 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / January 2004Very Basic Question - Zoom
Dear All I have recently (after much saving) decided to take a massive leap in photography by purchasing a Canon EOS 300D. I have always used point and shoot, to take pics but have finally decided to become a bit more creative. I am finding the digital SLR excellent for experimentating with all the different settings, I can see instant results....but obviously at a price. Anyway, my problem is that I currently know nothing about zoom/telephoto lens's. I am after a zoom lens, but don't know which one.......the easiest way to present my question, I suppose, is to say that I wish for example to take a shot of bird in a tree top (50-60ft away) and have that image fill the viewfinder. Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but I really don't know where to start at the moment. Thanks Ian > Dear All <snip> > I am after a zoom lens, but don't know which one.......the easiest way to > present my question, I suppose, is to say that I wish for example to take a > shot of bird in a tree top (50-60ft away) and have that image fill the > viewfinder. What size bird? Are we talking Wrens or Eagles??? > I am after a zoom lens, but don't know which one.......the easiest way to > present my question, I suppose, is to say that I wish for example to take a > shot of bird in a tree top (50-60ft away) and have that image fill the > viewfinder. Do the maths... If you want to cover an area, say, 6 inches by 4 inches (smallish bird) and it's 50 feet away, the angle of view required (on the long side) is about 0.6 degrees. This equates to a focal length of 3200mm. This is a HUGE lens. Totally impractical. 'Fraid you're going to have to get closer or only take pictures of huge birds. You might find the spreadsheet on my Web site useful. It gives you the angle of view for different focal lengths. You can download it from http://www.peter-robinson.net/aov.shtml. You'll still have to calculate the angle of view though. -- >> I am after a zoom lens, but don't know which one.......the easiest way to >> present my question, I suppose, is to say that I wish for example to take a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > HUGE lens. Totally impractical. 'Fraid you're going to have to get > closer or only take pictures of huge birds. A telescope might work. Mine is 1250 mm * 1.6 crop factor, and we are at around 2000 mm. Canon does not go beyond 400mm zoom, or 1200mm prime focus (no zoom). The 1200 mm is 16,5 kg. The EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM is 1,4 kg and £875 The Sigma 50-500mm zoom is cheaper at £500-£650 pounds, and a little more reach. But no Image Stabilisator. > You might find the spreadsheet on my Web site useful. It gives you the > angle of view for different focal lengths. You can download it from > http://www.peter-robinson.net/aov.shtml. You'll still have to calculate > the angle of view though. There is a simple formula based on similar triangles(remember them?) The ratio between the height of the subject and the height of the image on the negative is the same as the ratio between the focal length and the subject distance. > Dear All > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ian I see, so I'm asking the (semi) impossible really......I'll see what I can afford... Thank you everyone. > Dear All > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Ian > I see, so I'm asking the (semi) impossible really......I'll see what I can > afford... Maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. A better question than "how can I fill the frame from such a long distance ?" may be "how can I get close enough to fill the frame with a shorter focal length lens ?"  SignatureWhen I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa did, not screaming like the passengers in his car. Yeah, I think you're right Tony. I suppose also the question was born from "Right, I have the camera with the standard lens, but I now want to get hold of a second lens that will expand my possibilities". As a beginner I was just assuming that a second complementary lens would be a larger zoom/telephoto. Maybe you would suggest another option for a second lens, but then again I suppose it depends on what sort of photography I wish to concentrate on...hmmm. Maybe I should just concentrate on the standard lens for the time being. Thanks for your comments anyway. Regards Ian > > I see, so I'm asking the (semi) impossible really......I'll see what I can > > afford... > > > Maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. A better question than > "how can I fill the frame from such a long distance ?" may be "how can I get > close enough to fill the frame with a shorter focal length lens ?" > Yeah, I think you're right Tony. I suppose also the question was born from > "Right, I have the camera with the standard lens, but I now want to get hold [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > suppose