Spec me canon lenses for the following photography

[413x]

Having committed to raping my wallet by way of photography and being tied to canon I'd like a few ideas to get me started on the following

Macro
Astrophotography - at first just tripod+cam but later mounted on scope
Sports - motorsports
Wildlife - birds mainly
I'll probably want to try filming too

As mentioned in my other thread, due to my gf already having a canon I will be tied to that system although I still need to choose between the 7d and 70d (if I can wait for the 70 that is)

I already have
Nifty 50mm
Canon 100mm f2.8 usm IS L

 

[CGrieves]

I can chip in a bit on the astro side- I did dabble for a while, but never got fantastic results. My main advice would be to decide beforehand what exactly it is in the sky that you want to photograph, because the kit needed varies, and a DSLR may not be the answer.

If you intend to do visual astronomy and snap a few shots of the moon, then get a big-ish scope and a DSLR adaptor. Look at pretty things visually and stick the camera on when you want a snap of something bright. Easy.

If you want to do planetary photography with a "normal" lens, it can be done, but with limitations. Firstly you're going to want lots of reach. My Meade 6 inch refractor is a 1200mm equivalent and even then I have to crop down 50% for a moon shot. With a more general purpose lens, say 400mm or so, planetary subjects are going to be very small, so you want a lens with excellent centre sharpness, and a body with a high pixel density. You can still get some very good results, but you're going to hit the limitations in reach pretty quickly.

If you want to image deep sky (faint) objects, you're going to need a tracking mount at some point. Although I'd argue that for most of these objects, you really need the IR filter removed, which limits the camera's usefulness for general purposes (you can screw an external IR filter on). A DSLR is probably overkill in terms of image resolution though- given atmospheric distortion, a scope with a astro-imaging device (basically a high sensitivity webcam) usually gives better results- basically you take a medium-resolution video, stack the frames together, and use a software process to extract the detail. If you just use a conventional DSLR with a long exposure, you just get a big blurry mess due to the atmospheric wobble.

I actually bought my DSLR for astrophotography, but in the end I just took pictures of the moon and then used the DSLR for general photography, and the scope for visual astronomy. Eyes are really amazing imaging devices for astronomy. The path to getting those images digitally is fun but involves effort and some frustration!

 

[413x]

Very helpful

Yes, I understand I'd need a tracker, and yes I'd probably be hoping (or at least Iwas) to capture planets, andromeda galaxy, bright nebula in some far from perfect form.
Originally I thought this would simply be (simple as in process) attaching cam to telescope and layering some long tracked exposure pics

Out of interest how much was your refractor?

 

[CGrieves]

Yep, that's basically it, if you're starting out with a tracking mount then you'll be well set, the real art is aligning the mount. As long as you're not expecting hubble-quality deep sky shots, it's a lot of fun and very rewarding, if time consuming.

As I say, for nebula and diffuse photography you really want to get rid of the IR filter (or buy a 60Da, or 20Da if you can find one) as it will absorb all the hydrogen alpha wavelength light that you'll be trying to capture.

My scope is an AR6-AT, I bought the OTA for about £400, and stuck it on a non-driven EQ5 mount (about a hundred quid). Then probably three hundred or so on eyepieces, diagonals, EF mount adaptor and bits and bobs.

 

[King Damager]

Having committed to raping my wallet by way of photography and being tied to canon I'd like a few ideas to get me started on the following

Macro
Astrophotography - at first just tripod+cam but later mounted on scope
Sports - motorsports
Wildlife - birds mainly
I'll probably want to try filming too

I already have
Nifty 50mm
Canon 100mm f2.8 usm IS L

For macro, you have the canon 100L. You're sorted.

For astro, I think body is actually more important myself in some ways. I don't do much planetary stuff, more Milky Way, is what I want to build on (think what 42xz does) I also haven't done a huge amount, but a camera that can handle a decent ISO is important so that you can keep star movement in photos down to a minimum! That said, something wider is good here. The canon 28 1.8 would be a good shout. £350ish I think. But keep reading because I've got ideas based on other things.

