Zoom Lenses

[livelyl]

I have a canon rebel 35 mm. I am going on safari ina few months and want to get the best possible photos. Can anyone recommed a good telephoto zoom for under $600? And should I also get a teleconverter?

Thank you

[robertwgross]

A safari can be quite challenging unless you have a long lens. When I was in East Africa, I used a 75-300mm zoom, which was not long enough. Something twice as long would not be stupid.

About half of the time, we were in vehicles. I found it best to set my camera on a tripod with the legs together (like a monopod), and that way I could move it easily without getting in the way of others. Vehicle drivers are not supposed to take you right up close to the animals, but sometimes the animals walk up close out of curiosity.

The other half of the time, we were walking through the grass, but I carried the heavy lenses anyway. There were smaller animals that required some quick shots, and the long lenses would have gotten in the way.

---Bob Gross---

[yavor73]

Greetings-
I am sure that the lens suggested by the vast majority of Canon digital camera users will be the Canon 28-135mm IS. You should be able to get it for about $439 on the net. If you want to add to that, get the 2x converter.

Have fun!

Bob

[jmublueduck]

yavor73 wrote:
I am sure that the lens suggested by the vast majority of Canon digital camera users will be the Canon 28-135mm IS. You should be able to get it for about $439 on the net. If you want to add to that, get the 2x converter.


~$400 @ B&H... BUT bob is wrong: the Canon 2x converter will NOT work (made only for certain L glass), plus it takes away 2 stops of light, which makes for a VERY slow lens. I disagree with this post.

I do own the 28-135, but for safari use (never been on one), I'd can the lens & spring for the 100-400 L at the least -- out of your price range... but could you maybe rent a lens??

[robertwgross]

jmublueduck wrote:
yavor73 wrote:
I am sure that the lens suggested by the vast majority of Canon digital camera users will be the Canon 28-135mm IS. You should be able to get it for about $439 on the net. If you want to add to that, get the 2x converter.


~$400 @ B&H... BUT bob is wrong: the Canon 2x converter will NOT work (made only for certain L glass), plus it takes away 2 stops of light, which makes for a VERY slow lens. I disagree with this post.

I do own the 28-135, but for safari use (never been on one), I'd can the lens & spring for the 100-400 L at the least -- out of your price range... but could you maybe rent a lens??

Please retract your statement. I never made any comments at all about a 2x converter, nor do I own any 28-135 lens. Please read the thread more carefully to see who made which statement.

---Bob Gross---

[jmublueduck]

*sigh* it's me vs. the Bobs here... Bob #1 (robertwgross), my statement was directed towards Bob #2 (yavor73).

but don't fuss at me about not reading the thread in detail :)

cheers,
~scott

[robertwgross]

I think that "yavor73" mentioned a 2x teleconverter, but I don't think that implied the Canon 2x teleconverter. A generic one might do good with some zoom lenses. Maybe not.

However (back the safari subject), I found the safari environment to be too dusty and too quick. Pulling off a lens to apply a teleconverter is another way of introducing dust to the inside of the camera, whether it is digital or film. There were animals visible for five seconds and then they were gone. If you had to fool around with a lens change, you lost the shot.

Due to weight, most of us did our first safari shoot with just a single camera and a couple of zoom lenses.

For my next safari shoot, I would go with the longest damned lens that my pocketbook would allow.

---Bob Gross---

[droosan]

Other than the 75-300IS, (which I'd say was only adequate) Canon doesn't really offer anything appropriate in your price range, new. You might be able to find the EF400mm/5.6L used for a bit over $600.

Another option would be a 200/2.8L and the 2x Extender. You may be able to find them used for a bit over $600 total.

If I were you on your budget, I wouldn't mess with a long zoom. I'd bring either a wide prime (say 24mm, for landscapes) or a 28-105mm, and the longest prime I could beg, borrow, or steal.

If you're stealing, steal an
EF 400mm/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) IS
and when you get back, send it to me.

Maybe Sigma or Tamron makes something, but remember, if you get a long cheap zoom, focusing will be slow, and that can be a killer for wild life. Wild life doesn't respond well to "Right there! Hold that!" -- and a teleconverter, esp a non-Canon one, will slow focusing down even more so. In fact, you may not be able to autofocus at all. Your camera may not be able to auto focus at less than f/8 or even f/5.6.

[yavor73]

Golly, I knew that there would be a bevy of suggestions....but remember, this fellow has a budget, and will be shooting any and all kinds of shots, not just long teles at animals. It seems, he can only afford one lens. The only real alternative to going with a wide range zoom like the 28-135mm is to go with lesser primes..like Sigmas. He could look for a used Sigma 28mm ($200), add a new or used 50mm Canon MkII ($65) and a Sigma 70-200 used for about $250. That almost makes it. I'd still go with a Canon 28-135 IS and add a 2x converter that works with the lens. Less money, better optics and more range.

