Zoom lens to replace my 250 STM Zoom

Pagman wrote in post #17865199
But if the lens is not all that sharp to begin with - whats the point of that? you can not put back a lack of sharpness in a picture if the lens is soft, we all know that, start with the sharpest lens you can afford and go from that is what we all understand

P.

i'd say if you're shooting planes that are miles away, start with the longest lens you can afford...

DreDaze wrote in post #17865227
i'd say if you're shooting planes that are miles away, start with the longest lens you can afford...

As long as its sharp yes

P.

I added some samples from the 50-500 from my 7D to give you an idea, back on my prior reply on the other thread, take a look. No matter how sharp a lens you can get, atmospheric haze is what it is, a big IQ breaker.

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17865234

Pagman wrote in post #17865241
As long as its sharp yes

P.

the difference in reach though is pretty big...how sharp is needed?

this is a 100% crop at 500mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ecBq​5i

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ecH4​49

As you have already noted, you won't be able to make a significant upgrade unless you spend some money.

I have both the 70-300L and the 100-400L ii. I love both lenses, though I had the 70-300L first. I can't seem to part with it, even though I don't use it now. I "loaned" it to my son. My wife is content with her 55-250 STM, like you are, even though more length would always be preferrable. In her case, she loves how light the 55-250 STM is and doesn't really want to try the 70-300L.

So....... you'll need something at least 400mm with a budget you can tolerate. It seems like you'd prefer a zoom since you haven't really responded all that favorably to the 400 f/5.6.

If I were you, I'd resign yourself to the fact that you'll have to spend more money than you'd like to to get something far better than what you have now. You really want something longer but just as sharp as your 55-250 STM..... that is going to cost you, in my view.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17865260
As you have already noted, you won't be able to make a significant upgrade unless you spend some money.

I have both the 70-300L and the 100-400L ii. I love both lenses, though I had the 70-300L first. I can't seem to part with it, even though I don't use it now. I "loaned" it to my son. My wife is content with her 55-250 STM, like you are, even though more length would always be preferrable. In her case, she loves how light the 55-250 STM is and doesn't really want to try the 70-300L.

So....... you'll need something at least 400mm with a budget you can tolerate. It seems like you'd prefer a zoom since you haven't really responded all that favorably to the 400 f/5.6.

If I were you, I'd resign yourself to the fact that you'll have to spend more money than you'd like to to get something far better than what you have now. You really want something longer but just as sharp as your 55-250 STM..... that is going to cost you, in my view.

Thank you for that,

I think the only lens that would fill the spot (zoom wise) is probably the canon 100-400l mk2, but as i have allways done stuff in stages just like a wheeler-dealer does its took me just shy on 5 years to get the 7d, but i have never been able to jst hold on to a camera and buy another, as they have allways been needed as part of the trading purpose to help fund the next purchase, so lets say i have to wait till the 100-400 mk2 gets down under £400 how long will that be? and in that time if i want to trade in my 250 STM to help fund the next lens, how much will my lens depreciate?.

Its the same problem i use what i have everyday if the weather is ok but that affects the re-sale value of it, same old problem i guess.


P.

DreDaze wrote in post #17865254
the difference in reach though is pretty big...how sharp is needed?

this is a 100% crop at 500mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ecBq​5i pzoo_ 132c by andre gregoire, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ecH4​49 pzoo_ 132crop by andre gregoire, on Flickr

500mm, with image stabilization, and a lens that's decently sharp when stopped down...and it's should be available for like $450...

Thats made me think about the f-stop aswel, sometimes f8 is to dark so i have to open up, and on my 7d higher Iso is not that good esp with blue sky areas, so thats where my lens manages quite well, its just as sharp at f5.6 as f8 so that is never an issue with it.

P.

As others have noted, the more reach the better and there is nothing to really gain from a different crop DSLR body. Way to much is being made of the sharpness of the 55-250 trumping more reach from a lens less sharp than the 55-250. I own the 70-300L and I have found it to be razor sharp across the range. For a couple of winters, I made due with it for shooting wildlife and birds in flight, often with significant crops. Knowing I needed more reach, I pre-ordered the Sigma 150-600 within the same hour it was available and was among the first on this board to receive it. It is not as sharp as the 70-300, does not focus nearly as fast, but it is my go-to lens for wildlife. IMO you should buy as much reach as you can afford for wildlife or long rage targets.

Case in point, this image is an example shot at 600 from the Sigma. An obviously small target (relative to the frame) that is moving. A few quick adjustments in LR4 were made.

I get ya but, this was a near 80% crop down to 1500p long side its not bad is it?


P.

