good starter zoom lens

[4G63T]

So I got myself a Canon EOS 600D. to play around with.

have got a Canon EFS 18-55mm with auto and manual focus lens with it, and also got a Canon EFS 55-250 lens kit with 3 different filters, a shroud thingy and a doubler as well.

the doubler is not that good as its a bit blurry and it quite dim too. might just be me as i have never used one before but might not be me.


so I'm looking for a good zoom lens to go with my camera but don't really want to spend £1000+ at this time as I'm still very much a novice.

anyone know of a good but 'budget' zoom lens for a 600D? also a decent macro one would be good as well.



cheers

[Simpo Two]

First question is - do you want to cover a range not already covered (ie outside 18-250) or replace part of that range with higher quality?

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

First question is - do you want to cover a range not already covered (ie outside 18-250) or replace part of that range with higher quality?

The second question is .... why?

Or, to more polite maybe, "What do you want to use it for?" with a subsidiary questions of "What do the lenses you already have not deliver to your satisfaction?"

Understanding that is a great help for proposing something.

[RobDickinson]

Shroud is a lens hood? Doubler screws onto the end of the lens?

Doubler won't work very well so that's not a surprise.

If you want to shoot small things further away you will need more focal length, this though doesn't come that cheap

[4G63T]

Ah, I didn't expect so many questions lol.

I am very much still a beginner, although I know about framing pictures and stuff like actually taking the picture, but don't really know much about the different types of lenses or focal length an stuff like that.



can someone explain what has been said, then I can answer lol, and I would like something that would be better for taking pictures further away than I have got the lenses for.

[dxg]

I believe the best advice in this situation is to practice with the kit you already have until *you* start to understand or get frustrated by its limitations.

[LongQ]

4G63T said:

can someone explain what has been said, then I can answer lol, and I would like something that would be better for taking pictures further away than I have got the lenses for.

OK so further away means a bigger focal length. Your "longest" lens at the moment it the 55-250. So the "250" part needs to be a bigger number if you want more "reach". Next up is a 300mm lens (typically) but that's not much different to your 250.

So you are either looking at a 400mm "reach" OR a smaller lens plus an adapter (Canon call them extenders) to make it "longer".

This heads you towards the 'expensive' end of the market. Maybe even the 'very expensive' end of the market though that depends, to some extent, on what sort of subjects you have in mind for this additional length.

For example - if you have a static subject concerns such as having a fast auto-focus may not be important. That's good for the wallet.

At the other extreme if it's moving, fast and erratically - like a small bird for example - having a fast focusing lens may be the only way you will ever get a half decent shot other than by pure chance. The middle ground between the two examples is, er, equally interesting when trying to pre-assess what might be the best option.

So, what sort of things do you want to snap with the longer lens?

[LongQ]

Just to add ... one thing about quality lenses is that, if bought well and especially if bought well used, they do tend to hold their value for some time.

Also you can hire (or maybe borrow) most lenses and so have a chance to discover what they offer you as you make your decision.

[Simpo Two]

The focal length is the part in mm, such as 18-55mm. As I would hope you have realised, when at the '18' end you get more in view ('wide angle'), and when at '55', less in view. When you put the 55-250mm lens on, and set it to '250', you get even less in view - this is called telephoto.

Both your lenses have a focal length you can change so they are called zoom lenses.

If you want small objects further away to fill the viewfinder then you need a longer telephoto. Bearing budget in mind I'd suggest you look at a 70-300mm. I can't recommend which one as I use Nikon but generally the more you spend the better it will be.

[budfox]

Even hardened sports professionals would rarely use a lens of a greater focal length than 300mm. Note than when you see huge lenses, it's not because they have big magnifications, it's because they let in loads of light.

For example, I have a 120-300mm Sigma f2.8 lens. It cost £1600. Why so expensive? Because it lets in about four times as much light as my old (£150) 70-300mm Nikon f4.5-f5.6

And why do we need more such big apertures (the 'f' thing)? Here's why:

1 Lots of light means lower ISO settings (which mean less noise)
2 Because we can take pictures in less light
3 Because we can use higher shutter speeds (for freezing action)
4 Because those big apertures can produce beautifully defocussed backgrounds.