I'd never survive on a budget!
Bob

[droosan]

yavor73 wrote:
I'd still go with a Canon 28-135 IS and add a 2x converter that works with the lens. Less money, better optics and more range.


I disagree that a 28-135 on a non-Canon 2x converter would give you better optics than ... than anything.

Remember that he's already got the Rebel, therefore he almost certainly already has a normal range zoom (probably a 28-80). So he shouldn't spend his money duplicating that, but on something long. That would give him more range, and better optics at the long end.

[Rayz]

I agree with droosan. Forget the 28-135 zoom with ANY converter. All converters degrade the image to some degree, which is why you need a high quality prime to get any benefit from a converter.

I'd recommend as a minimum, a second hand Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO Macro. When this lens first came out, it was considered "acceptable" and good value. But I'd be doubtful if it's good enough to use with a converter.

ps. make sure it's an APO Macro and not just APO. Sigma have a few models of 400mm lenses. It's the Macro which gets a Photodo rating of 3.5. The Canon version might also be labelled EX/HSM.

[Greg M]

The only real Canon option is the 75-300 IS. It's a decent lens and will give you the greatest range for your budget. It will also give you IS which will help. I had this lens but upgraded to the 100-400L IS but that's way out of your budget.

Remember that the 75-300 IS is a better lens then the lens that your Rebel came with. Since most of your shooting will be in sunlight then it should perform well.

[Mr. Fogle]

Sigma 50-500. Right price, great lens.

[SteveCliff]

Damn .. please don't tell me you can get a new 50-500mm for $600 .... I'm in the UK and just paid £660 for mine. And that was cheap compared to other places in the UK ........ :(

[Greg M]

SteveCliff wrote:
Damn .. please don't tell me you can get a new 50-500mm for $600 .... I'm in the UK and just paid £660 for mine. And that was cheap compared to other places in the UK ........ :(

No you can't. Some people just don't answer questions with seriousness. The question was for a lens under $600 and the 50-500 isn't. Plus it's a little heavy to handhold all day without OS (IS).

The longest zoom under $600 is the 75-300 IS.

[livelyl]

Hmmmm. Now that I have so many great suggestions, I am really confused!

I did find the Sigma 50-500 at Broadway Photo for $649. What experience do you all have with this lense?

My greatest concern is we may not always be able to have a tri-pod (as we will be in a range rover, walking, or maybe even in a canoe) and I am concerned about blur. SHould I get an IS even if that means getting a lesser lense?

Any thoughts on the Canon 35-350?

Thank you all again!

PS: I am a she not a he

[droosan]

Yes, a len with IS will be significantly better for you than a same lens without IS, when you have a heavy lens and no tripod.

The 35-350 is a very well-respected lens but isn't it out of your price range? I am looking it up now. Its $1400 gray market at BHphoto.com. It also weighs 3 pounds.

If you're spending that kind of money, consider the 300mm/4L /IS or the 100-400L/IS since they have IS.

[livelyl]

I have had some luck finding some good used lenses on E-Bay. Trying to keep within my price range...which I am realizing is not so easy!

Thanks!

[50/1.4]

BROADWAY PHOTO???!!!??? If you can get them to sell you a 50-500 for $649, you will be ready for any safari. Seriously, you should be able to get a 75-300 IS and a Kenko Pro 2X TC for $600. This will give you a 600/11 at the long end and the IS will let you shoot in light as low as a f5.6 or f4 lens would.

[droosan]

50/1.4 wrote:
... This will give you a 600/11 at the long end and the IS will let you shoot in light as low as a f5.6 or f4 lens would.

I am doubtful that the rebel will be able to auto-focus at f/11. You will also want to make sure that the IS works through a Kenko teleconverter. I have never tried the Kenko so I may be completely wrong. A Sigma teleconverter I tried, significantly reduced the focusing speed of a very fast focusing 200/2.8. The 75-300(I have one) already focuses very slowly. You'd be lucky to catch a jumpy meercat with it, under the best of circumstances. I shudder to think what a 2x converter would do to it. Of course if the meercat is asleep, or better yet, stuffed, then I would recommend a 2x converter, but you'll probably have to focus manually and brace yourself somehow.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think, especially with a film camera, if you're going with the 75-300IS, forget the 2x teleconverter. If you take a picture that you wish could have been taken at 400 or 500, crop and enlarge it when you get home. Because of:
faster focusing,
wider aperture means faster shutter,
working IS,
one less piece of glass in front of the film, and to lift,
you'll end up with a better picture than you will with a teleconverter.

