Camera lens advice

[350zedd]

Your 18-55 kit lens would be sufficient around London. It all depends on what type of pics you like to take.

 

Another alternative would be to dump your kit lens altogether, and buy a multi-purpose zoom that covers wide to telephoto, that you can walk around with all the time such as the.......

 

18-300mm from Sigma http://www.wexphotog...on-fit-1560120/

 

or the 16-300mm from Tamron http://www.wexphotog...553135/#1553135

.

 

DO NOT get any of these cheap superzoom lens, not unless you like wasting money.

 

They are cheap for a reason and virtually everyone I know who bought one don't use them. Heavy, slow, poor image quality, if you even remotely care about image quality stay clear.

 

Am pretty sure we are all familiar with the term 'buy it right or buy it twice' for cheap car mods/parts that look attractive for price but turns out tobe junk....

 

Same with lens, the kit lens are the best value lense around. But to get the next step up in image quality to have to step up your budget.

 

If you have not got the budget yet for a better lens stick with your kit lens and practice taking more shots, that experience will get you better photos than any lens.

 

All these shots below were taken with the kit lens that came with my mirrorless camera, the lens is worth about £50 on ebay. Again like cars, a pro driver who knows that they are doing well get around a track in a Golf GTI than a neeb in a £200k Ferrari, its not really about the equipment, it's the human factor that makes the difference.

 

Are these latest generation of superzooms really as bad as you make out? I've quickly read a few reviews and they seem to contradict what you say.

I'm not a big fan of them myself and understand there are many compromises made with such a huge range of focal length, and a budget price of 300 quid.

However, I'm sure there are many people who can't afford a bag of prime lenses, and are happy with one zoom which suits their budget and expertise.

[RobPhoboS]

Are these latest generation of superzooms really as bad as you make out? I've quickly read a few reviews and they seem to contradict what you say.

I'm not a big fan of them myself and understand there are many compromises made with such a huge range of focal length, and a budget price of 300 quid.

However, I'm sure there are many people who can't afford a bag of prime lenses, and are happy with one zoom which suits their budget and expertise.

 

That's why I'll say what I said earlier, it doesn't really matter what someone else thinks, try it by used or rental then you'll know for yourself if it suits you

You might have a user that just shoots and uploads/prints or others that spend several hours in photoshop perfecting the image.

Highly subjective!

 

I'd always try to stick with a 'fast' lens (or low F stop) unless it's a big ass zoom.

[350zedd]

Are these latest generation of superzooms really as bad as you make out? I've quickly read a few reviews and they seem to contradict what you say.

I'm not a big fan of them myself and understand there are many compromises made with such a huge range of focal length, and a budget price of 300 quid.

However, I'm sure there are many people who can't afford a bag of prime lenses, and are happy with one zoom which suits their budget and expertise.

 

That's why I'll say what I said earlier, it doesn't really matter what someone else thinks, try it by used or rental then you'll know for yourself if it suits you

You might have a user that just shoots and uploads/prints or others that spend several hours in photoshop perfecting the image.

Highly subjective!

 

I'd always try to stick with a 'fast' lens (or low F stop) unless it's a big ass zoom.

 

Exactly....highly subjective! what suits one, doesn't suit another.

[GizmoGold]

Looking forward to getting some critique when I upload some new pics =p at the moment I've just been playing with the basic options in lightroom and using photoshop to add logos etc

[gangzoom]

Exactly....highly subjective! what suits one, doesn't suit another.

 

Photography style might be subjective but lens performance isn't.

 

What everyone wants is a lens that's quick to focus, large aperture for good low light performance, and good sharpness all round to enable you to deliver good image quality.

 

Realistically what kinds of subjects are you going to shoot with a 300mm Zoom lens?? Unless your into spying on people it's probably going be either sports/air craft where your shooting from the audience areas or wild life.

 

Your both sports/wild life fast AF is absolutely key, along with not too high f-number otherwise your end up not been able to 'freeze' the image.

 

The zoom lens OP is/was looking at is actually very good value for the money, I had the 70-300mm version and it was good enough to let me get shots like below.

 

https://www.amazon.c...ords=B00EP71ETU

 

However with a super zoom lens like some of the ones suggested with a f stop down to 6.3, you haven't got a chance in hell of catching anything moving quickly in focus......If you got some shots show me that proves otherwise I'll be gladly to change my mind on the subject (Not 'demo shots' but shots done by normal people)

 

http://www.wexphotog...553135/#1553135

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by gangzoom

[350zedd]

Exactly....highly subjective! what suits one, doesn't suit another.

