Zoom lens to replace my 250 STM Zoom

Pagman wrote in post #17862272
Thank you for explaining all that i do appreciate it, its not an easy situation to find an answer to and my lens does not help, not because its rubbish or low on IQ quite the reverse, the 55-250 has really thrown the gauntlet down and is a Brilliant lens in every department except for length I have been through every lens test and reserched every lens and put them against the 55-250 STM and honestly/truthfully there are not many that are better or even equal, there is just no point putting a longer lens on my camera if the image is going to be closer but less sharp or even out of focus.

I have had bridge cameras before one of them had a 600mm eqv lens, but its IQ was very very poor so that is a route i dont want to go down, a scope is no good either as i need to keep what i do portable - just me handholding my camera.

I think a crop frame with perhaps 30mp might be the answer, as i kno my lens can cope with it.


Regards

Pagman

There is a very large gap between the 55-250 STM and any other faster or longer lens versus budget, in regards to similiar IQ. The 120-400 or 150-500 lenses from Sigma just aren't going to be good matches for the 55-250, especially on the 7D. Nor will the 100-400L first version...

The best options, ignoring budget, that will give you IQ and quality are:
Tamron 150-600
Sigma 150-600 (either version)
Canon 100-400L II
Canon 70-200 II with a 2x TC MKIII
(probably missing some other obvious alternative?)

Anything 300mm-ish just isn't really any kind of increase in reach, so that leaves you with 400mm+, or try a 1.4x TC on the 55-250 and see what you can get. For what you are shooting, that combo might actually work.

People have suggested a few times - about trying a bridge camera, how would someting like the rather good Lumix FZ1000 with its 500mm eqv lens(Leica) 1 Inch sensor, and 20mp, from the small amount of reading on it i have done, it is supposed to be cleaner than the 7d - no dount being newer.

I did not really want to go down the bridge camera route again, but in fairness the Lumix FZ100 i used to own was nice and produced some nice detail with good AF, just its sensor was famous for its noise and weird jpeg zaggies it produced, due to no RAW and the old sensor design.


P.

for what your shooting, and if you're mainly just using the center of the image, i doubt you'd notice a drop off in IQ from the 55-250STM to the 150-500OS...

The 55-250 STM is sharper than the 150-500, it resolves more detail. I have had both, and still have the STM 250, especially on the 7D, which isn't the most forgiving of bodies. However just shooting aircraft, I might concede the fact, because atmospheric conditions/haze will hurt IQ more. Now shooting wildlife in the backyard, you will probably see the difference.

Perhaps it is worth a week rental first before spending hard earned cash on a lens?

A friend of mine who spots planes like me owns a Lumix FZ1000 bridge camera and he swears by it, he sent me a crop he did of a jpeg as he doesnt kno a lot about cams - RAW etc, i did a tiny bit of work on the jpeg in LR4 and it does look honestly quite good, at least as good as the pics i was getting out of my Nikon d7100 with 70-300VR lens.

Here is that pic - what do you think?

P.

Pagman wrote in post #17863777
A friend of mine who spots planes like me owns a Lumix FZ1000 bridge camera and he swears by it, he sent me a crop he did of a jpeg as he doesnt kno a lot about cams - RAW etc, i did a tiny bit of work on the jpeg in LR4 and it does look honestly quite good, at least as good as the pics i was getting out of my Nikon d7100 with 70-300VR lens.

Here is that pic - what do you think?

P.

Hosted photo: posted by Pagman in
./showthread.php?p=178​63777&i=i127553877
forum: Canon Lenses

The photo is fine, but that's a lot closer to the ground and considerably less cropped than yours will be.

Here's where i thing i stand -

I will try and save up over the next 11 mnths bits here and there, and come xmas time i might have about £400 including what i can get for either bit of my gear if i decide to sell, what i am debating -

Sell both 7d and 250 STM Zoom and get a Lumix FZ-1000 bridge,

Sell my 250 STM Zoom and get a - (Who Knows) limited due to how good the 250 STM is, a better lens would cost way more than my budget,

Sell my 7d (that is a low mileage one in mint condition) and get a second hand 70d, newer tech-less noise same AF as my 7d, i bet my 250 STM would work brill on it.


7D11 - only when they come down to under £500 so in a few years no doubt or even longer.......