Always get used to the kit you have before spending too much money. Do your research, and spend widely. As has been stated on here, good lenses hold their value very well, so sometimes it's worth saving up.

[LongQ]

So, if we accept that 300mm might be enough (unless you want to snap small birds at the end of a large garden) you are not too far from having that right now with the 250mm end of your 55-250 lens.

As I recall that is a well though of budget lens. In fact for Canon users on a budget that would be one of the lenses suggested for a starter lens. I don't own one but I have seen some excellent results from that lens.

The 600D has a pretty good sensor (as do so many cameras theses days) that should allow you to crop an image quite hard and still see decent results - so long as you have a good example of the lens you are using.

By "crop quite hard" I mean take a small area of the image you have obtained and just use a small part of it - say down to half of it - for the image you want.

Now for many things that will work very well. If, however, you want to see perfect fine feather detail on a small bird that was 25mtrs away .... well, the camera/sensor/lens combination might be somewhat challenged to allow that level of detail. As would most combinations available without turning to a very 'long' and expensive lens.

So at this point I am wondering if we should guide you down a path of discovering how far you can go with your existing lenses to achieve the results you seek.

On the other hand ...

We haven't really had a decent "money burning a hole in my pocket and I like shiny new toys" thread for a while so if you fit that model ... WELCOME. Plenty of advice to be found here ...

[Simpo Two]

I hope it's not going to turn into a 'how much zoom can I get' thread. 'Get closer' is the cheapest answer.

[LongQ]

Simpo Two said:

I hope it's not going to turn into a 'how much zoom can I get' thread. 'Get closer' is the cheapest answer.

This is true.

However for fauna shots that may not always be practical, although I suppose one could shoot the things first to gain control of the opportunity.

For many sports, absent a press pass, you are a decent long lens further away before you start. Track or pitch invasions are not encouraged, normally.

Plan B would be to snap Rallying, thus largely obviating the need for a long lens at all. Rather one needs something very wide and a tendency to risk preference.

If fauna is your thing the equivalent would be Big Game hunting on foot. Plenty of creatures might be tempted to come close enough to provide some great shots.

[4G63T]

Aaahh, ok, theres some info i did not know.


I was looking for a good long distance soon lens for taking pictures of things that are far away basically. like birds, animals and other 'things'

but also, close up stuff like cars, people and basically anything really.


now I know a bit more, I will use the kit I have at the moment and find the limits of what the lenses have, and then see If I need a different lens to compliment what I have.

[nellyleelephant]

Just a quicky about the "things that are far away" bit.

You'll find that most pictures of birds you see are taken a lot closer than you may think (still with a long lens though!)

[4G63T]

ah, ok.

did not think about setting the picture up for the bird to come to you until I read a few pages of "the birds they mock me" thread. were someone set up a bird table with a good stick on it for the birds to land on.

[RobDickinson]

Sometimes you can't stalk or get close tbats when the pro's pull out the 800 mm lol. E
Cheaper to work smarter, feeder tables and remote releases also understanding the bird and it's habits helps

[threespires]

I agree with Simpo on the Canon 70-300mm. I have one on my 650D & it's given acceptable results for the price. I've often used it at Curborough to snap P/h'rs on track days.
A cheaper option is Canon's 75-300, which although not as good as the 70-300, gives a good result on O/H's 600D.

[Mr Snap]

Honestly, OP, it sounds like you need to do a course in basic photography. You need a better understanding of things like shutter speed, ISO and aperture. The important thing is to find a good teacher - some of the 'teachers' out there only serve to confuse more than help.

Think of photography as similar to learning to drive; it takes an understanding of basic concepts plus a lot of practice to get good at it.

[fido]

Perhaps. The latest 55-250 IS II is a great budget zoom lens. I've got some decent pictures out of it, so unless you are doing some high-end sports photography it may be all you need for now.