have a low budget but want to get the best out of my photography. I mostly like to shoot landscape, nature (trees and streams), as well as animals if I can catch them on camera and also night star photography. That should cover the lenses I was looking at. I was also curious as to whether a 10/22mm lens may be good for what I like to do.

Thanks. Peace.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have read through tons of the forums on this subject and cannot seem to get exactly what I am looking for so I wanted to start a topic and see what sort of advice I can get.

I got a Canon T3i as a Christmas gift with the 18/55mm kit lens. It has treated me great for what I need it for (leisure photography). I do notice though that I am really limited on the shots I can get (close ups are just ok, and far away shots just arent possible). I cannot decide between the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Lens. These lenses would probably be used for long distance shots of animals that I enjoy doing. I was also looking into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for close up/macro shots. Would any of these be good for night sky photography? If not can someone suggest one?

So as you can tell by the lenses I have a low budget but want to get the best out of my photography. I mostly like to shoot landscape, nature (trees and streams), as well as animals if I can catch them on camera and also night star photography. That should cover the lenses I was looking at. I was also curious as to whether a 10/22mm lens may be good for what I like to do.

Thanks. Peace.

Greetings Reinvented. From the way you've stated your question my assumption is that by animals you mean "wild animals", in which case you might just find that 300 mm isn't really long enough either. If you want to grab some pics at the zoo or say in your backyard of some various birds or squirrels 300mm would probably prove adequate. If your actually going out hiking and looking for wild game/birds, odds are good you'll find 300 mm just won't get you close enough all that often.

So depending on your budget you might want to look at some other options, Sigma makes a 150-500 mm as does Tamron, and of course Tamron just recently released a 150-600 mm lens that is getting very good reviews. These will be more expensive than the two options you listed but they might prove more useful in the long run depending on what types of shots your trying to get.

 

[ReInvented2012]

Robbins I would love to be able to get one of those lenses but yes they will be well out of range for me. I have been "getting by" with the 18/55mm kit lens so I figured the 55/250mm or 70/300mm would be a huge step up in terms of what I will be able to photograph. I do enjoy hiking a lot and taking pictures then, but I still dont think that I need something that goes to 500mm or 600mm. With that being said do you know if one of the telephoto zooms is better than the other besides the extra 50mm with the 70/300mm?

 

[robbins.photo]

Robbins I would love to be able to get one of those lenses but yes they will be well out of range for me. I have been "getting by" with the 18/55mm kit lens so I figured the 55/250mm or 70/300mm would be a huge step up in terms of what I will be able to photograph. I do enjoy hiking a lot and taking pictures then, but I still dont think that I need something that goes to 500mm or 600mm. With that being said do you know if one of the telephoto zooms is better than the other besides the extra 50mm with the 70/300mm?

Won't be of much assistance there myself I'm afraid, I'm a Nikon shooter so I haven't worked with Canon or it's lens lineup. I'm sure another Canon shooter can probably wander in and give a few opinions on the subject, and there is always DXO mark if you'd like to compare the two lenses based on their overall scores in various categories.

 

[ReInvented2012]

I see, well thanks for your input. I guess I just have to wait for another wanderer haha. You might have an answer to this question though. What is a good place to send my camera to get it cleaned? Also are there filters that are good to get for all around shooting for some cool effects.

 

[TheNevadanStig]

If you're willing to get sneaky, work a little harder, and think like a hunter, I think the 300MM would be fine. I've been happy with the length so far.
If you are looking for macro as well, some of the sigma and tamaron 75-300mm lenses also have a macro mode. Not nearly as good as a dedicated quality macro lens by any means, but if you're on a budget it might give you a little something more to play with while saving for the next lens.

 

[weepete]

Personally I'd go for a 70-300, it's quite a useful focal length for lots of stuff. I'd also pick a 70-300 f3.5-5.6 IS over the mark II or III as it seems to be sharper and less prone to CA which can be a bit of a pain. If you need more reach you could also add a teleconverter later or a lens with more mm.

For macro photography I'd get a set of macro extension tubes, the 50mm f1.8 II is not a macro lens (for that you really need a 1:1) and the minimal focal length is 0.45m on it which is not close enough for true macro photography. I also found that I really needed an off camera flash bracket, speedlight and cable to get the macro shots I wanted. I think my setup cost a total of £70 (ocf bracket, speedlight and cables) which is cheap and basic, you could spend a lot more if you want electrical contacts and off camera ETTL metering.

