Telephoto Lenses

[taffy12]

First of all, thank you everyone for your helpful tips and suggestions in my previous threads. I've read and absorbed and taken note. Just a couple more questions (for now :)). I'm pretty set, I think, on a Canon t2i and figure I'd do best to start off with a telephoto lens and the kit lens, an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (unless you don't think that's even worth it and I'd be better off buying just the body and putting that money towards something else...). Sadly, I really can't afford more than $200 or so on a second lens, so I'm looking at a 75-300 versus a 55-250. Can someone help me out with the difference between these? And for comparison's sake...my point-and-shoot has a 3x optical/4x digital/12x combined zoom. Would these lenses offer more or less of a zoom capability? Finally, would you recommend a particular brand? Taking price and quality into account, if it were you, would you go with a Canon lens or something else?

 

Thank you again for all of your help! And I hope to contribute to your other threads soon - both with new photos I'll hopefully be taking with a new camera very soon, and with some old shots I'm proud of!

[taffy12]

Oh, and one other thing, if you don't mind! I'm terribly confused about USM versus non-USM... Any help there would be appreciated!

[awboater]

As you said, your point and shoot having a 3x optical and 4x digital zoom equates to 12x. However, the 4x digital zoom really lowers optical quality as you probably have discovered. For this reason, no DSLR zoom lenses have digital zoom; they are optical zoom only.

 

For comparison purposes though, if you look at the combination of the two DSLR lenses you are considering; the combination of a 18~55mm and 55~250mm would be equivalent to 13.8x, and the 18~55mm and 75~300mm combo would equal 16.7x.

 

This may give you some idea of the relative zoom range of each lens combo compared to your combined optical/digital zoom of your compact camera, but do realize that the "x" power is simply a ratio of maximum to minimum zoom lengths, so it is ambiguous, and it really doesn't give you a lot to go on. For example, the 18~55mm lens is 3x and a 70~200mm lens would also be around a 3x, but the two lenses are completely different. Just realize that. You determine the "x" power by dividing the maximum length by the minimum; e.g. 200mm/50mm = 4x; so a 4x lens would occur for many different focal length combinations.

 

It is very common for beginning DSLR owners to supplement their kit 18-55mm lens with a companion lens; such as (but not limited to) 55~200mm, 55~300mm, 70~200mm, and so on.

 

So your wanting to supplement your kit lens with a telephoto lens is not a bad choice, and may be the best for you. Either lens you specified would work well. You will not see a significant difference between the 55~250mm vs. the 70~300mm focal lengths; notwithstanding any other lens quality issues of those particular models (which I do not know whether any glaring differences exist or not).

 

This is not a bad strategy as an all-in-one lens, such as a 18-200mm "super zoom" lens is significantly more expensive than two separate lenses, and you have to be careful of the optical quality of such lenses. Any lens that has 12x or more power in a single lens is known as a super zoom.

 

I have a Nikon 18-200mm, and it is definitely not optically as good as some of my other lenses. But I have found if I use it at f/8, it is a decent enough of a lens. This is more or less true of all super zooms, whether they be for DSLRs or compact cameras. I would recommend that if you are not sure at this point, and don't want to spend the money yet, to buy a 18-55mm and telephoto lens of your choice until you are more familiar with the super zoom lens offerings.

 

When choosing a telephoto complement for your 18-55mm lens, having a gap between 55mm and 70mm will not be noticeable, so don't worry that much about the low end of the telephoto. There will be a noticeable difference between 200mm and 300mm though, but even then it will not be significant.

 

I would always buy the camera brand lenses whenever I can, unless for some reason the particular lens is known to be not very well made - which does happen from time to time with both Canon and Nikon - or they are out of your price range.

 

In my view (and just my opinion), some of the aftermarket lenses are OK, and I would chose the brands in following descending order:

 

Tokina

Sigma

Tamron

 

However, this is just a general opinion, as for any specific lens, there may be an exception to this order. For instance, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is rather known as a great lens, and Tokina does not make an equivalent.

 

I would skip on the rest; Vivitar, Quantarary, Rokinon, and others.

 

You really do not want to cheap out on a lens as high image quality is the result of a good camera and good lens. A good camera and mediocre lens results in a mediocre photo. To some degree, buying any lens is a crap-shoot, but do your research and find what is good and not so good.

