Lens help needed

Newbie here glad to find forum and hello to all. If this is in the wrong thread please move and advise.

I have an EOS 450 or XSI whichever you want to refer to it as along with several lenses but my main lens is my 100mm f/2.8 macro USM. Love the quality of the lens but doesn't have enough reach for those backyard wildlife shots in the trees about half way up.I really enjoy macro the most but do want that nesting bird shot from time to time. I'm not that camera savvy and was wondering if there is a teleconverter that may give me that extra boost on this lens? I have looked at some zoom lenses 55-250, 70-300 etc., and have mixed emotions as lots of reviews are mixed on these lenses and I really hate to have to go back to changing lenses out frequently to go with what I am out shooting. Finally how about the Canon G12 or G15? Would I be better off to hang up the XSI and 100mm macro and go with point and shoot? Thanks your help is appreciated.

Which 70-300mm lens are you getting mixed reviews with? I have the Tamrom 70-300mm Di VC and can tell you it is a very nice and sharp lens. It gets very high reviews, btw. That lens is superior to the Canon 55-250mm and Canon 70-300mm from every comparison or thread I've ever read. See LINK.

My thread on the lens can be found HERE.

Good luck


P.S. Welcome to the forum....

Hi Marco

Welcome to POTN. You will find a wealth of information. Not sure about the teleconverter but IMO you will be disaapointed with going back to point and shoot. Your choice of lens for wildlife will obviously depend on your budget.
I have the 55-250 and love it in good light. If you are shooting something moving in a shaded tree you will likely need a lens that is a little wider open perhaps an f4 70-200 IS.

Budget????
Long lenses get expensive, but if you can stretch to it I would suggest a Canon 300mm F4 L. I use the IS version and it is probably my most flexible lens for wildlife. It also focusses relatively close so it is very handy for larger insects (Dragonflies etc). You can add a 1.4 extender and still get autofocus and pretty good image quality.
Have a look at the Canon 400mm F5.6 L as well - not as flexible but more reach - can be very important for small birds. Anything longer, with a reasonable aperture, is getting into silly money!
Another, cheaper, alternative is the Canon 200mm F2.8 L but I think you would end up with a 2 x extender attached most of the time and image quality suffers with these.
I am afraid I haven't enough experience of third party lenses to offer worthwhile advice, perhaps others can help.

Wow thank you all for the help, I have been skeptical about forums but this is a great place. Like the choices, Ralph....hands down the winner is Tamron. I'm Southern and Saved to a neighbor from GA. Looking forward to getting time to see all of the wonderful photos here.

55-250 is a great lens for the money, provided you are shooting in good light (outdoors)

I'd opt for the 55-250 myself. IMO the 70-300 VC isn't quite good enough to warrant the price difference. Why do I say this? Not because it is a bad lens, but because in my opinion, all the lower end telephotos are just a stepping stone to the 70-200's or 100-400 or even the 70-300L (for people on this forum at least), so it doesn't make sense to spend more on the 70-300 VC, which isn't much better optically than the 55-250 IS, and then upgrade again a while later.

But of course, if this is definitely going to be a lens that you will not upgrade from, then the 70-300 VC is a better choice due to the better build, faster AF and non rotating front element.

Sirrith have you owned a Tamron 70-300 Di VC and the Canon 55-250mm for comparison?

There are plenty of POTN members who switched to the Tamron 70-300 Di VC from the Canon 55-250mm who state it is superior in virtually every aspect; from build quality, faster focus and yes overall image quality. Not to mention the extra 50mm length will be better for bird shots as the OP desires.

The Canon 55-250mm is a nice lens as most attest to but for those who have owned both, as threads show, the Tammy is indeed an upgrade and worth the price difference. It will hold it's value.

With due respect, that's akin to saying you cannot be a great photographer or get great shots without having "L" glass. How many times has that been argued and have you seen the equipment Ansel Adams used?

I do a lot of tennis tournaments which includes providing photography for the largest amatuer event along the Coast, three years running. I've rented and used the Canon 70-200 L (4.0, non IS) and currently own the Tamron 70-300 Di VC. I cannot discern any difference in image quality and the extra 100mm reach is invaluable with the Tammy. IMHO, the Tammy wins out against that lens. Yes the 70-200 2.8 or such is a different story, but please don't shrug off non "L" lenses.

Now I would love to give the Canon 70-300 L a tryout or otherwise have one show up in my stocking this year.

Take care,
Ralph

Ralph III wrote in post #15085736
Sirrith have you owned a Tamron 70-300 Di VC and the Canon 55-250mm for comparison?

Nope, but I can see for myself from the countless sample shots here and on flickr; I see virtually no difference in IQ, and I also know several people who have used both who state the same.

Also, this comparison sort of proves my point:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

You are reading far too much into my post. I merely said what is fact; many people on these forums will upgrade eventually. That does not mean the upgrade is warranted, or that it will make any difference to the quality of their shots. Merely that they will upgrade.

Sirrith wrote in post #15085811
Nope, but I can see for myself from the countless sample shots here and on flickr; I see virtually no difference in IQ, and I also know several people who have used both who state the same.

Also, this comparison sort of proves my point:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0
....

Hey Sirrith,
If you scroll through the 70-300mm Di VC thread alone, that I linked, you will see numerous POTN members who switched from the Canon 55-250mm to the Tamron 70-300 Di VC. There is no argument, as you note, the lens is better in numerous aspects but as they also state an improvement in overall image quality, especially corner performance.

I really like Bryan's site (Digital Picture) as you linked and stated proves your point. However, you're incorrect in regards to the comparison between the lenses and obviously didn't look through the details.