it depends on what sort of photography I wish to concentrate > on...hmmm. Ian, I think your comment that you "suppose it depends on what sort of photography I wish to concentrate on" is one of the best ones you could make. Certainly in my experience the lenses that have served me best are the ones I bought when I found a specific need for them in my photography rather than the ones I purchased because my employer was indirectly financing some shiny new toys for me. As for which lens to recommend, when you say you have a "Standard lens", do you mean a 50mm Prime lens or a 28 or 35-80 or 105 Standard Zoom lens ? also, what kind of subjects interest you ? As a general principal if you find you're taking a lot of landscapes, you'll probably want a wider angle lens. If on the other hand it mainly wildlife and/or sports , I longer focal length would be preferable. SignatureWhen I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa did, not screaming like the passengers in his car. Hi Tony I bought the Canon EOS 300D kit with the 18-55 lens. I would like to do more wildlife photography, but you made an excellent point about setting up the shot correctly (hides, camoflage etc) to enable you to get close rather than investing in a massive telephoto (which I couldn't afford anyway!) I'm so impressed with the EOS 300D that I think I have inadvertantly become a bit technonlogy/kit focussed, where as I think I might just concentrate on the basics of actually composing a good shot for the time being regardless of field/subject. When I realise that I actaully have a 'need' I'll buy the lens that I require. Thanks for your time Tony. Regards Ian > > Yeah, I think you're right Tony. I suppose also the question was born from > > "Right, I have the camera with the standard lens, but I now want to get [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > probably want a wider angle lens. If on the other hand it mainly wildlife > and/or sports , I longer focal length would be preferable. > Hi Tony > > I bought the Canon EOS 300D kit with the 18-55 lens. I would like to do more > wildlife photography, but you made an excellent point about setting up the > shot correctly (hides, camoflage etc) to enable you to get close rather than > investing in a massive telephoto (which I couldn't afford anyway!) Ian, if it's "wildlife" you're looking at, I'd suggest on of the following (in descending order of price :- Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 USM IS L (equivalent to 160-640mm on a full frame 35mm, street price around ?1250) Sigma 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 APO EX OS HSM (equiv. to 128-640 on 35mm, street price around ?1000) Sigma 50-500mm f/5.6 APO EX HSM (equivalent to 80-800 on 35mm, street price around ?700) Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (equiv. to 120-480mm on 35mm, street price around ?400) Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (equiv. to 160-480mm on 35mm, street price around ?300) Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM (equiv. to 120-480mm on 35mm, street price around ?200) SignatureLiving in a fisheye lens, caught in the camera eye, I have no heart to lie. I can't pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend. "Tony Parkinson" <nospamnewsreplies@photoshot.com> schrieb: > Ian, if it's "wildlife" you're looking at, I'd suggest on of the > following (in descending order of price :- > > [snip list of lenses] I've tried the Sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 APO, lately, and it's really not bad, IMHO even surprisingly good for the money. Only the aperture of 6.3 on the long end may be a bit too much, tho. Street price around 500?. If you buy it second hand, you might have to send it to Sigma so they can upgrade it to make it work with newer Canon cameras. Cheers Timo > "Tony Parkinson" <nospamnewsreplies@photoshot.com> schrieb: > > Ian, if it's "wildlife" you're looking at, I'd suggest on of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 6.3 on the long end may be a bit too much, tho. Street price around > 500?. Timo, Yes, I meant to include that one but missed it when I wrote the list. Having said that, given the reputation Sigma's non-EX lenses have for build quality, I'm not sure it represents "good value" SignatureLiving in a fisheye lens, caught in the camera eye, I have no heart to lie. I can't pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend. > I see, so I'm asking the (semi) impossible really......I'll see what I can > afford... > > Thank you everyone. If birding is your interest you might like to take a look here.. http://www.digiscoping.co.uk/ T. SignaturePlease Tony, NO!! You'd look dreadful in a basque and fishnets.. Ian Joseph writes >I see, so I'm asking the (semi) impossible really......I'll see what I can >afford... For birds near ground level you need a long lens and a hide. For birds in the treetops you need to take yourself, long lens and hide into the treetops. If