[yvinu]

One thing i noticed nobody mentioned was film speed. What speed film are you going to be using ??

I do not have any experience with > ISO400 but if there is any good ISO800 or + film with moderate grain (can you ask for low grain at 800+ ISO ?) , maybe you could use that with a slower lens ??

Folks with more experience in those films, jump in any time :)

Regards
Vinu

[livelyl]

I agree, any advice on film speed would help. I have heard that I should use slide film. Any thoughts???
Thank you.

[robertwgross]

livelyl wrote:
...

My greatest concern is we may not always be able to have a tri-pod (as we will be in a range rover, walking, or maybe even in a canoe) and I am concerned about blur.
...


There are a couple of types of vehicles used in the East African safari parks. One is a relatively closed vehicle like a Range Rover. Often there will be a top hatch, and if you are tall, you can pop your head and camera up and shoot there. You would need a tall tripod to go from the vehicle bed up to the camera or lens. The other idea would be a short tripod or a beanbag to simply place on the vehicle roof next to the hatch. Others will simply shoot out of the partially opened windows, but that places them lower. This vehicle is used more in the parks where there are many potentially dangerous animals like lions. The other vehicle is an open air Range Rover-type. (Defender?) It has three levels of seats, so I sat on the top level with my tripod sitting on the floor. I left the legs together so that we would not be tripping over it. Using it that way as a monopod, I was able to stay seated most of the time, and being the highest up, I could see animal heads above the tall grass. It also helps to understand a few words of Swahili language. When the game spotter whispers something like "simba" to the driver, you get your camera fired up and going.

---Bob Gross---

[livelyl]

robertwgross wrote:
livelyl wrote:
...

My greatest concern is we may not always be able to have a tri-pod (as we will be in a range rover, walking, or maybe even in a canoe) and I am concerned about blur.
...


There are a couple of types of vehicles used in the East African safari parks. One is a relatively closed vehicle like a Range Rover. Often there will be a top hatch, and if you are tall, you can pop your head and camera up and shoot there. You would need a tall tripod to go from the vehicle bed up to the camera or lens. The other idea would be a short tripod or a beanbag to simply place on the vehicle roof next to the hatch. Others will simply shoot out of the partially opened windows, but that places them lower. This vehicle is used more in the parks where there are many potentially dangerous animals like lions. The other vehicle is an open air Range Rover-type. (Defender?) It has three levels of seats, so I sat on the top level with my tripod sitting on the floor. I left the legs together so that we would not be tripping over it. Using it that way as a monopod, I was able to stay seated most of the time, and being the highest up, I could see animal heads above the tall grass. It also helps to understand a few words of Swahili language. When the game spotter whispers something like "simba" to the driver, you get your camera fired up and going.

---Bob Gross---


Great advice! I think we will also be in mostly open air range rovers. Hadn't thought of sitting on the highest perch--but will now. Thank you!

Did you have a lense with IS? If not did you find using the tri=pod as a mono pod worked alright?

[droosan]

I certainly wouldn't go faster than 400 for daytime in any set-up. At 800, grain gets noticeable even on a 4x6 print. And unless you go with a teleconverter on a zoom, I'd use 160 or 200 during the day.

You might bring along some 800 (or faster) for campfire-type or dusk/dawn pictures. I'd get 12 or 24 exp rolls for this.

You might consider slide film if you're planning to do slide presentations or if you're planning to have a pro developer drumscan them instead of print them. Otherwise I'd go with print film.

[robertwgross]

livelyl wrote:
Great advice! I think we will also be in mostly open air range rovers. Hadn't thought of sitting on the highest perch--but will now. Thank you!

Did you have a lense with IS? If not did you find using the tri=pod as a mono pod worked alright?


I visited Kenya and Tanzania in 2000. At the time, I had only an EOS film camera and a couple of inadequate lenses. I don't think I had even heard of IS then. My tripod then was moderately flimsy.

The one vehicle that I rode in had three seating decks, and I sat in the highest one. There was a Maasai game spotter who rode the highest by hanging onto the spare tire and standing on the rear bumper, so he was right behind me. When he said something to the driver, I took note.

When the driver is bumping along on the dirt trails, it will be very dusty, so you keep your scarf or hat over the camera and lens. When the driver stops, he might leave the engine running, and that makes vibration, which works against you on the long lens. We reminded the driver, and he learned to shut off the engine as soon as the animals were spotted. That helped.

The other problem was when we went for a game walk. You see, we would spend the mornings driving around and looking for the animals. Then in the afternoon, we would go for a walk... and let the animals look for us!

