Zoom lenses

[VVFF]

Regarding low-light photography, as long as (1) your subject isn't moving and (2) you have a stable platform for your camera (ie. you're not hand-holding your camera), pretty much *any* camera can do good low-light photography.

For example, if you're taking a nighttime photo of Cinderella's Castle, and you have either a tripod or put your camera on top of a trash can, you can get a good, sharp nighttime photo.

The HUGE challenge, though, is low-light photography with moving subjects (like taking photos on Pirates of the Caribbean or the night time parades) or hand-holding your camera for low-light photography. These are pretty challenging photography situations, even for dSLRs, so I'd image they'd be even *more* difficult for point-and-shoot / super-zoom / bridge cameras.

I just time my shots to other people's flashes

 

[DisneyIsTerrific]

We are going to Montana this summer and would like to get a good zoom lens for wildlife photos for my DS's Canon EOS Rebel T1i. DS is 17 and a really good photographer. I need something that costs less than $1,000. I was looking at Best Buy.com and the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens is what I saw that I think might work. Would this be a good lens for our trip or what do you recommend?

Thank you for any help you can give.

 

[VVFF]

First of all, don't buy from best buy unless you need it now. They are most often a rip off. Secondly, yes its a good lens but it's generally regaded as not much better than the 55-250mm on a crop body like the T1i. So you can possible save yourself some money and go with that one.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I know you're trying to stay under $1,000 and if you don't mind some heft, for $1,099, I would recommend the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG IF HSM. Its a very sharp, highly rated lens. It will give you that extra reach and it also works with Sigma's TC ( 1.4 & 2.0 teleconverters), if you need more. It has the HSM (hyper sonic motor) for Canon which focuses extremely fast and is nearly silent. Since it is f4 throughout the range it will help with low light situations. I have the Pentax mount for this lens and it is my favorite ( I continually look for reasons to use it). My version is not HSM, but I have that feature on another lens. I wish mine did because, sometimes, any noise can be heard by wildlife. I have attached an example, from yesterday that was taken at a local short track. It was taken from the top of the grandstand, across the track with the car traveling approximately 90 mph. This is a JPEG straight out of the camera with no PP.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/390170-REG/Sigma_134101_100_300mm_f_4_EX_DG.html

 

[boBQuincy]

For wildlife it seems that if we think we need 200 mm we really need 300 mm (or more)! Another option in your price range is Canon's 70-200 f/4 L (non IS) with Canon's 1.4x extender. Image quality and focus speed are very good, with f/5.6 for the entire range (but f/4 through 200 mm if we take off the extender).

Here is one taken with that setup:

 

[bob100]

First of all, don't buy from best buy unless you need it now. They are most often a rip off. Secondly, yes its a good lens but it's generally regaded as not much better than the 55-250mm on a crop body like the T1i. So you can possible save yourself some money and go with that one.

I agree, save your money and get the Canon 55-250IS. The Canon 70-300 is not that much difference and a 400mm will cost you considerably more.

 

[photo_chick]

If my budget were $1000 I'd consider the Canon 70-200 f/4L in my search.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I would also agree to go with a reputable photography company, like B&H (www.bhphoto.com) or Adorama (www.adorama.com) when making big-ticket photography purchases. These are probably the 2 most popular Web sites that photographers go to when buying camera equipment. Their selections are TONS greater than Best Buy.

As others have also said, if you're shooting wildlife, you'll want as long a "reach" as you can afford. Although you can probably get away with 300mm, I would guess that you'll want at least 400mm or more if the wildlife are going to be slightly further away.

Will your daughter be using this lens as a one-time thing for Montana, or will she normally need/use a telephoto lens? If this is just a one-time thing, you may consider renting a lens. For example, the Canon 100-400mm lens normally costs $1,650 (link to B&H). However, you can rent this lens for 2 weeks with insurance for $131 (link to lensrentals.com).

Just some thoughts. Let us know what you decide.

 

[bob100]

As others have also said, if you're shooting wildlife, you'll want as long a "reach" as you can afford. Although you can probably get away with 300mm, I would guess that you'll want at least 400mm or more if the wildlife are going to be slightly further away.

Will your daughter be using this lens as a one-time thing for Montana, or will she normally need/use a telephoto lens? If this is just a one-time thing, you may consider renting a lens. For example, the Canon 100-400mm lens normally costs $1,650 (link to B&H). However, you can rent this lens for 2 weeks with insurance for $131 (link to lensrentals.com).

Just some thoughts. Let us know what you decide.

good point about renting, I've been to Montana and Yellowstone (and places in between), and for wildlife you definitely need something > 400mm renting could be a good option.