I think you should be able to get some decent nightime shots with your 18-55mm, you will probably need a tripod and a shutter release (one with a timer can help). But a 10-22mm would be useful as well for the really wide shots.

 

[Lumens]

Your 18-55 kit lens can go a long way. It is a good walk around, but as you say to get shots of wildlife you will need more reach. I have owned the 55-250 IS USM and the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM lenses. I understand the new 55-250 IS STM lens is actually better than it's counter part. All three will accomplish what you need. Granted 400 t0 600mm would be nice but expensive.

I have taken some great pictures with the 70-300 and before that the 55-250 USM. There are wild horses in the area that do cooperate at times. The lenses are not the best extremely sharp lenses out there, but they will take excellent shots. The combination of 18-55 and 55-250 gives a good focal range to work with. I say go for the best you can afford of the three and have fun.

The best advice I have received is to "learn how to use the equipment you have". Learn how to use modes OTHER than Auto and shoot in RAW and learn how to post process to get better photos. The T3i is an excellent camera and should do you very well. Good Luck with your purchase, whatever it may be.

 

[lambertpix]

I owned the previous version of the 55-250 and upgraded to the 70-300. I've been fairly happy with the 70-300, fwiw, and although more reach would certainly be great, 300mm is a big improvement over what you've got now.

You mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 -- it's a great lens for the money. The focus is a bit slow and noisy, but at $100 or so, it's a bargain. Aperture-wise, it would be good for night photography, but I think you might prefer something wider. Try going outside with your 18-55mm lens and frame a shot at 50mm and see if that works for you. As far as its use for macros, you'll really need an extension tube or a different lens, IMO.

If you're considering the 10-22, take a look at Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8. Its faster aperture might be useful for you if you want to use it at night.

Good luck!

 

[ReInvented2012]

First off, thanks for the input and info. I was wondering about teleconverters, and I think if down the road I wanted more range I would get one of them if it made sense financially. I haven't priced them. I will definitely start looking into true micro lenses. Are there any that aren't too expensive that you can recommend?

Below are some pictures I took with a really cheap 3" tripod propped on my girlfriends car :mrgreen: With a better tripod (Im researching them as well) I know the blurryness will go away, but I want to get closer and more detailed pictures. Would a 10/22mm be the best for that or a completely different lens?

 

[ReInvented2012]

Your 18-55 kit lens can go a long way. It is a good walk around, but as you say to get shots of wildlife you will need more reach. I have owned the 55-250 IS USM and the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM lenses. I understand the new 55-250 IS STM lens is actually better than it's counter part. All three will accomplish what you need. Granted 400 t0 600mm would be nice but expensive.

I have taken some great pictures with the 70-300 and before that the 55-250 USM. There are wild horses in the area that do cooperate at times. The lenses are not the best extremely sharp lenses out there, but they will take excellent shots. The combination of 18-55 and 55-250 gives a good focal range to work with. I say go for the best you can afford of the three and have fun.

The best advice I have received is to "learn how to use the equipment you have". Learn how to use modes OTHER than Auto and shoot in RAW and learn how to post process to get better photos. The T3i is an excellent camera and should do you very well. Good Luck with your purchase, whatever it may be.

Thanks for the input and as you said the 400-600 would be great but out of my price range. I am leaning towards the 70/300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I also wish that I knew how to edit my photos. I feel like its harder than it needs to be. I have Ps6 so I know I could do what I need, just need to find a good tutorial I guess.

I also dont shoot in RAW because I havent tried editing any photos, so that seems like something I need to start doing. I do however use the other modes most of the time when taking photos. I bought a book when I first got my camera which was a huge help in teaching me about the different modes available.

 

[ReInvented2012]

I owned the previous version of the 55-250 and upgraded to the 70-300. I've been fairly happy with the 70-300, fwiw, and although more reach would certainly be great, 300mm is a big improvement over what you've got now.

You mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 -- it's a great lens for the money. The focus is a bit slow and noisy, but at $100 or so, it's a bargain. Aperture-wise, it would be good for night photography, but I think you might prefer something wider. Try going outside with your 18-55mm lens and frame a shot at 50mm and see if that works for you. As far as its use for macros, you'll really need an extension tube or a different lens, IMO.

If you're considering the 10-22, take a look at Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8. Its faster aperture might be useful for you if you want to use it at night.

Good luck!

I have heard the same thing many times about the 50mm f/1.8 II, $100 is a bargain. I will definitely look into the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.

And you can see the pics I posted that I took at night, I think I need to get a good tripod before anything.

 

[Gavjenks]

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Lens. These lenses would probably be used for long distance shots of animals that I enjoy doing.

I have used both and the 70-300 is vastly superior. It's quite noticeably optically better, autofocus is faster and better, you get longer range (both numerically listed, but also even more in terms of what's actually usefully sharp and quality), it is sturdier and nicer overall.

I was also looking into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for close up/macro shots.

This is an odd choice. Your 18-55 kit lens actually is capable of more than DOUBLE the magnification of the 50 1.8.


Maximum magnification of kit lens = 0.36, which is actually really damn good for a non-macro lens
Maximum magnification of 50 1.8 = 0.15


The 50 1.8 is an excellent lens, but if you get it, get it because it weighs 4 ounces, is really sharp, and opens up to f/1.8. Not for macro.

Would any of these be good for night sky photography?

The kit lens and the 50 1.8 are about tied for night sky photography: the kit at 18mm, that is.


Both the 18mm end of the kit and the 50mm wide open allow about as much light to be let in before you get star trails. Which one you chose would have to do with your desired framing (i.e. the whole night sky with a bunch of landscape under it? Kit at 18. A single building or feature with stars, or a few constellations? 50 prime)

 

[ReInvented2012]

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Lens and the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Lens. These lenses would probably be used for long distance shots of animals that I enjoy doing.

I have used both and the 70-300 is vastly superior. It's quite noticeably optically better, autofocus is faster and better, you get longer range (both numerically listed, but also even more in terms of what's actually usefully sharp and quality), it is sturdier and nicer overall.

I was also looking into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for close up/macro shots.

This is an odd choice. Your 18-55 kit lens actually is capable of more than DOUBLE the magnification of the 50 1.8.


Maximum magnification of kit lens = 0.36, which is actually really damn good for a non-macro lens
Maximum magnification of 50 1.8 = 0.15


The 50 1.8 is an excellent lens, but if you get it, get it because it weighs 4 ounces, is really sharp, and opens up to f/1.8. Not for macro.

Would any of these be good for night sky photography?

The kit lens and the 50 1.8 are about tied for night sky photography: the kit at 18mm, that is.


Both the 18mm end of the kit and the 50mm wide open allow about as much light to be let in before you get star trails. Which one you chose would have to do with your desired framing (i.e. the whole night sky with a bunch of landscape under it? Kit at 18. A single building or feature with stars, or a few constellations? 50 prime)

The 50mm f/1.8 idea came from a friend that mentioned it when I first got started that it was good for close ups, portraits etc. I kind of just assumed thats what it would be called, but now that I have looked at true macro photos I know I need something meant for macro. My problem is budget and I cannot seem to decide what to buy. I know that a macro lens, the 70/300mm and maybe a lens for shooting stars and constellations (not sure whats best, maybe a 10/22mm)

 

[weepete]

Unfortunatley lenses that are of a good optical quality aren't cheap, but it really depends on your budget. If you want to shoot macro shots of bugs and stuff the longer the better, as you can be a bit further away and therefore more likely to get the shot without disturbing the bug. Common focal lengths range from 50mm to 100mm but it's important that its 1:1 and not a 1:2 or something with a macro mode.

I'm a bit confused about what you think the 10-22mm will do for you. Its a wider lens than your 18-55mm so it won't get you closer to the stars that's for sure. What it will probably do is allow you to include more foreground in your shots as that's where these types of wide angle lenses work well. To get close up pictures of space you pretty much need to strap got camera on a telescope to get anything other than white dots. I dont mean to sound rude but I think you need to get setup with a tripod first and get reading on how to get some good star shots with your 18n55mm first before you think of buying a new lens for this as most of the issues I see in those shots have nothing to do with the lens.