 

My advice in lens purchases for a hobbyist; save and buy one lens at a time rather than trying to buy too many lenses at once. You will end up buying a higher end lens one-at-a-time that way, and have better results.

 

But many of us (including me) have learned this the hard way after buying a garbage lens and finding out it was a waste of money.

 

I am not a Canon guy so I am not quite sure about your USM question. As far as I know, all Canon EF lenses have in-camera focus motors, and I think the USM versions are an upgraded motor (quieter and faster).

[shootr]

As you said, your point and shoot having a 3x optical and 4x digital zoom equates to 12x. However, the 4x digital zoom really lowers optical quality as you probably have discovered. For this reason, no DSLR zoom lenses have digital zoom; they are optical zoom only.

 

For comparison purposes though, if you look at the combination of the two DSLR lenses you are considering; the combination of a 18~55mm and 55~250mm would be equivalent to 13.8x, and the 18~55mm and 75~300mm combo would equal 16.7x.

 

This may give you some idea of the relative zoom range of each lens combo compared to your combined optical/digital zoom of your compact camera, but do realize that the "x" power is simply a ratio of maximum to minimum zoom lengths, so it is ambiguous, and it really doesn't give you a lot to go on. For example, the 18~55mm lens is 3x and a 70~200mm lens would also be around a 3x, but the two lenses are completely different. Just realize that. You determine the "x" power by dividing the maximum length by the minimum; e.g. 200mm/50mm = 4x; so a 4x lens would occur for many different focal length combinations.

 

It is very common for beginning DSLR owners to supplement their kit 18-55mm lens with a companion lens; such as (but not limited to) 55~200mm, 55~300mm, 70~200mm, and so on.

 

So your wanting to supplement your kit lens with a telephoto lens is not a bad choice, and may be the best for you. Either lens you specified would work well. You will not see a significant difference between the 55~250mm vs. the 70~300mm focal lengths; notwithstanding any other lens quality issues of those particular models (which I do not know whether any glaring differences exist or not).

 

This is not a bad strategy as an all-in-one lens, such as a 18-200mm "super zoom" lens is significantly more expensive than two separate lenses, and you have to be careful of the optical quality of such lenses. Any lens that has 12x or more power in a single lens is known as a super zoom.

 

I have a Nikon 18-200mm, and it is definitely not optically as good as some of my other lenses. But I have found if I use it at f/8, it is a decent enough of a lens. This is more or less true of all super zooms, whether they be for DSLRs or compact cameras. I would recommend that if you are not sure at this point, and don't want to spend the money yet, to buy a 18-55mm and telephoto lens of your choice until you are more familiar with the super zoom lens offerings.

 

When choosing a telephoto complement for your 18-55mm lens, having a gap between 55mm and 70mm will not be noticeable, so don't worry that much about the low end of the telephoto. There will be a noticeable difference between 200mm and 300mm though, but even then it will not be significant.

 

I would always buy the camera brand lenses whenever I can, unless for some reason the particular lens is known to be not very well made - which does happen from time to time with both Canon and Nikon - or they are out of your price range.

 

In my view (and just my opinion), some of the aftermarket lenses are OK, and I would chose the brands in following descending order:

 

Tokina

Sigma

Tamron

 

However, this is just a general opinion, as for any specific lens, there may be an exception to this order. For instance, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is rather known as a great lens, and Tokina does not make an equivalent.

 

I would skip on the rest; Vivitar, Quantarary, Rokinon, and others.

 

You really do not want to cheap out on a lens as high image quality is the result of a good camera and good lens. A good camera and mediocre lens results in a mediocre photo. To some degree, buying any lens is a crap-shoot, but do your research and find what is good and not so good.

 

My advice in lens purchases for a hobbyist; save and buy one lens at a time rather than trying to buy too many lenses at once. You will end up buying a higher end lens one-at-a-time that way, and have better results.

 

But many of us (including me) have learned this the hard way after buying a garbage lens and finding out it was a waste of money.

 

I am not a Canon guy so I am not quite sure about your USM question. As far as I know, all Canon EF lenses have in-camera focus motors, and I think the USM versions are an upgraded motor (quieter and faster).