 

[Frantasmic]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129190-USA/Canon_2529A004AA_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2_8L.html

Plus one of the extenders (1.4 or 2x). This would give you a good zoom for regular use and the extenders would provide a really good wildlife zoom without too much loss of the wide aperture.

 

[DisneyIsTerrific]

Thank you all so much for your suggestions and help. I really appreciate it. I'm going to do some research on the lenses you suggested. It really helps having input from people who know about cameras! Thanks!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Nikon announced a version II of their 200-400. You can read about it here. I shot with a friends version 1 of this lens it was amazingly good. I'm curious as to why they felt the need to upgrade it. It and the 14-24 are the two Nikon lenses that I really miss not having on the Canon side of the fence.

 

[VVFF]

Nikon announced a version II of their 200-400. You can read about it here. I shot with a friends version 1 of this lens it was amazingly good. I'm curious as to why they felt the need to upgrade it. It and the 14-24 are the two Nikon lenses that I really miss not having on the Canon side of the fence.

To add more mystery...the MTF charts are the exact same.

 

[MICKEY88]

the new VRII gives you 1 more stop to play with, plus they added a 3rd focus mode

 

[Gdad]

I think the optics are the same- they updated the vr and added more 'nano coating' which I guess reduces glare? Oh yeah- and it's $7k now instead of $6k- sounds great.

 

[pjacobi]

It and the 14-24 are the two Nikon lenses that I really miss not having on the Canon side of the fence.

Canon rumors website notes that Canon was issued a patent for 14-24 f/2.8L lens. Perhaps it will be available later this year.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/


-Paul

 

[jkluttrell]

I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR. I currently own a Canon S5 IS. It has a 12x optical zoom. I love this camera and do feel I get good pictures but I am ready to go SLR. We are going to WDW in October. If I get a new camera I would probably wait and get the extra 55-200 lens for Christmas so I won't have it for a few months.

My question is what is the point and shoot zoom equivalent for the 18-55 lens?

I should add that I zoom a lot and I am not big into editing my pictures. I have a smaller point and shoot camera that I carry in my purse and that is 3x. It does not usually cut it for me.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR. I currently own a Canon S5 IS. It has a 12x optical zoom. I love this camera and do feel I get good pictures but I am ready to go SLR. We are going to WDW in October. If I get a new camera I would probably wait and get the extra 55-200 lens for Christmas so I won't have it for a few months.

My question is what is the point and shoot zoom equivalent for the 18-55 lens?

I should add that I zoom a lot and I am not big into editing my pictures. I have a smaller point and shoot camera that I carry in my purse and that is 3x. It does not usually cut it for me.

18-55 is about the same as the 3x on the P&S in your purse.

200 is about a 10x if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR. I currently own a Canon S5 IS. It has a 12x optical zoom. I love this camera and do feel I get good pictures but I am ready to go SLR. We are going to WDW in October. If I get a new camera I would probably wait and get the extra 55-200 lens for Christmas so I won't have it for a few months.

My question is what is the point and shoot zoom equivalent for the 18-55 lens?

I should add that I zoom a lot and I am not big into editing my pictures. I have a smaller point and shoot camera that I carry in my purse and that is 3x. It does not usually cut it for me.

I can't tell you the comparison, but I'm confident I can tell you what the 18-55 can be used for at WDW. It will be good for daytime shooting, but not good for any great distances, ie, shows in front of the castle. You can get those shots, but to get close-ups will require cropping. You have indicated that PP is not what you like to do. Will work for fireworks as long as you use a tripod and either the camera's delay or a remote. Depending on the ISO performance of your intended purchase, you will probably have problems on low light rides or night parades where there is motion. The shutter speed will be too slow. Depending on what brand or a third party lens, you may want to look at an all-in-one lens. Something like an 18-200 or better, instead of the 18-55. You will still have low light issues but will have the extra reach without having to switch lenses. If you want to get the indoor shows and night parades the minimum you will need is a f2.8 lens. These tend to be expensive. For the dark rides the Sigma 30 mm f1.4 seems to get good reviews (It will be my next lens purchase since I have 28-200 mm range covered with two f2.8 lenses). Just my thoughts.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

You 12x zoom is "36 to 432 mm in a 35 mm equivalent sensor" according to canon's website. Now 35mm equivalent is something odd, since the camera you are likely looking at is a APS-C sensor, which is not 35mm either. So if you are looking at something like the 18-55mm, it is 18-55mm at 35mm equivalent already, in fact, any EPS lens is already quoted in 35mm equivalent. otherwise, you can multiple the mm x 1.6 to get 35mm equivalent on the lens, for example, my sigma 50-500mm Bigma is actually 80-800mm on my camera.

What does that mean to you? You got a whole lotta zoom on your camera and will need something like the 75-300 to even compete.