Some of the other guests were not outdoor photographers, and they got bored within about twenty seconds, so they started chatting along in the walking column. Hint: that noise does not work for the photographer. At a minimum, get toward the front right behind the guide or tracker.

Again, be prepared to protect your camera from dust. Be able to properly clean a lens whenever you stop.

Oh, one mandatory shot to take. One Maasai tribesman with his steel spear and his red robe. Don't come home without it.

---Bob Gross---

[dbarthel]

I have to jump in with very negative comments about the 75-300. No contrast what so ever. If you are ever thinking about Canon digital, it will be the first lens you discard. You'd be much better off with any of the other alternatives mentioned above. I can't even imagine how bad the 75-300 would be with a 2X extender, not to mention that you would be focusing inside a black hole manually.

[robertwgross]

dbarthel wrote:
I have to jump in with very negative comments about the 75-300. No contrast what so ever. If you are ever thinking about Canon digital, it will be the first lens you discard. You'd be much better off with any of the other alternatives mentioned above. I can't even imagine how bad the 75-300 would be with a 2X extender, not to mention that you would be focusing inside a black hole manually.

Didn't I already call it "inadequate"?

It was better than nothing.

---Bob Gross---

[50/1.4]

droosan - It (and the A2E) won't AF @f8, either. I thought this was common knowledge. Personally, I think your idea about getting a used 200/2.8L and TC is better, but he was asking about zooms. I'm surprised nobody mentioned the 100-300/4.5-5.6 zoom, it's supposed to have better optics and AF faster than the 75-300 IS, though I don't have any experience with it and can't verify that. The IS is a boon for handheld photography and the optics are astonishingly good in the 75mm - 135mm range.

[droosan]

I figured that the Rebel wouldn't focus at max apertures that small. I kind-of remembered that reviewers of the eos-3 were impressed that it autofocused at f/8.

I have to defend the 75-300IS, a bit. It isn't be my first choice for photographing wild life because it focuses so slowly and it's a bit short. But that doesn't mean it's a bad lens. It's sharper and more contrast-y than any of Canon's standard range variable aperture zooms, (28-80, etc...) And especially with IS it's a nice versatile lens. Of course, it doesn't compete with primes or L-zooms on optics or focusing but for its price it's a good all-rounder.

That said, I hardly ever use mine since I got my 200/2.8L. I'll reach for the 75-300 thinking, "that extra length and the ability to pull out to 75 and would be nice." Then I'll stop and grab the 200 instead. Why? Focusing speed. With the 200, when I press the shutter I know I am going to get a decent picture, right now. With the zoom, I often miss the picture while it's trying to find the focus.

[livelyl]

Any further thoughts on the Sigma 50-500?

[50/1.4]

The 75-300 IS is a misunderstood lens, imo. Okay, I'm not saying PopPhotos SQF ratings are gospel, but I do think they are useful in comparing lenses to each other. When one considers that the IS lets one get away with handholding at 2 or 3 stops longer shutter speeds with the consequent smaller aperture, some of those very expensive zooms and primes don't blow away the 75-300 IS. Sure, it's different if we are talking about a tripod. It also helps that the 75-300 does pretty well at f 5.6 and 8. I know a guy who swears by the SQF's and it burst his bubble when I made some SQF comparisons to his Nikon 80-200/2.8 that is in PopPhoto's 1996/97 Buyer's Guide. I think of the IS as being comparable to a car's transmission, the engine runs better at certain rpm's and the tranny allows the engine to do that more often. Lenses "run" better at certain apertures and the IS gives me about 2 stops leeway at the wide end and 3 stops at the long end I don't have with a conventional lens.

[Rayz]

I reckon the 50-350 with IS would be a good choice if you can get one within budget. In my experience, the image quality of most 35mm lenses is fairly equal at F11. Look at the sample shots at Kodak's website of their new DCS 14n. Some of those shots are really sharp at F11 (some not so sharp - rather poor samples generally, but that's beside the point.)

[droosan]

livelyl wrote:
Any further thoughts on the Sigma 50-500?

Cons
- Nearly 3 lbs heavier than the 75-300IS
- It's twice as expensive. (You can get a EF24/2.8 with the difference.)
- It doesn't have IS.
- It probably focuses even more slowly. (I don't know this, I'm just guessing from experience.)
- It takes up a lot more bag space.
- You still need something wide for landscapes.

Pros
It's longer.

If you decide length is more important than IS, and if you can't afford both, and if you must have a zoom, I would go for
Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 $499
or
Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 $609 (BHphoto.com)
before the 50-500 since they are both much lighter and cheaper, and I'll bet they focus more quickly.