Who knows it aint so strait forward is it folks


P.

you take the photos from your backyard, right? can you have your friend come over, and take a couple pics with his camera(either he takes them, or lets you) this way you can get a slightly better comparison to your set-up

This was taken by me last year with my nikon gear mentioned, same kind of distance.

P.

Pagman,

Selling and saving for a new APS-C body is going to literally zero for what you're trying to do.

For what you're trying to accomplish you will only get real gains from a longer focal length lens.

Nothing short of 400mm is going to even begin to give you more pixels on target. Even that will not be adding very much. Realistically, you need 600mm on APS-C to even begin to see a significant difference in magnification of your 5 mile away subjects. If you hunt, a used Tamron will surface for an affordable price. 400 pounds (your currency) is equivalent to a used Tamron here. So that's something to look for, even if you just have to deal with the cost of shipping.

Otherwise, for what you're shooting, a super zoom M43's is a better route. They're smaller sensors, but you're not shooting at high ISO as it is, and those sensors have gotten better over time, and deal with noise just fine. More importantly is just getting exposure correct if you're worried about noise. But the magnification will get you a lot more on one of these, than trying to do it with limited budget on 35mm format.

The only way you're going to get a 2000mm field of view on a dSLR without a super budget, is to basically get a single good fast prime and stack TC's and use manual focus or live view focus. Alternatively, you hook the dSLR up to a telescope or spotting scope. A 90mm refractor is basically a 900mm F10 lens with manual focus, that with an APS-C body attached, you'd have a 1440mm field of view (full frame equivalent). That will get you some where. That's basically 3.6x more focal length, which equates to a lot more pixels on target compared to your 250mm on APS-C right now. And that telescope is only $250 basically. Otherwise, you get a 300mm F4L prime and you stack TC's. A 2.0x will get you 600mm at F8. You will have to manual focus it or use live view focus, but you then have a physical 600mm lens. That's $450 for the lens, and + $100 for the TC (Kenko is fine!). You could put another TC on there, for a 1200mm F16 lens. By then, the resolution will probably be poor. The magnification will stretch the light and kill a lot of detail. But you get the idea. These are the only budget ways of doing it, short of using a scope of some kind.

A new camera body will literally do nothing for you. Even a 50MP camera doesn't help you, unless it's a 50MP APS-C. A 50MP full frame sensor would literally not help at all here. You'd get twice the detail from a 36MP APS-C (doesn't exist for Canon). But honestly, this would cost more than a good lens, and the lens is more important than the camera for what you're trying to do.

I'd either get a 300mm F4 non-IS + TC's and just manual focus/live view (gives you a 600mm F8).
Even if you could use a TC on the 250 STM, that's going to be 500mm F11.
Or, get a Micro 43's with the longest zoom you can get on it.

Very best,

I would add one more thing. If funds are tight, what exactly are you hoping to gain by selling and buying other equipment? What will getting pictures of aircraft at 20-30% closer gain you in the end? You have already gone through different equipment and funds as it is, just to get here. What is your final end goal?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17864097
I would add one more thing. If funds are tight, what exactly are you hoping to gain by selling and buying other equipment? What will getting pictures of aircraft at 20-30% closer gain you in the end? You have already gone through different equipment and funds as it is, just to get here. What is your final end goal?

The good things is that i have finally found a lens that is sharp enouth and a true stella lens, in my oppinion and from what i have seen the lens can out resolve the 7d by a large margin, the 55-250 STM is so sharp i can litteraly crop and crop and the detail and fine detail is still there, the lens is modern and canon have just got it Bang Rite its Bang Tidy.

The only issue i have with the lens is its length.


P.

The wife just said that i should have asked her - she suggested a toilet role card tube between cam and lens to extend its length


P.

Pagman wrote in post #17864633
The wife just said that i should have asked her - she suggested a toilet role card tube between cam and lens to extend its length


P.

Yes but that makes it focus CLOSER! Wimmin I ask you, they just have no idea:, although what blind deer have to do with it I don't know. Toilet roll tube, poor mans extension tubes, for manual only lenses. Just be careful not to get any added tilt though. Get that Blue Peter Badge.

So what do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17864652
Yes but that makes it focus CLOSER! Wimmin I ask you, they just have no idea:, although what blind deer have to do with it I don't know. Toilet roll tube, poor mans extension tubes, for manual only lenses. Just be careful not to get any added tilt though. Get that Blue Peter Badge.

So what do you call a deer with no eyes and no legs?

Alan

No I deer

P.