zoom (telephoto) lenses

[senecabeach]

Hope some of you can help with opinions on a 2X telephoto accessory for a Fujifilm s5000 Finepix camera.

I have pretty much not used my "old" slr's since I got this fuji. I just love the digital!!

Has anyone heard anything: pros/cons on the 2X telephoto accessory that can be bought for this camera??
Worth it??
I'm leary about getting it.....if this was a lens for my slr it wouldn't be this hard. HELP

 

[SWDopey]

I used the Fuji teleconverter on my old Fuji s602z and loved it. The quality will never be as good as an equivalent SLR, but for those occasions when you don't have the range to get the shot you want, it's a pretty good alternative.

Vic

 

[Kelly Grannell]

agree with what SWDopey said.

 

[hmgolden]

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? I'm planning a trip to B&H so I can 'play' with it, but I figured I would ask for some opinions from Disers too

Here's the link to the B&H specs page.

I'll admit the price is what's really tempting me. I want a decent zoom that'll be easy to walk around with - specifically to take to sporting events.

Any opinions?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

55mm using 1.6 crop (APS-C) sensor is not normal lens. 30mm will be equivalent to a normal lens.

Just like any zoom lens, you will get barrel/pincushion distortion. Whether you will notice it, it depends on your acquity.

 

[MoonFaerie]

Camera body is Canon 40D.

I've got the 70-200mm 2.8, but I'm wondering if I want to rent something else. (I'm renting a fisheye anyway, unless I break down and buy one before we go.) That sucker is heavy! I've also got the 28-200, which would be a great (lightweight, smallish) option, but I worry about the f/5.6 on the long end.

So if you were gonna bring any telephoto, what would it be?

 

[VVFF]

Camera body is Canon 40D.

I've got the 70-200mm 2.8, but I'm wondering if I want to rent something else. (I'm renting a fisheye anyway, unless I break down and buy one before we go.) That sucker is heavy! I've also got the 28-200, which would be a great (lightweight, smallish) option, but I worry about the f/5.6 on the long end.

So if you were gonna bring any telephoto, what would it be?

Rent the F4 version of the 70-200...light enough for carrying around, decent F4 aperture perfect for outdoors.

 

[zackiedawg]

Well if you're talking exclusively for use in AK, and especially for shooting the animals, I'd strongly recommend going to at least 250mm. I have shot with my 18-250 there and find it quite usable for reaching the distant animals, though I'm always maxed out at 250mm. In the past, I've brought as much as 520mm optical range and used all of it.

In December, my friend and I went to AK and he had his 40D with a max 200mm zoom...he basically spent the safari ride and both animal walks complaining that he wished he had a little more reach. I had the 18-250 and was getting just enough range to get most of the animal shots I wanted. He went out and bought the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM as soon as he got home, and has been much happier with the extra 100mm.

I wouldn't worry terribly about the speed - there's usually ample light for the animal shots to shoot F4-F8...worry more about the reach. That'd be my advice.

Now if you're looking for a lens for all-purpose shooting, it's alot harder to make a one-lens solution - though again the 18-250 is extremely usable at both ends of the spectrum. I'd think since you are renting a fisheye, and have the 28-200 to cover the mid-range, I'd look at renting something like the 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM...it's not too unreasonable in size and weight, has nice reach, and though not super-fast, should be fine for the animal situations you'll be shooting. And having the 450+mm of 35mm equivalent reach will be something I'd think you'll appreciate.

 

[YesDear]

I actually think that unless you are doing the sunrise safari take the 70-200. The normal ride is 18 minutes long and effectively never stops. If the rover is full you have to be on the correct side and point and shoot quickly. My belief is you would not be happy with a longer lens because of the motion since the movement is accentuated with the longer lens.

I have done the sunrise and would then recommend you take what you can hand hold. That 18 minutes turn into an hour to hour and 1/2.