 

Photography style might be subjective but lens performance isn't.

 

What everyone wants is a lens that's quick to focus, large aperture for good low light performance, and good sharpness all round to enable you to deliver good image quality.

 

Realistically what kinds of subjects are you going to shoot with a 300mm Zoom lens?? Unless your into spying on people it's probably going be either sports/air craft where your shooting from the audience areas or wild life.

 

Your both sports/wild life fast AF is absolutely key, along with not too high f-number otherwise your end up not been able to 'freeze' the image.

 

The zoom lens OP is/was looking at is actually very good value for the money, I had the 70-300mm version and it was good enough to let me get shots like below.

 

https://www.amazon.c...ords=B00EP71ETU

 

However with a super zoom lens like some of the ones suggested with a f stop down to 6.3, you haven't got a chance in hell of catching anything moving quickly in focus......If you got some shots show me that proves otherwise I'll be gladly to change my mind on the subject (Not 'demo shots' but shots done by normal people)

 

http://www.wexphotog...553135/#1553135

 

 

I agree with most of what you have said there.

Lens performance might not be subjective but some people seem to be quite happy with mediocre lenses.

What you might judge to be an average quality pic might be very good to someone else. I see pics entered into competitions that are "soft" and not focused correctly yet deemed good enough to enter a competition. As I said, what suits one, doesn't suit another.

 

You say the Canon 55-250 mm f/4-5.6 lens is very good value for money and that you had the 70-300mm version with which you took the motorsport shots. I'm assuming it had the same f5.6 aperture at the long end. Then you say "However with a super zoom lens like some of the ones suggested with a f stop down to 6.3, you haven't got a chance in hell of catching anything moving quickly in focus"

Errrm.....f6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop smaller than f5.6 ...a slight rise in ISO to compensate, surely not a deal breaker!!

[gangzoom]

Errrm.....f6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop smaller than f5.6 ...a slight rise in ISO to compensate, surely not a deal breaker!!

 

Step changes in F number is on a ratio. All the shots I got ar F 5.6 was on the absolute limit of focus/shutter speed to capture a F1 car at free practice pace. In Qualifying trim I couldn't get a single usable shot that was in focus or properly exposed. As for bumping up the ISO.... We all know the problem associated with nosie on APS sensors, I limit ISO to 1600-3200max beyond that you might as well use your smart phone, I can fully understand why many will never consider anything less than FF due to noise performance.

 

If you look at the shots I just about managed to capture the F2 cars in racing action, but that was only possible because F2 cars are noticeably slower, for F1 anyways you really do need photography equipment that can deliver if you want to capture even a single usable shot.

 

The price of Canons 24-105 F4 L lens is £400, the 24-70 F2.8 L is £1500!! So you can see a change of just 1.8 in the F number is clearly a deal breaker to the tune of £1000.

 

Its not just the F number you pay for, fast AF is absolutely key if your doing telephoto. At 300mm a tiny amount of front/back focusing will make your whole shot useless, and its also worth remembering most lens don't focus wide open.

 

 

My 70-300 had accurate enough AF and fast enough shutter speed to capture the whites in the eyes of a F1 driver coming directly towards you whilst positioning their car into the apex of a corner. BUT If I was a pro making my living off capturing motor sport shots that lens was in no way good enough, only 25% of the shots were usable which is far too low a ratio as that's the difference between capturing the movement versus a blurred mess.

 

Like I said how me some similar shots from one of these super zooms and I'll happily change my mind on them .

 

My 70-300mm cost me £250 used, for the sake of a 30 second lens swap why would you bother with buying a more expensive superzoom lens with worse image quality?? If you care that little about image quality than why not just stick to your smart phone, my S7 will do x10 Zoom too .

 

Edited May 6, 2017 by gangzoom

[350zedd]

Errrm.....f6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop smaller than f5.6 ...a slight rise in ISO to compensate, surely not a deal breaker!!

All the shots I got ar F 5.6 was on the absolute limit of focus/shutter speed

 

Ok... you're telling me now you were on the absolute limit, so I agree, an f6.3 lens would be a step too far, without introducing unacceptable noise.

I appreciate all that you are saying about the need for quality glass to get the job done, I agree with you and have a couple of f2.8 lenses myself.

Superzooms don't aspire to be professional, and are designed for novices and amateurs and give amateur results.

You wouldn't buy one, I wouldn't buy one, but people do, and are happy with them, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for them.

People have different expectations and need to judge for themselves.