# Help choosing telephoto lens



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

My suggestion, slightly shorter focal range but since you're still new, I'd get this one. Very solid zoom lense: EF 70-200mm f/4 USM

If you go with the 70-300mm, make sure it's the L model. 

The 55-250mm is probably the last on the list. I personally wouldn't buy it. 

If you've got the dough, get this one: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM


----------



## mmccarthy781 (Jul 7, 2011)

Is there a reason you suggest to get the L model for the 70-300mm? Also speedie, your suggestions seem great, but do you have any cheaper lenses in mind like $600-$700 max?


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

You haven't mentioned your budget, assuming you are just getting into DSLR photography, your second choice is EXCELLENT. Very good lens for its price. I have seen it below $150 on Amz, and its IQ and IS are excellent.

The 70-300 is good too, but it will hit your wallet a bit harder, and is larger and heavier.

Keep in mind that if you set your camera to max resolution, you get a ridiculous 18 million pixels to work with. This is like a huge telephoto converter, because you can just crop the center out of your oversized image and bingo - close-up of that bird.

If you swim in money and absolutely don't know what to do with it, go with Nicks suggestions. Keep in mind that the L lenses are very heavy, and the gain in image quality is very small compared to a decent (cheap) lens like the 55-250. That red ring boosts other things...

Also keep in mind that there are really bad lenses out there, the 75-300 is an example, avoid. And finally, it might be best to check out some dedicated websites/forums/reviews like dpreview and photography-on-the.net before you commit thousands into a lens collection.


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Here is the best spot you can get it: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=183198&is=GREY&A=details&Q=

Have you read the reviews yet for the non L model? Go check it out HERE. For the money, I'd rather get the one I suggested above. That's just me though.


----------



## mmccarthy781 (Jul 7, 2011)

speedie408 said:


> Here is the best spot you can get it: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&sku=183198&is=GREY&A=details&Q=
> 
> Have you read the reviews yet for the non L model? Go check it out HERE. For the money, I'd rather get the one I suggested above. That's just me though.


Oh, it so much cheaper on that website thanks for showing me 

And thank you wasserpest for your input too , ya I forgot to mention my price range $0-$700. Also, how much heavier are the L series lenses than normal lenses?


----------



## speedie408 (Jan 15, 2009)

Just think of L lenses as tanks, and plastic lenses as... well plastic. lol 

Very solidly built, better glass, and weather sealed. Only drawback is the larger zooms are quite heavy as Thomas has mentioned, so start working on those guns at the gym.


----------



## Ibn (Nov 19, 2003)

Stick to Speedie's suggestion and go from there. Need extra range, stack on a teleconverter. Need additional range, start saving for something along the 500-600mm range. Start with the Sigma 50-500mm range and then step up to the 500mm and 600mm primes if you get really serious about birding and putting down a sizable investment. 

Also, start working on your stalking abilities to get closer to the various birds.

This is what 500mm gets you (framing from camera, no cropping).


















What 600mm gets you (again no cropping; 300mm base lens + 2x TC)


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

All depends a bit how close you can get to your subject...

What 250mm gets you :wink:










Nick is right though, if you look for something built like a tank, go for the 70-200. I prefer plastic, easier on the neck & shoulders when hiking. Also, I tend to treat my stuff well, if you don't, then the weather-sealed all metal lens could be a better choice.

For me as a non-pro, value is high on the list, so it's an easy choice. The "L" is 5x as expensive.

Edit - If you really want to shoot mainly birds, then Eric's suggestions are spot-on.


----------



## Ibn (Nov 19, 2003)

Well played, haha. 

Perfecting your stalking technique only goes so far when there are bodies of water in play. :wink:

Start working out as well with the larger lenses. Couple of birders in the distance.


----------



## mmccarthy781 (Jul 7, 2011)

Does anyone know if the 55-250mm I mentioned would be like my 18-55mm kit lens in terms of build quality? Because I don't really need anything too fancy and the 18-55mm lens I have now is good enough for me.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

I'd say yes, about the same build quality. It's called the "other kit lens" or "nifty two-fifty". :wink:

The good thing with lenses is that if you treat them well, you have a good chance to sell them (like on Craigs list) with only a very small loss, and then you can still upgrade to something more, uhm, tank-like.


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

I use the 55-250mm as my walk around lens. Good telephoto starter, and light. Yes it is plastic.

You can see some of my stuff here: http://razzi.me/somnium

We are both beginners so it will give you a good feel without getting false impressions like picturesfrom people who are higher in level than we are (no offense, but I had that problem myself and was severely disappointed when I went ahead and compared my images to people who had more experience and had the same lens  ). I also have EXIF data enabled, so you can see what focal length I had it at when I shot the pic if you want to know.

I too was gonna go with 70-300 as it supposedly is a bit more crisp, but I'm poor (unpaid college student with no allowance, and only get money about $150 per yr from special holidays) and had a much lower budget so that's why I chose the nifty 250. And yea if you are really serious about birding, you get a real telephoto lens like they said, I read a minimum of 400mm, more is better supposedly. But I see the price tag is a lot more too... so that was out for me too unfortunately. Maybe one day....... sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Geniusdudekiran (Dec 6, 2010)

Hey Eden, those are some badass shots -- where were they taken?


----------



## Eden Marel (Jan 28, 2010)

Thanks!! Took them at a local pond where I go fishing a lot, Golden Ponds!


----------



## NyteBlade (Aug 19, 2006)

I have the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6. Got it in a deal when I first bought my T2i, and it's really not a bad lens for starters. I use it and have had pretty good luck with it. It's no L lens, but it's very reasonably priced and I'd say it's pretty similar in quality to the kit Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens which is pretty solid.

I won't speak for you or anyone else here, but I've found that with a Rebel T2i and the kit lens and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6, that the limitation is very much myself as a newer photographer and *not* my gear. Getting out there, shooting, and critiquing yourself will improve your work significantly more than the difference between a regular and an L lens if you're not a pro.

But hell, I say if you have the cash for an L lens, go for it!


----------

