Author Topic: Canoneers - Your advice please (Read 8943 times)

Bateleur · « **on:** December 13, 2008, 09:32 »

A friend of mine wants to buy a telephoto lens for his 14-year old daughter for Christmas, and is asking my advice.

He regards me as the fount of all knowledge with regard to things photographic

but I'm a Nikonista so I'm not completely up to speed with Canon possibilities.

Can anyone recommend anything? She's using a Canon EOS 400D

Thanks for your help.

ErickN · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2008, 10:26 »

Your friend will have some choice, depending on the budget allowed. From the top of my mind :

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (US$ 240.95)
Cheap build, plastic mount, EF-S only (cannot be used on FF) but lightweight, a useful range (starts at 55) and efficient stabilization (4-stops). Known to have a quite good quality for the price.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS (US$ 469.95 after rebate)
Good optical quality (some say almost on par with 70-200mm f/4), nice range, not too heavy, not too long, 3-stops IS.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 with or without IS ($950 or $580)
Two of the best Canon lenses. Great build, awesome optical quality, 4-stops IS (for the IS one). Maybe somewhat over-the-top for a 14 yo girl (weight and conspicuous-ness), but if your friend also uses Canon gear, he will be delighted as well !

Then tere are some f/2.8 zooms, but definetly not a good match for such a young girl.

For lower budget, he can have a look at Sigma or Tamron. I hear that the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro ($188 after rebate) has a nice quality/price ratio.

Oh, and I assumed you were talking about telephoto zooms, but there are also a few fixed focal lenses to choose from, for slightly more affordable good optical quality.

Hope that helps
Erick

grp_photo · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2008, 10:27 »

Telezoom or prime?
I can easily recommend the 70-200/2.8 non-IS i think you still can buy it new for about 65% of the price of the IS-Version. It's optically superior than the IS.
It's one of my best lenses (and i have plenty

).

Bateleur · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2008, 10:39 »

Quote from: grp_photo on December 13, 2008, 10:27

Telezoom or prime?
I can easily recommend the 70-200/2.8 non-IS i think you still can buy it new for about 65% of the price of the IS-Version. It's optically superior than the IS.
It's one of my best lenses (and i have plenty ).

I'm pretty sure it would be a zoom ...

But good point. Thanks. I'll put it to him (and explain what a prime is). You can get much more optical bang for your buck with a prime.

dbajurin · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2008, 11:12 »

Quote from: grp_photo on December 13, 2008, 10:27

Telezoom or prime?
I can easily recommend the 70-200/2.8 non-IS i think you still can buy it new for about 65% of the price of the IS-Version. It's optically superior than the IS.
It's one of my best lenses (and i have plenty ).

70-200/2.8 is very heavy lens. For 14 year old kid 70-200/4 is better lens with Image stabilization of 4th generation. So I am suggesting this lens.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2008, 11:56 »

Quote from: dbajurin on December 13, 2008, 11:12

Quote from: grp_photo on December 13, 2008, 10:27
Telezoom or prime?
I can easily recommend the 70-200/2.8 non-IS i think you still can buy it new for about 65% of the price of the IS-Version. It's optically superior than the IS.
It's one of my best lenses (and i have plenty ).

70-200/2.8 is very heavy lens. For 14 year old kid 70-200/4 is better lens with Image stabilization of 4th generation. So I am suggesting this lens.

I would have to agree that this lens would the best, but how come I never got a 1000 dollar lens when I was 14?

jsnover · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2008, 12:51 »

I have an older version of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - and I had read that the most recent version had improved - but I think the only good thing about it is the price

To be fair, before I started shooting for stock, I really liked it as on a crop camera like the Rebel it gives you a really good zoom, it's just rather soft at 300mm.

I have the 70-200/f4 L and it's a lovely lens, but I don't know that I'd give it to someone unless they were very, very serious about their photography.

