How much reach is needed?

[Kaitlyn]

So I'm in this mindset that I want long reach... I have a 55-250mm and feel it'd be nice to get a further reach.

I can think of shooting things like:
- Air shows
- Animals
- Zoo

I am currently with the T1i so I have a 1.6x crop factor - currently hitting 400mm with the 55-250.

I know when I took my S5 IS to the Zoo (432mm 35mm equivalent) there were a number of shots where I wish I could get closer.

What do you guys think? I've been eyeing the 70-200mm (better quaility, but 50mm shorter...) or should I try to get > 250mm reach?

Hope that wasn't a huge blabber... thanks guys

[neltron3030]

So I'm in this mindset that I want long reach... I have a 55-250mm and feel it'd be nice to get a further reach.

I can think of shooting things like:
- Air shows
- Animals
- Zoo

I am currently with the T1i so I have a 1.6x crop factor - currently hitting 400mm with the 55-250.

I know when I took my S5 IS to the Zoo (432mm 35mm equivalent) there were a number of shots where I wish I could get closer.

What do you guys think? I've been eyeing the 70-200mm (better quaility, but 50mm shorter...) or should I try to get > 250mm reach?

Hope that wasn't a huge blabber... thanks guys

Hmmm...good question Kaitlyn...

I had the 55-250 and got rid of it for the 70-200 f4 non-IS. There is an image quality difference with the L glass but it isn't as versatile as the 55-250. The 55 vs 70 on the wide end is very noticeable as well.

Also, the 55-250 isn't an attention grabber, so you can smuggle it in to sporting events and such a lot easier.

For me, IQ trumps everything (so the 70-200 is the right call) but I do often wish I had the 55-250 in certain situations...mainly when more range (or IS) is needed.

[Kaitlyn]

Hmmm...good question Kaitlyn...

I had the 55-250 and got rid of it for the 70-200 f4 non-IS. There is an image quality difference with the L glass but it isn't as versatile as the 55-250. The 55 vs 70 on the wide end is very noticeable as well.

Also, the 55-250 isn't an attention grabber, so you can smuggle it in to sporting events and such a lot easier.

For me, IQ trumps everything (so the 70-200 is the right call) but I do often wish I had the 55-250 in certain situations...mainly when more range (or IS) is needed.

I am happy with the 55-250.. it's really quite small and light for the versatility it offers. And you're right, it can also be brought more places. I've heard, read and seen that the 70-200 is very nice and sharp too though, so it's tough! And then of course the internal battle of wanting more reach - though prices seem to skyrocket for canon branded lens above 200mm...

Honestly didn't think too much about the wide angle. I think I'd be shooting MOSTLY at 150-200mm with the lens...

[twilight_samurai]

I think something else to consider is that the longer you go, the more difficult it becomes to hand-hold the camera, so you *might* need to use a tripod, depending on how steady your hands are.

[Kaitlyn]

I think something else to consider is that the longer you go, the more difficult it becomes to hand-hold the camera, so you *might* need to use a tripod, depending on how steady your hands are.

Well that's what the IS is for . But yes, absolutely as you get longer the need for a tripod certainly increases.

[neltron3030]

One thing that I do like about the 70-200 also is the constant f4 aperture throughout the range.

For the money, you can't beat the 55-250mm. There really is no inexpensive viable comparable lens IMO.

[N_Raged]

How about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS? Though it's probably a small upgrade from your 50-250, you do get a bit more reach and USM focusing.

[Kaitlyn]

How about the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS? Though it's probably a small upgrade from your 50-250, you do get a bit more reach and USM focusing.

That's pretty much why I haven't considered it. It doesn't seem like enough of an upgrade... would rather stick with 55-250mm

[CH40Z_008]

Tamron 18-270 VC?

[rayt-]

I bought a 70-200mm f/4L non-IS a couple months ago after posting here. This lens is extremely sharp and my favourite. Only wished I could use it more often. Also, I do find myself using it closer to 200mm more often than not. Now I want a f/2.8L.

[Kaitlyn]

I bought a 70-200mm f/4L non-IS a couple months ago after posting here. This lens is extremely sharp and my favourite. Only wished I could use it more often. Also, I do find myself using it closer to 200mm more often than not. Now I want a f/2.8L.

Mostly handheld or tripod? Wish you had the IS?

Ya, 2.8 sure is nice... and expensive. hehe

[rayt-]

Mostly handheld or tripod? Wish you had the IS?

Ya, 2.8 sure is nice... and expensive. hehe

Pretty much all hand held. Well I mainly use it outdoors so I don't really need the IS. Depends when you shoot though. It's pretty light though and shouldn't be a problem lugging it around for hours. When I first got it, it was very front heavy with my T1i, but it feels a lot more comfortable with a battery grip. My hand is almost too big for just the body alone because I couldn't really put my pinky on the body too to support it. :S

[Kasakato]

The only lens at reasonable price that comes to mind is the 70-300. Though, as already stated, its not much of a gain over the 250.

300mm is more or less the cut-off point for consumers. Anything longer and you get into the super-tele range, also known to carry super-prices. In short, its not practical.

[Kaitlyn]

300mm is more or less the cut-off point for consumers. Anything longer and you get into the super-tele range, also known to carry super-prices. In short, its not practical.

As I am learning . It sucks seeing/trying out the better lens and instantly seeing the advantages and knowing that it also comes at a significant cost

[Kasakato]

As I am learning . It sucks seeing/trying out the better lens and instantly seeing the advantages and knowing that it also comes at a significant cost

A nice lens is always great to have, however its still not going to turn a poorly composed picture into an award winning one. A $300 lens and a $2000 lens still "see" things in the same place. Practice and who knows what you can expect down the road. I started with a 50mm 1.8, then moved onto the 18-55. A year later and I have won a few awards plus a CTV 6 o'clock new feature; anything is possible! Not to mention I have been financially rewarded for some things, allowing me to purchase better gear. Its truly a rigorous cycle in the photographers advantage.