August 28, 2014, 07:15:54 AM

Author Topic: affordable but good telezooom advice  (Read 3672 times)

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8448
    • View Profile
Re: affordable but good telezooom advice
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2012, 02:04:42 PM »
I think that in the low price range with IS, the 55-250mm zoom is it. 

I don't think you really need IS for 200mm on your 40D, if you are shooting moving subjects, it is of little or no help, and a tripod works for still subjects at slow shutter speeds. Below is a cat photo with my old 70-210mm f/4 which can sometimes be found used for a very low price.

The image was taken with either my 30D or 40D handheld at 210mm, and cropped to full size.  My daughter now owns that lens, and loves it.  She uses it to photograph monster truck shows, which is not totally demanding, but needs a high shutter speed.  f/4 is only one stop slower than F/2.8.


  • ********
  • Posts: 13933
    • View Profile
Re: affordable but good telezooom advice
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2012, 02:10:11 PM »
the 70-200 f4 l I'm sure has amazing iq but the lack of is does worry me. 97% of the time I don't use tripods, and I don't like to go higher than 800 or 1250 on my 40d. The winters in northwest europe are quite dark and dusk comes early.

As are the winters in New England.  IS is long as your subject isn't moving.  But if you're trying to shoot a moving subject, IS doesn't help as much (more benefit at longer focal lengths, though, where shake is worse).  The 4-stop IS on the 70-300L means you can handhold down to 1/20 s or slower...but shooting a person posing for a shot at 1/20 s will still usually have blur due to subject motion.

I suppose I am a little concerned about the bokeh on a 4-5.6 lens. Is it possible to get enough out of focus with a crop body at those focal lengths?

Depends on the how close you are to the subject, and how far the subject is separated from the background.  In practice, it's aperture and distance to background that determines background blur, not focal length.  For example, if you frame a full-length portrait at 50mm f/2.8, you'll have a certain DoF.  If you take that shot with a 300mm lens, the longer focal length would mean shallower DoF, but you'd have to be much further away, and the longer camera-to-subject distance would mean deeper DoF which would exactly compensate for the longer focal length. 

But, if you take care to allow good physical separation between your subject and background, you can get decent OOF blur at f/5.6. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List


  • Guest
Re: affordable but good telezooom advice
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2012, 08:02:23 AM »
thanks for the clarifications guys.

I'm still leaning towards the tamron, because at just 300 euros its a bargain. Maybe eventually I can get a 2.8 is from canon, but this should do well as a stopgap until then I think. I have a few months before I make my move, so il keep reading and looking at alternatives until then.


  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: affordable but good telezooom advice
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2012, 11:47:10 AM »
I like my Tamron 70-300 VC.  I'd prefer something faster, but I think it is a good bargain for a $400 lens.  My least used lens, but that's mostly because of the focal length.  I have found the VC to be very helpful, and the IQ to be good enough for my purposes for now.  I didn't have a long lens, and couldn't afford over a grand for one.  So it was buy a budget one, knowing its limitations, or not have those focal lengths at all.  I have not regretted the purchase. 
Canon 5D3  /  Canon 8-15L  /  Canon 35L  /  Canon 85L  /  Canon 100L  /  Canon 580EX II  / Canon MR 14-EX