The EFS lenses are crop format cameras only, so they have a limited lifespan if you might move to a full frame camera in the future, but there's also this new one to consider:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-200_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2008, 13:18 »

As the mother of a teenager, I think that heavy, super expensive glass might be overkill for a 14 year old. I would guess that she would get more use out of a versatile all-in-one lens.

I would recommend the Sigma 18-200 OS ($359 with rebate on B&H). I have one that I keep on my 40D all the time. It is quite sharp, fairly light (1.35 lbs), and takes excellent pictures.

Plus I have had very good luck with Sigma lens quality. As opposed to Tamron where you have to go through two or three copies of a lens just to get a sharp one.

I am sure she would rather have the versatile range and light weight rather than toting a bag of heavy lenses around.

sharply_done · « **Reply #8 on:** December 13, 2008, 15:03 »

Reality check time - don't consider a pro-grade lens for a 14 year-old using an entry level camera. Honestly, I don't know what some of you are thinking.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2008, 15:26 »

If they want to spend 1000 dollars (we don't know from the post), why not suggest something very good like the 70-200mm f4L IS. It's not too heavy, has great image quality, and a solid build that will be a great piece of glass for years to come. If they want something cheap any lens will be ok, even the 75-300mm kit lens. It's not so terrible that you can't get good shots on a sunny day and only costs 150 dollars.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2008, 15:47 »

Quote from: sharply_done on December 13, 2008, 15:03

Reality check time - don't consider a pro-grade lens for a 14 year-old using an entry level camera. Honestly, I don't know what some of you are thinking.

My own philosophy is to always get your kids the best gear you can afford regardless of activity. The lens will stay as the camera is replaced with newer models. It holds its value very well of a long period of time.

Peter

grp_photo · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2008, 15:54 »

I see it as an investment too. In less than four years the girl is an adult. You don't know which family members using the lens too

.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2008, 16:06 »

Nothing wrong with the Canon 28-135 IS. Not too big, good for the casual user. Good range. $400 .
http://www.adorama.com/CA28135ISU.html

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2008, 16:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2008, 16:06

Nothing wrong with the Canon 28-135 IS. Not too big, good for the casual user. Good range. $400 .
http://www.adorama.com/CA28135ISU.html

I have this one, and I like it. Not quite long range as the other cited before, but very good.

Regards,
Adelaide

RacePhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2008, 19:56 »

Or, if this isn't going to be a pro shoot and I agree about 14 year olds and $1000 lenses, plus the size, color and weight of any 70-200, maybe something I don't do myself, but buy a Sigma or other brand of the 70-300 which will make nice pictures and not be overly expensive. Also people walking around with a $700 (list for the 28-135 which isn't as good as some other brand 70-200's) lens or taking one to school can become a liability for theft. Best to keep it reasonable for starters, and the non-Canon lenses are not that bad.

I bought a Nikon for my daughter when she was going to Africa for AFS and she dropped in in the ocean on a flight layover, before she ever got one photo in Kenya.

18 or 19, responsible, but "stuff happens" when people are young. I thought it was a good idea. Now looking back, a point and shoot or compact camera, would have been more sensible and easier to carry around.

I don't think a big heavy white lens is a good idea.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2008, 01:28 »

Some of you are nuts...she's 14 and probably doesn't have a clue how to use a camera properly yet - and you want to get pro-version glass for a 14 yr old?

75-200 or whatever they have now is fine. Learn to shoot first, buy the good stuff when it makes sense.

dbajurin · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2008, 06:36 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 14, 2008, 01:28

Some of you are nuts...she's 14 and probably doesn't have a clue how to use a camera properly yet - and you want to get pro-version glass for a 14 yr old?

75-200 or whatever they have now is fine. Learn to shoot first, buy the good stuff when it makes sense.

I will probably agree with you, but I saw kids witch are more talented than all of us together. Specially in video witch is my domain you can find kids witch are so talented it is really bad thing that they don't have better equipment. And I am talking 10-16 years old kids.