For sports I'd say you have two options something like a 70-200 (the f4 non IS is a cheaper but very good option) if you add a 1.4 extender (now becoming more expensive, but its more of a lightweight set up). That said, if you want to do wildlife as well, I recently got the 100-400L (not cheap) and it is absolutely gloriously gorgeous. I spent yesterday taking shots of birds as it happens and, yeah, it's a lovely lens, even at 400. I very much love the 100-400, so personally I'd add that to your selection and cover it for both wildlife and Motorsport. Something to warn you of though. It is quite sizeable. I mean its not stupid sizes and fits in a backpack, but it can take some used to lugging it around. It is also, as I've said not cheap, but long term it'd be the lens I'd settle with, unless you start talking stupid money (300/400mm primes, or even, god forbid the 200-400L)

For filming. You want a lens with IS. This is where I'd actually recommend you try and pick up a 2nd hand 24-105L. They're about £400-500 second hand I think. They're the go to choice of many (including digital rev) for some filming, but also, make a great walkabout lens (would save you fighting with the mrs. Over a walkabout). Also, I use mine for my Milky Way stuff as the wider end is wide enough and sharp enough to be able to handle it. It really is just a glorious lens all round to be fair as well!

kd

 

[Janesy B]

Does IS work in movie mode?

 

[Raymond Lin]

I say for filming....get yourself a monopod.

http://vimeo.com/26869155

(Yes, I know I posted this before )

 

[ajf]

Would second the 100-400L too as long as the 100mm is short enough for the types of motorsport you may want to shoot.

It is expensive but I have used mine so much since I got it about 6 years ago.
It is not the 'fastest' lens but the IS counters that to quite some degree.

I have actually used this lens with a cheap 2x converter on manual focus for moon shots in the past and they are quite respectable.

 

[D.P.]

Having committed to raping my wallet by way of photography and being tied to canon I'd like a few ideas to get me started on the following

Macro
Astrophotography - at first just tripod+cam but later mounted on scope
Sports - motorsports
Wildlife - birds mainly
I'll probably want to try filming too

As mentioned in my other thread, due to my gf already having a canon I will be tied to that system although I still need to choose between the 7d and 70d (if I can wait for the 70 that is)

I already have
Nifty 50mm
Canon 100mm f2.8 usm IS L

Macro: You already have a=the 10mm f/2.8 Macro lens, why is this not sufficient? Do you need more reach for insects, in which case try the Sigma 150mm or 180mm.

Astrophotography Can't really help you here for try astrophotography. For night skies photos then any reasonably fast, sharp wider lens. Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or a Tamron equivalent would work.
A good tripod is a must.

Sports Depends on which sport really but a 70-200 f/2.8 IS will cover the close up work with good AF. For longer work see below.

Wildlife You need serious reach to photograph birds, 400mm on crop is a minimum really, anything beyond that is a welcome bonus. You also need a lens that is sharp - you want the details in the feathers. If you want Birds in Flight then good AF is important, for static shots than AF can be a little slower but is not ideal. I use a Nikon 300mm F/4.0 combined with a 1.4xTC (teleconverter) giving me 420mm at f/5.6. Canon have a similar 300mm f/4.0 lens, but also a 400mm f/5.6. One of these 2 would be where I would look. Going longer requires as significant investment in in weight and costs. There are 3rd party alternatives, the only one really worth trying IMO is the Sigma 50-500mm Bigma. Other options might be the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 combined with a 1.4x and 2.0xTC . I don't know if the 2.0xTC on that lens gives critical sharpness.



Video What you really want her is older lenses that have great manual focus capabilities, lenses like the Zeiss primes there are just a joy to focus by hand. Nikon really does much better than Canon here as you can get all the older MF lenses that still mount perfectly on modern Nikon bodies since nikon has a strong emphasis on backwards compatibility. With Cnaon they change mounts often enough that the older classic MF lenses wont mount natively.
Samyang make some MF lenses to consider, the 14mm wide angle prime and 35mm f/1.4 could be worth a look.