I'm not trying to be awkward about this folks (honest) its just that my lens ticks all the box's and is the best optcal object i have ever purchased, and like i have said its sharpness is not the issue, its AF capability is not an issue (only 10 thrown away pics out of about 1500)

My quiry was that - my lens lets me crop in close(nice sharp images) but apart from spending a lot of money what more could i do to get closer - taking into acount all that has been mentioned.

P.

Right; it isn't bad, by any stretch of the imagination. However, if you had a 600 you wouldn't have had to crop much at all to get the same framing and would have had a lot more detail; you would have had a much higher magnification and therefore more of the subject covering more of the sensor so that more detail could be captured per pixel.

All of that said, you're pretty at the point where you need to step up to a 400mm or above to really have an improvement, all options for which are above your current budget. It's always a trade off, magnification vs $$$; I would suggest getting started saving up. In the timeframe you mention it would take you to save up 4-500, you may find that the market advances enough that some reasonable, long alternatives trend down into a range that matches what you have saved up

Pagman wrote in post #17865285
Thank you for that,

I think the only lens that would fill the spot (zoom wise) is probably the canon 100-400l mk2, but as i have allways done stuff in stages just like a wheeler-dealer does its took me just shy on 5 years to get the 7d, but i have never been able to jst hold on to a camera and buy another, as they have allways been needed as part of the trading purpose to help fund the next purchase, so lets say i have to wait till the 100-400 mk2 gets down under £400 how long will that be? and in that time if i want to trade in my 250 STM to help fund the next lens, how much will my lens depreciate?.

Its the same problem i use what i have everyday if the weather is ok but that affects the re-sale value of it, same old problem i guess.

P.

Well since the 100-400 MK I is over twenty years old, and a nice secondhand one still runs at about £800, regardless of when it was actually made, the answer to that question is very likely to be never! Because of the extra magnification offered by the longer focal length you don't need the absolute sharpness of the longer lens to be quite as good as you would for the shorter lens cropped to 100%. I rented the 100-400 quite a few times and was never ever disappointed with any of them, but I did not use any of them on an 18 MP body. They always gave great results when I used them on my 300D/20D and 50D. Actually one of my favorite pictures was taken with my 300D and a 100-400 which I had manually focused as the AF in the body was broken. It was only when using the 100-400 on the 300D that I really realised what a good lens could do for you, the 100-400 was the first (and only) L lens that I have ever used. IMO the Sigma 150-600 C beats all of the 100-400's I used.

Any of the Sigma lenses that go to 400mm plus are good enough to provide a significant advantage over 100% crops from the 55-250. Really the only lens in that sort of class I might avoid is the old Tamron 200-500, that does seem quite poor. The differences in all of these lenses of 400mm and over are actually quite small in the real world. For example I say that the Sigma is really good compared to the 100-400 L MK I, but what that really means is that I cannot really tell the difference between a shot taken with either lens, but that I have 600mm on the Sigma giving the same quality results as the Canon at 400mm when both are stopped down to f/8 Stopping these lenses down to f/8 is a good idea anyway they do get a bit better at the smaller aperture. Since you can only shoot airways on good clear days, you should really have no problems getting f/8 at 1/1000 with ISO 800. My usual problem is having to shoot down in the f/11 to f/16 range at ISO 100 to make 1/160 for good prop blur.

Alan

Pagman wrote in post #17865321
I'm not trying to be awkward about this folks (honest) its just that my lens ticks all the box's and is the best optcal object i have ever purchased, and like i have said its sharpness is not the issue, its AF capability is not an issue (only 10 thrown away pics out of about 1500)

My quiry was that - my lens lets me crop in close(nice sharp images) but apart from spending a lot of money what more could i do to get closer - taking into acount all that has been mentioned.

P.

You are way overthinking this. Either you spend the money for a good longer lens(100-400s 400/5.6, 150-600s) which are all over budget or keep cropping your 55-250 shots. The best alternative is probably what Dre is saying about the 150-500 or maybe a 120-400 from Sigma but you seem too hesitant there.

Pagman wrote in post #17865321
I'm not trying to be awkward about this folks (honest) its just that my lens ticks all the box's and is the best optcal object i have ever purchased, and like i have said its sharpness is not the issue, its AF capability is not an issue (only 10 thrown away pics out of about 1500)

My quiry was that - my lens lets me crop in close(nice sharp images) but apart from spending a lot of money what more could i do to get closer - taking into acount all that has been mentioned.

P.

Get stilts, very long ones.

Really I think all answers are above. Spend or don't. I think you should make a list of possible lenses and wait for the best deal on a used one.