 

This all excellent info, well said. The only thing I can add, is that for those new to dslr photography, or those of us newly rediscovering dslr photography - it's hard to wait the length of time it takes to save up for the better quality stuff. Eventually I will get there, when I get another job and things smooth out financially. But with the dearth of instantly accessible photographs that get my heart racing, I want to try to get those shots NOW!!! :D

 

I figure right now I can work on composition, lighting, and learning what power lens work for what I want. Then when it's time to pull the trigger on a good lens, I'll know better exactly what to get.

[pilotdane]

The Canon USM is just a different type of motor that drives the automatic focusing. USM is faster & quieter than the DC motor used on their lower priced lenses. It's such a subtle/minor difference that I would not let it influence your lens choice. If you switch from one to the other you might notice the sound more than anything, but I doubt many people would notice the difference in focus speed.

[taffy12]

Wow, thank you so much for such a thorough, in-depth reply!

 

Ooonnee more question (hopefully :)) - I just found a deal online for a t2i that comes with an 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens instead of the standard 18-55 kit lens. It's a little more expensive - by about $200 - but would this be a better option?

[awboater]

I have always felt that you should use the 2x rule when buying lenses.

 

That is, anything less than 2x would not be significant, and to justify a new lens, it should be a 2x difference in focal length.

 

For instance, if you have a 50mm lens, buying a 35mm lens is not going to give you much of a significant difference (notwithstanding other issues, such as aperture, etc).

 

In that vein, the difference between a 18-55mm and 18-135mm lens (55mm vs 135mm) is 2.45x, which is significant enough to warrant the purchase.

 

Now, this does not say anything about the other optical aspects of the 18-135mm lens as I am not up that much on Canon gear. But I do know that even Canon makes a dud lens now and again, and I am not saying this lens is or not; I am just saying that it would be something to check off on your purchase to do list.

 

But if the lens is OK, then it seems to me that it might not be a bad choice for the difference. That still means you can someday buy a something - to - 300mm lens, as again... the difference between 135 and 300mm is again more than 2x.

 

Finally, one thing I need to point out about my 2x rule, if you check out this webpage: http://www.althephoto.com/concepts/lenses.php you will see how different focal lengths compare.

 

You can judge for yourself what a 55mm, 135mm, 300mm, etc. focal length will give you.

[pierces]

The 18-135 is a good performer at least equal to the 18-55 kit lens. It typically sells for about $300, so a T2i with that lens under $800 is a pretty good deal. The extra reach will cover about 98% of your general photo needs and will serve you well until you feel the need to go longer or wider.

 

One caveat to add: be cautious if you are buying from a seller that offers a bundle of all kinds of accessories with the camera for "only" a few dollars more. The accessories offered are usually low quality, especially the filters and memory cards.

 

Dave

[taffy12]

I have always felt that you should use the 2x rule when buying lenses.

 

That is, anything less than 2x would not be significant, and to justify a new lens, it should be a 2x difference in focal length.

 

For instance, if you have a 50mm lens, buying a 35mm lens is not going to give you much of a significant difference (notwithstanding other issues, such as aperture, etc).

 

In that vein, the difference between a 18-55mm and 18-135mm lens (55mm vs 135mm) is 2.45x, which is significant enough to warrant the purchase.

 

Now, this does not say anything about the other optical aspects of the 18-135mm lens as I am not up that much on Canon gear. But I do know that even Canon makes a dud lens now and again, and I am not saying this lens is or not; I am just saying that it would be something to check off on your purchase to do list.

 

But if the lens is OK, then it seems to me that it might not be a bad choice for the difference. That still means you can someday buy a something - to - 300mm lens, as again... the difference between 135 and 300mm is again more than 2x.

 

Finally, one thing I need to point out about my 2x rule, if you check out this webpage: http://www.althephoto.com/concepts/lenses.php you will see how different focal lengths compare.

 

You can judge for yourself what a 55mm, 135mm, 300mm, etc. focal length will give you.

 

Great website and info. Thanks! I was going to supplement the kit lens with a 55-200 (I had decided against the 75-300 because of the lack of IS), but by your reasoning, this would not be a wise choice paired with the 55-135, correct? Would you recommend anything different?

[awboater]

I can only speak to what I would do, but for me, if I had a 18-135mm lens, the 55-200mm lens would not give me much more than I already had.

 

IS is nice, but not essential.