Now you can use modern AF lenses but they are harder to MF and are not so easy to modify for video work.

 

[Janesy B]

Is it really worth buying L glass if you're just starting out? You don't have to commit to that kind of expenditure.

Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD , less than £300, Bob's your uncle.


F1 Young Drivers' Test - Silverstone 2013 by Bryan Janes, on Flickr


Masters_Brands_Hatch_2013-5084 by Bryan Janes, on Flickr


Masters_Brands_Hatch_2013-7374 by Bryan Janes, on Flickr


Masters_Brands_Hatch_2013-7023 by Bryan Janes, on Flickr

Hopefully that's enough to convince you that you don't need to spend loads to get good results.

 

[King Damager]

Is it really worth buying L glass if you're just starting out? You don't have to commit to that kind of expenditure.

Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD , less than £300, Bob's your uncle.

Hopefully that's enough to convince you that you don't need to spend loads to get good results.

Oh, I completely agree you don't need L glass, I recommended the stuff I did primarily because I think, (think) OP's significant other has some kind of 'cheap' 70-300

kd

 

[413x]

Thanks so far guys

Yes i agree i dont need L glass, but its good to get recs for low middle and high for each area

Macro i definitely will not be needing anything else for a long time! as much as i would like a 180 its not something i need as im only starting

astro..this is something that is going to take more thought (and expense) than i first thought. i guess id like to be able to get a nice pic of jupiter for example and have it recognizable for what it is. But is is an area im quite keen on. Pictures of things you cant just see with the naked eye really.

The sports/wildlife seems the hardest to decide choice wise, so 200 may be too short? the 100-400 is very expensive. Also, the IS is very useful for macro, but how important is it for sports/wildlife? or will the camera be mostly on a tripod for this?

i think the filming i will leave till last as im just starting out

 

[CGrieves]

Jupiter is a tough one- small enough to need very high magnification, and be severely affected by atmospheric distortion.

If you use facebook, search for Corin Grieves (pretty sure I'm the only one), I have an album of a few bits and pieces from experiments holding a compact camera up to the eyepiece, to one with my old 1000D attached to the scope. On there is a picture of Jupiter and it's moons, and one of the disc. Pretty underwhelming, and the result of hundreds of attempts. I'm pleased with some of the later moon pics though.

It's extra frustrating because the eye sees a wealth of detail and contrast, you plug the DSLR in and it sees virtually nothing. I tried for ages to get the dark limb of the moon on camera, it's awe inspiring visually through the scope, you can even see craters and shadows, but without HDR the camera just can't do the visual tricks that the eye and brain do.

After that I moved to London, lost the dark skies and discovered general photography

 

[D.P.]

Thanks so far guys

Yes i agree i dont need L glass, but its good to get recs for low middle and high for each area

Macro i definitely will not be needing anything else for a long time! as much as i would like a 180 its not something i need as im only starting

astro..this is something that is going to take more thought (and expense) than i first thought. i guess id like to be able to get a nice pic of jupiter for example and have it recognizable for what it is. But is is an area im quite keen on. Pictures of things you cant just see with the naked eye really.

The sports/wildlife seems the hardest to decide choice wise, so 200 may be too short? the 100-400 is very expensive. Also, the IS is very useful for macro, but how important is it for sports/wildlife? or will the camera be mostly on a tripod for this?

i think the filming i will leave till last as im just starting out

For wildlife it really helps to get to 400mm on a crop body, 300mm works OK for larger wildlife that you can get reasonably close to. For birds you need the 400mm, minimum. A 70-200mm works for groups of wildlife or when placing the animal within its surroundings/part of landscape shot.



To put things into perspective:
TA heron is one of the largest birds you will ever shoot. This one below was rally close, like 30ft away but there is still a small crop here. This was taken with the 300mm f4 1.4xTC so at 420mm (on a crop bodu);

This bull Moose and I got very friendly over a course of a week. On a very quite morning when I was the only tog around I managed to grab the following with a 70-300mm at 300mm (on a crop body). Moose are huge, much bigger than a cow, and I got close enough that I wouldn't stand a chance if the moose decided to charge:

As a landscape shot with wildlife this was at around 150mm

This hawk was close enough to walk up and touch the tree but was about 40ft up it. Again quite a big bird and as close ad you can realistically get. This was taken again with the 300mm + 1.4X TC (420mm)

When you get to smaller birds it gets really difficult.

 

[413x]

Jupiter is a tough one- small enough to need very high magnification, and be severely affected by atmospheric distortion.

If you use facebook, search for Corin Grieves (pretty sure I'm the only one), I have an album of a few bits and pieces from experiments holding a compact camera up to the eyepiece, to one with my old 1000D attached to the scope. On there is a picture of Jupiter and it's moons, and one of the disc. Pretty underwhelming, and the result of hundreds of attempts. I'm pleased with some of the later moon pics though.

It's extra frustrating because the eye sees a wealth of detail and contrast, you plug the DSLR in and it sees virtually nothing. I tried for ages to get the dark limb of the moon on camera, it's awe inspiring visually through the scope, you can even see craters and shadows, but without HDR the camera just can't do the visual tricks that the eye and brain do.

After that I moved to London, lost the dark skies and discovered general photography

i found you and the pics. I can see what you mean. the lunar pics are very nice but you can see in the jupiter pic the lack of anything. you wouldnt know it was jupiter instantly. maybe just stick with a scope and the eye..and yes it does show you how amazing an eye is with the brain as a processor!! Ill look more into it but try not to get to expectant!

 

[413x]

snip

luckily im quite familar with birds/behaviour and can appreciate the real life distances you will get. Very nice heron!

400mm, grr, thats a hefty bit of kit, both money and weight! Why am i interested in the expensive stuff that i need polar opposite lens for?

problem is i will get more use out of a wildlife lens than a sports lens!

EDT
ive been reading up on TCs and loosing stops and potentially loosing AF at roughly f/8 in certain situations

 

[Janesy B]

The sports/wildlife seems the hardest to decide choice wise, so 200 may be too short? the 100-400 is very expensive. Also, the IS is very useful for macro, but how important is it for sports/wildlife? or will the camera be mostly on a tripod for this?

I think I've used VC (IS) trackside once, can't speak for wildlife but I expect it will be more useful for that.

 

[413x]

I think I've used VC (IS) trackside once, can't speak for wildlife but I expect it will be more useful for that.

im guess with sport (esp motorsport) you can easily set up a tripod and just wait for action thus eliminating the IS need?

nice shots with a cheaper lenss btw

 

[D.P.]

luckily im quite familar with birds/behaviour and can appreciate the real life distances you will get. Very nice heron!

400mm, grr, thats a hefty bit of kit, both money and weight! Why am i interested in the expensive stuff that i need polar opposite lens for?

problem is i will get more use out of a wildlife lens than a sports lens!

EDT
ive been reading up on TCs and loosing stops and potentially loosing AF at roughly f/8 in certain situations

Yeah, an f/1.4x TC will loose you 1 stop of light so an f/4.0 lens will beome an f/5.6 lens and an f5.6 will becomes an f/8.0 lens.

Most camera can't focus when the max aperture is f/8, and those that can have diminished performance.

The other thing to watch out for is that TC work by basically cropping the center of the lens image and stretching it over the sensors. If the lens is not out resolving the sensor then you don't get much actual detail. Some people put a TC on lenses like a 70-300mm but it is a bad idea really, you are better off just copping and up-resizing in Photoshop.

 

[413x]

could you just explain why if the max aperture is f/8 why AF doesnt work?

I have only just learnt about aperture area in regards to focal length/stop value = diameter of aperture! and that f/x results in same light on the sensor regardless of focal length!

so a TC is no more useful than photoshop if the lens isnt resolving the image beyond the sensors resolution BEFORE the use of the TC?
im guessing this is one reason canon only enable TC with high end lenses? (as well as the stop loss)