EricN didn't mention is she like to learn photography or she is talented kid. But probably all of us thinking about second option. Witch can be some professional deformation for us

Perrush · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2008, 06:54 »

I would pick up a second hand 75-300. Best buy for the bucks.

If it has to be better, the 70-200 F4 non IS is the second choice. But I think a 14 year old would rather have 300 mm then 200mm. Just mho

cathyslife · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2008, 11:44 »

I also use the 28-135mm all the time and love it. Not a telephoto, but a great all-around lens.

I also have an early copy of the 70-300mm and would not recommend it. I couldn't get a decent shot out of it except at the 70mm end. Had to send it back to Canon under warranty. They replaced some parts and it works much better, but even with IS it's tough to get non-blurry photos on the 300mm end. It must be used on a tripod to get any kind of decent shots at all, which pretty much defeats the purpose of paying for the IS. Plus it takes very soft photos.

Bateleur · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2008, 13:05 »

Thanks for your advice everyone.

A lot of interesting points raised ... not only about the different lenses available, but also about the 'philosophy' (if that doesn't sound too grand) of buying a telephoto for a 14-year old.

In fact she's a very keen photographer. My friend's bought a copy of my book to giver her for Christmas and he's asked me to give her a few hours photography tutorial based on it.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2008, 13:43 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 14, 2008, 01:28

Some of you are nuts...she's 14 and probably doesn't have a clue how to use a camera properly yet - and you want to get pro-version glass for a 14 yr old?

75-200 or whatever they have now is fine. Learn to shoot first, buy the good stuff when it makes sense.

I'm curious if some of you who object have children? I'm getting my 7 year old a G10 for Xmas. She has proven long ago that she has the ability, coordination and talent to use a camera like this. By the time she is 14, and if she has the desire she'll have a 5D(XX). I can't think of a better way to raise a neurotic than that tell them they can't handle things or to not give them real responsibilities -- beyond feeding the goldfish that is.

Peter

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** December 14, 2008, 14:31 »

Peter,

Of course it depends on the child. My father lent me his camera (nothing amazing, but good anyway) when I was at that age. I would not however lend mine to my 17-yo nephew. I was even unsure to lend him my old 2MPix Finepix when he traveled, even though I don't use that camera anymore. He is an expert in breaking and forgetting things wherever he goes.

Regards,
Adelaide

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #22 on:** December 14, 2008, 14:37 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 14, 2008, 14:31

Peter,

Of course it depends on the child. My father lent me his camera (nothing amazing, but good anyway) when I was at that age. I would not however lend mine to my 17-yo nephew. I was even unsure to lend him my old 2MPix Finepix when he traveled, even though I don't use that camera anymore. He is an expert in breaking and forgetting things wherever he goes.

Regards,
Adelaide

True enough, I wouldn't lend my nephews a dollar. However, if they truly showed a keen interest and already owned a DSLR body I would honestly rethink this.

Peter

null · « **Reply #23 on:** December 14, 2008, 15:09 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 13, 2008, 13:18

I would recommend the Sigma 18-200 OS ($359 with rebate on B&H). I have one that I keep on my 40D all the time. It is quite sharp, fairly light (1.35 lbs), and takes excellent pictures.

What about the purple fringe? I have the Sigma 18-125 as allround lens and it still has a lot of purple fringe at 18 and in high-contrast shots. I backed off the 18-200 since I felt it was too daring. There are not many situations where you need the 125-200 range, and if you do (wildlife for instance) you would want a lens that goes up to 300. I bet you don't do your excellent studio work with this zoom?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canoneers - Your advice please (Read 8943 times)

Bateleur

ErickN

grp_photo

Bateleur

dbajurin

traveler1116

jsnover

lisafx

sharply_done

traveler1116

PeterChigmaroff

grp_photo

Sean Locke Photography

madelaide

RacePhoto

ichiro17

dbajurin

Perrush

cathyslife

Bateleur

PeterChigmaroff

madelaide

PeterChigmaroff

null

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors