Zoom Lens (2 Viewers)

[ShiftZZ]

I currently have a Canon EOS 400D and a 18-200mm lens, over the weekend, I saw a deer and it was just too far away to get a proper pic, the 200mm was just too short.

I know the cost of lenses can be whatever you can afford, but, does anyone know of a 'reasonable' lens that one can use that is not going to break the bank?

 

[ukbill]

Link Removed
this 1 is being bid for at the moment mate

 

[ukbill]

Link Removed
i saw 1 of these before its a lens adaptor turning a 200 into x2 making it a 400

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[buttons]

You could always move a bit closer seriously how often would you need a lens over 200. The quality will be crap and by the time you find somewhere to steady it the deer will have gone. I use the digital on my vid cam for the occasional long shot.:thumb:

 

[freelanderuk]

i use one of these http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0015453NO/?tag=mhf04-21

great lens and i sent the camera body with the lens to sigma and they calibrated the lens to the body , my moon shots in flcikr where taken with this lens on a tripod, its expensive , i bought a cheaper version of eBay with out the stabilization and found it to be not very good

 

[ukbill]

£639.00 jesus mate i would get a professional to take me pics for less

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Munchie]

I have the sigma 120-400.

Too heavy to carry round much.

If the subject is at a distance it will still not be that big.

The great wildlife shots you see are generally taken from a hide that allows you to get closer.

I have had a couple of good shots with it.

Would I buy one again .... NO!!!

 

[Campercaillie]

Good quality lenses cost money. Your best choice would be the L series Canon 100-400 mm zoom, a superb lens, but if you're only taking the occasional long shot it's not worth spending that sort of money (around £1300 ) So I would recommend the Canon 70-300mm lens which come in much cheaper. Don't consider it purely as a "long lens," this size is great for birds etc. Take a look at the listing below: This is from Ffordes of Beauly, up here beyond Inverness. A top quality firm that holds a huge range of used equipment with a useful guide as to the condition of the lens (from "shows signs of use" to "mint" at the other end). Stick with Canon if you can, don't be tempted by the cheaper lenses, though Sigma are probably the pick of these as an alternative. This list is for the Canon EOS fit.

http://www.ffordes.com/category/Lens...ssion=ItemName
__________________

 

[Jim]

I sold a 300mm telephoto which got no real use because it was so big and heavy. I bought this lens I can hand hold it at 300mm and get very acceptable shots. It really is superb.

If you want a really long lens for occasional use in good light, then look at a 500mm or 800mm mirror lens, £120 will get you a good one and they can be fun to play with:thumb:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Chris]

What's with the double posts on this thread?

What's with the double posts on this thread?

 

[camocam1]

Jim

what's a mirror lens ??

 

[Jim]

Jim

what's a mirror lens ??

from somewhere on the web...

A mirror lens is just what its name says: the heavy light bending is done with mirrors rather than lenses, though they may have lenses at the tail end to allow for some optical tweaks. Typically these lenses have two mirrors in them, the main mirror being a concave parabolic reflector and a secondary mirror that may be flat or convex to bounce the light from the mirror back toward the camera.

Mirror lenses are long telephotos because the image quality of mirror lenses degrades quickly as you deviate from the optical axis. Your typical mirror lens is a 500 mm f/8, though Sigma makes a 600 mm f/8 and there are (more expensive) 1000 mm f/11 models out there. They are typically not very bright either, again because of their poor off-axis performance. Because of the central return mirror, these lenses don't normally have diaphragms as most lenses do. In other words, their aperture is fixed. You can't stop them down in the conventional way, but I have heard of one person who cut out some cardboard aperture stops, the apertures being off the optical axis to avoid having the return mirror block the optical path. Also because of the central return mirror, out-of-focus specular highlights are ring-shaped instead of being circular or polygonal as they would be in a more conventional lens. This makes for a distinctive (AKA strange) bokeh.

However, these lenses have their advantages too. In a "pure" mirror lens, chromatic aberration will be zero because the reflective path, unlike a refractive one, is independent of wavelength. The light path is also folded for a good part of the lens' length so a mirror lens will be a lot shorter than its focal length. Because you don't need a lot of glass to make these mirrors, the lenses are a lot lighter than their more conventional counterparts and the main element, the objective mirror, is near the lens mount where it can be well-supported and won't shift the camera's center of mass too far forward. And they are comparatively inexpensive..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[camocam1]

cheers Jim

 

[Campercaillie]

Jim

what's a mirror lens ??

With reference to the opening post.... photographing deer ... a mirror lens is not at all suitable!! The depth of field is extremely shallow, such that its usefulness is very limited, and certainly cannot be used with any accuracy on anything that is moving. Having said that, it can produce some interesting results on fixed subjects - plants or flowers for instance. Get your subject in sharp focus and the background will be fuzzed out and adorned with miniature 'doughnuts' of light, a product of the mirror lens. Quite 'arty' in fact with the right subject. Their usefulness is reflected in the fact that they can be picked up second-hand very very cheaply.

Edit:

Example below .....

 

[pappajohn]

bought my Canon EF 90-300 lens second hand from Jessops a few years ago.....£99

works perfect :thumb:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[mdixon]

From my experience...

If you have a 200mm lens, the next thing you see will require a 300mm lens.
If you have a 300mm lens, the next thing you see will require a 500mm lens...
etc etc

I have a panasonic lumix with 16 x Optical zoom - equiv to 28 - 270mm lens

It fits in my pocket and I carry it everywhere. Sure , occasionally its not up to the job. But I wouldnt carry an SLR with 3 or 4 lenses everywhere (and a tripod, remote release etc etc)!

Specialist lenses require a specialist need - If you are a twitcher and spend lots of time waiting for the right shot - its worth carrying and buying the equipment. If its occasional use - Dont

Just an opinion.....:thumb:

 

[mid4did]

I went down this road but with my Nikon D40 and 55-200 lens.i elected to do a saturday birdwatch with the rspb earlier this year.From about 40 foot the birds were too small and even with a steady shot not good enough when blown up.I got some software to control the camera through a usb connection.Using the 0-28m lens I placed it close to where the birds were feeding and they got used to it.Then I could do a remote connect to that laptop from my other one indoors and click away .Cheap and for me very satisfied with the results.

 

[Merle]

You could consider a Tamron 70 - 300, they can be had with or without stabiliser and have a macro setting which is good fun. But like Jim said, Canon glass is superb, just bl......y expensive......but then you're rich aren't you?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jhorsf]

Shiftzz there you go mate no money spent


Google search images deer

 

[Daveo2006]

I have a canon ef 75-300mm but with no IS so at 300mm you really need for it to be on a tripod.Ive only used it a couple of times, one being on Loch ness and shooting stuff on the other side of the Loch.Takes a nice picture and was reasonably priced if i remember and would probably be alot cheaper now.Alway nice to keep though.

Just looked on amazon and you can pick one up for £150.

 

[pappajohn]

Look....stop pussyfooting with magnifying glasses.

get a proper lens.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Techno]

There is no substitute for good light and being close.
A 70/200 F2.8 Nikon from about 8 ft

 

[Techno]

About 50 feet

 

[Techno]

4ft Getting just any shot is ultimately disappointing in the long run

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Campercaillie]

Look....stop pussyfooting with magnifying glasses.

get a proper lens.

Special offer now on .....for a limited time only .. comes complete with its own wheelbarrow!!!

 

[abforfun]

I currently have a Canon EOS 400D and a 18-200mm lens, over the weekend, I saw a deer and it was just too far away to get a proper pic, the 200mm was just too short.

I know the cost of lenses can be whatever you can afford, but, does anyone know of a 'reasonable' lens that one can use that is not going to break the bank?

Hi i hav a sigma 500mm 4.5 lens about to go on ebay you can hav for £1400

Brian [Abforfun]

 

[Techno]

I rode around all day trying to get a good shot of Kites, a long lens wont get the shot! stand still and they will investigate you!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Techno]

Patience.. BTW I have a 2x converter for the lens but it is useless free hand.

 

[Merle]

ShiftZZ, will you be at Malvern? If so you are welcome to borrow my 70-300 and do some comparison shots with your existing lens. PM me if of any help, Dave

 

[ShiftZZ]

ShiftZZ, will you be at Malvern? If so you are welcome to borrow my 70-300 and do some comparison shots with your existing lens. PM me if of any help, Dave

Thanks for the very kind offer, but we wont be at Malvern.... :Sad:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}