I were you I'd start at ground level. :-) SignatureHil > Dear All > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > shot of bird in a tree top (50-60ft away) and have that image fill the > viewfinder. Depends on the bird in question, assuming you want to fill a reasonable amount of the frame :- for a Sparrow or finch, you're probably lookin at a 1200mm f/5.6 USM L lens (weighs 16.5kg, costs around the same as a 2 bed semi in Liverpool) and a 2x Convertor for a Crow sized bird, probably a 600mm & 2x Convertor for an Osprey sized bird, probably the 600 on it's own or with a 1.4x convertor for an Ostrich, probably a 300mm lens, but what the hell is an Ostrich doing up a tree ? A better option may be to improve your fieldcraft skills and invest in some RealTree Advantage pattern colothing from http://www.wildlifewatchingupplies.co.uk > Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but I really don't know where > to start at the moment. The only stupid question is the one you don't ask SignatureWhen I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa did, not screaming like the passengers in his car. Ian, I would recommend an equivalent to a 35mm 70-210mm zoom. This will be more than sufficient for your zooming requirements. Longer focal lengths are more specialist so unless you intend to concentrate on bird photography for example I would avoid. I have a 400mm lens which I use *very* rarely. On the other hand, landscape being my thing, my 28mm lens is used for most of my photography. I would strongly advise going for wideangle rather than telephoto, but it all depends on your photographic requirements. Get to know the standard lens. It is very versatile. And the one accessory that is guaranteed to improve your photography overnight is a tripod. And don't go for a cheap and nasty thing: spend the bobs and go for a decent Manfrotto: it will last a lifetime. This should be a priority before any additional lenses. Regards Carrigman Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated. Regards Ian > Ian, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Carrigman > Ian, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > photography. I would strongly advise going for wideangle rather than > telephoto, but it all depends on your photographic requirements. I don't agree. I got the Canon 28-135mm IS USM (Image Stabilizer, so you can handhold it at full zoom - I an at 1/10s). This is 45-216mm in 35mm equivalent. It is a bit heavy, but my main lense. Generally praised a lot. Does not feel it has enough reach for birds etc, so for this I have the Canon 75-300mm standard lense. At full zoom, it requires 1/400s or faster shutter speed without tripod if I want a sharp picture. So only outdoor at good dayligt. Saw a friends 70-200mm f/4.0L - This lense rocks. Razor sharp pictures. > Get to know the standard lens. It is very versatile. I agree on that, but also understand why people would want a 70-200mm, or a 75-300mm. Have also owned a Tamron 28-200mm Super Zoom, but the image quality of the 75-300mm is way better. > And the one accessory that is guaranteed to improve your photography > overnight is a tripod. And don't go for a cheap and nasty thing: spend the > bobs and go for a decent Manfrotto: it will last a lifetime. This should be > a priority before any additional lenses. At least it will be needed if going to a longer focal length. Average person can handhold for 1/focal length second. So you can handhold a 50mm for 1/50s. But since the 300D has 1.6x crop factor, the 50mm is equivalent to 50*1.6 = 80mm, so and average person needs a shutter speed of 1/80s or fatser to handhold for a sharp picture. This time of the year, you will be using 400-1600 ISO with a 300mm to get the shutter speed needed (1/400s - 1/500s). > > Get to know the standard lens. It is very versatile. > > I agree on that, but also understand why people would want a 70-200mm, > or a 75-300mm. I use my 75-300 virtually as my 'standard lens' because it's what I use mostly. If I'm just going on a 'see what I can see to photograph', without any preconceived ideas, and am only taking one lens that's the one I'd take in almost any circumstance. It's also the only one which I hve a backup of, for when I'm travelling. But that's just because previous experience has told me it's the one I use most often. More often I'll have a 28-70 with me too, 'just in case'. I also have a 500mm lens, but have to say that in the UK, it's seldom close enough for birds unless you're in a hide with a 'set-up'. I mean your own hide/set-up. Even at most reserves you won't be close enough in a public hide. An exception is Caerlaverock WWT, but because of the subjects, everybody immediately says 'was that taken at Caerlaverock?" when you show your slide, so you can't win! Liz SignatureVirtual Liz at http://www.v-liz.co.uk Kenya; Tanzania; India; Seychelles; Namibia "I speak of Africa and golden joys" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.