Bryan would be the first to state there are lens variations. He states his Tamron copy was basically useless at 300mm. My copy doesn't suffer an image drop off as he states his test copy did.

None-the-less, the Tammy wins with the chart comparisons even with his apparent poorer copy.

A) Canon 55-250mm @ 250mm and 5.6
Tamron 70-300mm @ 300mm and 5.6

SEE CHART

The Canon is better with Center focus with his copies, no doubt. Both lenses are equal (at least debateable) at Mid-Frame however. The Tammy is clearly superior at Corner performance though.

This is as close as the Canon gets, btw.....

B) Canon 55-250mm @ 200mm and 5.6
Tamron 70-300mm @ 200mm and 5.0

SEE CHART

Both lenses are close or equal at Center focus.
The Tamron is clearly superior at both Mid-Frame and Corners.

C) At 70mm, 100mm, and 135mm; the Tamron 70-300 Di VC absolutely blows the Canon 55-250mm away in each of the three categories.

70mm CHART100mm CHART
135mm CHART

I mean the Canon is a good lens as noted but it has been the input of those who have owned both that states the Tammy is superior in every way, including overall image quality.

God Bless

Ralph III wrote in post #15085938
Hey If you scroll through the 70-300mm Di VC thread alone

But I have checked that thread, and I've done so more than once, since I was considering buying the tamron myself at one point. I did not notice any increase in IQ in the shots posted compared to the shots in the 55-250 thread. Same goes for the flickr groups for both lenses.

What details? I merely posted a comparison tool, not a review.
You also have to take into account the fact that the tamron is being tested on a 1DSIII, which gives it an advantage over the 55-250 on a 50D.

Really? I was under the impression one buys a telephoto lens more for the long end than for the short end. At least, for me the long end matters more (although ideally they would be equally good).

I'm going to take a leaf out of your book here; my copy of the 55-250 is not that bad at the edges. So where does that leave us?

C) At 70mm, 100mm, and 135mm; the Tamron 70-300 Di VC absolutely blows the Canon 55-250mm away in each of the three categories.
I wouldn't really call that "blowing away", it is definitely better, but how much of that is attributable to the cameras used?

Since I have said I know several who have owned both and who state the IQ is not much of an improvement (in fact there are some on this forum who say this too), how can you say that conclusively? At best it would be acceptable to say there is sufficient copy variation in both the 55-250 and 70-300 VC and that on average the 70-300 is a bit better, at the short end, and equal or worse at the longer end.

But all this is beside the point. I never said the tamron was worse than the canon. I just said that in view of the fact that many people on this forum will eventually upgrade, it makes more sense to me to go with the cheaper option so your overall expenditure is less when the upgrade happens.

You will also note that I said if an upgrade is not on the horizon, the tamron is the better choice.

So you don't need to feel the urge to defend your purchase, since I am not attacking it.

i'd go for the 55-250IS...the tamron may be better in the corners, but i'd bet 99% of your shots wouldn't need sharp corners anyways...

the 55-250IS is a good lens, and it's dirt cheap...it doesn't sound like you're that into the telephoto, just want an odd shot here and there, and it'll work for that...

Hey Sirrith,

1) With due respect, YOU posted the comparison link and then emphatically stated it proved your point; when in fact it proves just the opposite. Please don't move the goal posts now.

I provided quick links and the results, as you referenced, and they clearly show the Tammy outperforming the Canon.

2) Read Bryan's review of the Tamron 70-300 Di VC, which is what I was referencing.

My Tamron copy isn't as he describes with his testing copy at 300mm. My lens, as I've provided photos and as others chimed in on my thread, shows very good quality even wide open at 300mm. No, not "L" quality but still quite good.

Try reading Bryan's review of the Canon, whew. Here is his sharpness denotation specifically...

I'm not debating the Canon isn't a good lens but only your statement the Tammy isn't worth a few hundred dollars more, which is incorrect, and considering you've never owned the Tammy. A new Tammy comes with a 6 year warranty as well!

I have very sharp copies of both the Canon 15-85mm and the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. Each of those lenses are highly acclaimed and compare to some "L" lenses in sharpness. I've used the Canon 70-200 f4 (non IS). I have no problem stating the Tamron 70-300mm Di VC is well worth it's price and then some. It is a very good lens.

Of course we're both just offering suggestions to the OP and it's there for him to research.

Take care,
Ralph

Ralph III wrote in post #15086021
Hey Sirrith,

1) With due respect, YOU posted the comparison link and then emphatically stated it proved your point; when in fact it proves just the opposite. Please don't move the goal posts now.

I stated it sort of proves my point which is far from emphatic.

except at 300mm which is the most important end, again IMO.

and my copy of the 55-250 isn't as weak at the edges as his as can be seen from my photos.
So that leaves us with you saying a regular copy of the tamron is not as bad on the long end as the one shown on TDP, and me saying the same thing for the canon on the short end. Doesn't that mean they're about equal, which is what I stated in the beginning?
Since the TDP link doesn't seem satisfactory, here is another site which shows them as being about equal, this time using the same camera so the tamron has no advantage:
http://www.photozone.d​e …n_55250_456is_5​0d?start=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …0300f456vceosap​sc?start=1

Can you now agree that sample variation aside, they are on about the same level optically?

How can you call a statement which I never made, incorrect? I'll say it again: my statement that the 55-250 was the better choice has to be taken in context of the rest of my post, which assumes an upgrade to a better lens in the not too distant future.

From my very first post on this matter:

Exactly.

+1 to 55-250 - decent quality lens, and for 200$ new you can't get it wrong.

In my comparison test, it's practically as good as 5x more expensive 135L when stepped down (at f/8 and 135mm).