 

[pointandshoot]

I actually think that unless you are doing the sunrise safari take the 70-200. The normal ride is 18 minutes long and effectively never stops. If the rover is full you have to be on the correct side and point and shoot quickly. My belief is you would not be happy with a longer lens because of the motion since the movement is accentuated with the longer lens.

I have done the sunrise and would then recommend you take what you can hand hold. That 18 minutes turn into an hour to hour and 1/2.

I agree. I have tried to shoot my Canon 100-400mm IS on the safari. The constant jerking from the ride made it difficult to get a good shot. Unless you get an animal on the road to stop the vehicle, the extra reach with the motion is tough. I have had better luck with a fast 70-200.

Now for the wild life walking paths, the 400mm IS is the bomb.

Chuck

 

[VVFF]

Well if you're talking exclusively for use in AK, and especially for shooting the animals, I'd strongly recommend going to at least 250mm. I have shot with my 18-250 there and find it quite usable for reaching the distant animals, though I'm always maxed out at 250mm. In the past, I've brought as much as 520mm optical range and used all of it.

In December, my friend and I went to AK and he had his 40D with a max 200mm zoom...he basically spent the safari ride and both animal walks complaining that he wished he had a little more reach. I had the 18-250 and was getting just enough range to get most of the animal shots I wanted. He went out and bought the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM as soon as he got home, and has been much happier with the extra 100mm.

I wouldn't worry terribly about the speed - there's usually ample light for the animal shots to shoot F4-F8...worry more about the reach. That'd be my advice.

Now if you're looking for a lens for all-purpose shooting, it's alot harder to make a one-lens solution - though again the 18-250 is extremely usable at both ends of the spectrum. I'd think since you are renting a fisheye, and have the 28-200 to cover the mid-range, I'd look at renting something like the 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM...it's not too unreasonable in size and weight, has nice reach, and though not super-fast, should be fine for the animal situations you'll be shooting. And having the 450+mm of 35mm equivalent reach will be something I'd think you'll appreciate.

Why didn't he just get a 1.4x teleconverter?

 

[boBQuincy]

Rent the F4 version of the 70-200...light enough for carrying around, decent F4 aperture perfect for outdoors.

And the lens is pretty sharp even wide open. With the 1.4x extender it is a 280 f/5.6 and is still pretty good wide open.

 

[zackiedawg]

Why didn't he just get a 1.4x teleconverter?

It was an older, basic 70-200...he wanted to get a newer or nicer lens anyway - but rather than stick with the 200mm range, he found he was happier to get the extended reach with the 300mm max.

When we go birding or wildlife shooting around the swamps, he can at least get a few shots, whereas with the 200mm he was getting little dots in the center of the frame and cropping like crazy to see anything.

I shoot with a 200-500mm for birding, and need every bit of that 500mm range! But at Disney, that big, heavy lens would be overkill. My 18-250 gives me enough reach, and a 300 would be just about perfect at AK for an APS-C camera. At least in my opinion!

 

[MoonFaerie]

Thanks. I think I'll go with the 70-300.

It def. won't be acting as an all-purpose lens. I'll be bringing my 28-75 and 24-105 too. I've also got a couple of fast primes - the 50mm 1.8 and the 85 mm 1.8.

Right now, we're not doing the sunrise safari. We were booked for concierge, but then we got a 40% off pin and had to downgrade to use it. I couldn't justify $1000 more. So we're hoping for a discount that does have concierge availability and will upgrade, so we can do the sunrise safari.

And now I'm gonna threadjack my own thread.

What do you do with the gear you're not carrying with you? I assume lenses and extra bodies won't fit in the in room safe.

 

[kaffinito]

And now I'm gonna threadjack my own thread.

What do you do with the gear you're not carrying with you? I assume lenses and extra bodies won't fit in the in room safe.

I brought two camera bags (we drove) and left the extra gear in the bag we weren't using in the room, in the closet. We stayed DVC. I didn't bring my expensive lenses, the most expensive ones were the 50mm and the 10-20 and those were with me all the time.

When we stopped over for the night on the way down both bags came in the room with me.

 

[zackiedawg]

Same here - I bring two camera bags (and also drive). I bring my main backpack with all gear in it, then a much smaller bag that will fit the camera with my 18-250 attached, and just enough room to squeeze the 50mm in. The small bag is typically what I go into the parks with. If I bring a tripod, I'll either bring it on the nights I know I'll use it, or if I bring it with me all day, I'll rent a locker and leave it in there until later in the evening when I'll need it.

 

[kevgraub]

Ok, after some great advice on this board, I finally bought my first digital SLR. We went with a Canon xsi, and so far we love it. Ok, most of our pictures are still on full auto mode, but I'm getting braver and messing with manual settings more.

The camera came iwth the standard 18-55mm lense, which is great and we like it. However, we would like to get a lense with a little more reach for our son's sporting events. Specifically, we will be trying to take some action shots while he is playing hockey indoors. However, this will probably also be a lense that we carry around with us on vacation (such as our upcoming trip to WDW in September).

I have been looking at three different options:

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM for about $550
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM for about $1,100
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM for about $1,500

Ok, actually, the $1,500 one is out right now. I know it would be excellent for taking the hockey shots, but I think the weight, and definitely the price are more than we are wanting to do right now.

So the question becomes whether the $1100 one would be better for us than the $550 one. We are not looking for a lense that is going to be taking award winning photos that are 100% awesome, but we want good, quality, in focus, clear pictures. Not professional stuff, but nice family type photos. At the same time, I don't want to skimp on a lense and regret buying it 6 months from now.

Any thoughts? I know the L series lense is going to be a better lense, but my question is whether it is going to be that much better? Is the fixed f/4 speed going to give better results for sports shots in lower level lighting of ice rinks than the variable f/4-5.6?

I guess it all boils down to this - if we are just looking for good family type photos of our son playing hockey, can we get them with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

Thanks for any help on this!

 

[scoot241]

With playing hockey (I assume) indoors, the lower the f-stop the better.

The 70-300mm lens has f/4 at 70mm. As you zoom in, the minimum f-stop goes up to 5.6. So for longer shots, your minimum f-stop will quickly reach 5.6.

Personally, I would go with at least the 70-200mm f/4 because at least you will be shooting with a constant aperature. You won't need to worry about losing a stop of light by zooming in.

I would consider the 70-200mm f/2.8 because you'll get an extra stop of light over the f/4. I haven't been looking at prices, but you may be able to find this lens for less than $1500 online used.

photography-on-the.net/forum has a marketplace area where people sell all sorts of Canon equipment all the time. eBay is another good source to look for lenses. I bought the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for just over $300 in like new condition on eBay.

 

[bob100]

I guess it all boils down to this - if we are just looking for good family type photos of our son playing hockey, can we get them with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM?

Thanks for any help on this!

I don't know but many on the Canon forum www.photography-on-the.net/forum claim the much cheaper Canon 55-250IS f/4-5.6 has the same image quality as the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6. The extra 50mm may not make a difference. you could rent lens (www.lensrentals.com ) to compare before buying

 

[pointandshoot]

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is awesome for hockey. I shoot pre-skate before NHL games. It has the speed to keep up with the action. Awesome in low light. I just shot a dance recital and I was more than pleased. The lens is so sharp it will cut you.

BUT, it is large, heavy, and a pain to lug around. If you are thinking about family pictures, this will quickly become a bother to take everywhere. Maybe consider renting this lens for the few times you would use it for hockey and look at your other options. You might also be able to get by with a prime like the 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 for lowlight action.

The f/4 version has a great reputation. I have never shot it but it gets great feedback. I have also heard the nifty 255 is a nice lens as well. Not knowing your final budget, you might be able to squeeze in the 255 and a prime.

Chuck