spec me lenses (safari, astrophotography)

Glaucus

Glaucus

Glaucus

Man of Honour
Joined
11 Mar 2004
Posts
76,637
Can you lovely people spec me two lenses please.
One good for night time star photos, as I understand it need as wide a lenses as possible.
And one for a safari trip.
No budget, but as cheap as possible with out being crap.
Safaris not till December, Astro lenses I would like by march depending on cost and how much I need to save if at all.

For a cannon 500d, any help appreciated, as I'm clueless on these things.

I assume this will be fine as a remote fir controlling shutter time?
Or should I be looking at something else
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Timer-Remot...F8&qid=1421353937&sr=8-2&keywords=remote+500d
 
Astro on a crop I'd go tokina 11-16mm f2.8 it's great versatile lens on a decent budget.

Safari is different kettle of fish on a budget a 70-300mm is probably your best bet either the canon IS or the newest tamron VC. If you can afford it a secondhand 100-400mm L would be better as you can never have enough length!
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Astro on a crop I'd go tokina 11-16mm f2.8 it's great versatile lens on a decent budget.

Safari is different kettle of fish on a budget a 70-300mm is probably your best bet either the canon IS or the newest tamron VC. If you can afford it a secondhand 100-400mm L would be better as you can never have enough length!
Click to expand...

As above but there are probably a few more options.
For safari you often need good reach but then a a minute later much less so a 100-400 is about the best you can do on crop on a budget

For astro stuff you might sometimes want something longer than 16mm but TBH your kit lens will likely suffice. Not a big difference in aperture at the wide end.
 
Yeah got the standard 18 - 55
So what model 100-400

And on the tokina there seems to be two dx and dx2 what's the difference?

Why are lenses so expensive :(
 
Good advice from dp I'd be looking to pick everything up second hand you can save loads.

If the safari us a one off look into renting a 100-400mm I did for a trip to India or buy one second hand and flog it for a small loss (often less than the rental cost) which I did for a trip to Sri Lanka.

For the canon mount of the 11-16 the only difference in the mkii is some coatings so not a huge deal but nice to have.
 
Glaucus said:
Yeah got the standard 18 - 55
So what model 100-400

And on the tokina there seems to be two dx and dx2 what's the difference?

Why are lenses so expensive :(
Click to expand...

According to Ken Rockwell it appears the DX2 has slightly better multicoating and an internal AF motor (for nikon), so basically little difference for Canon. Not enough to pay much more for the DX2 anyway.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm-ii.htm

I would definitely recommend the 11-16 as well, although as said you may want longer depending on the shot you want, tbh though if you want stars with a foreground as wide as possible is usually the way to go. If you want just stars then obviously a very long lens is probably your best bet, along with a mount and sturdy tripod!

70-300 or used 100-400L are probably your best "budget" bets. Another option is the Sigma 120-300 OS. It's heavy but it's an f/2.8 lens which has benefits for bokeh and speed in low light. You can also stick a 1.4TC (for 420 f/4) and still have tack sharp images, or a 2TC and get 600 f/5.6 (still focuses) with a reasonable sharpness. Alternatively you can stick both on and get 840mm... Doesn't autofocus focus and IQ is certainly not great but it is good fun playing with that focal length!:p

I've seen a couple for sale on TP recently and they seem to struggle to sell at £1k which is very surprising, so they may not be as expensive as they may first appear. The older non OS is even cheaper, but is no where near as good. (£750-800). The 100-400L sells at about £750 used.

EDIT: Just to point out I bought my 120-300 OS for a 3 week trip through Southern Africa and as D.P. says you go from 300+mm to 120mm in seconds, so a zoom is a much better option than a prime. I actually spent most of the trip with the 1.4TC on, although I wasn't always using it at 420mm.
 
Last edited:
Safari is definitely where you want a zom or multiple bodies. Some times you might want 600mm but there are plenty of times when you need to back out 100mm or even less.

People tend to get observed with getting head shots from 2 clicks away but good wild life photography needs some environmental setting at the least. Not to say 600mm isn't useful, it is sometimes a requirement to get a shot, especially for animals that you can't or not allowed to approach to closely or for smaller animals and birds or picking out details.
 
The general rule on safari is you can never have enough length. One thing is often missed is that a lot of action happens when the lighting is poor, dawn dusk etc. An f5.6 lens will struggle in these conditions.

I always recommend the (now old) canon 100-400mm L lens. The push pull mechanism can take some getting used to but there is nothing better for safari without spending significantly more. I also recommend shooting with a battery grip. Not only does this help balance the lens it also provides you with enough power to get through the day and gives you the option to be able to switch to AA batteries in case of power outage and you cannot charge your batteries. This is especially relevant for a 500D as it is lighter (so will feel lens heavy) and the batteries have lesser capacity than the LP-E6 used in larger models.

The sigma 120-300 was updated a year or 2 ago. The latest version has significantly improved optics but is also expensive. The older (second version) lens may be available second hand. If you go this root make sure you take a beanbag or monopod to support the lens. F2.8 will be useful, yes you lose focal length but cropping is a lot easier than noise reduction in post.

A spare body is also worth consideration. Murphy's law says that if you only take one body you will get dust on the sensor or worse.
 
I wouldnt go with less than 400mm on Safari, 300mm just isn't that long but you do have the option to crop after. The Sigma 150-500mm is decent budget option but make no mistake its a beast of a lens so be prepared for the weight.

The 11-16 is perfect for astro photography and is the lens I'd go for, dont worry about DX or DX2 as for Canon there is barely any difference.

Glaucus said:
Why are lenses so expensive :(
Click to expand...

Well see below, bit of an extreme lens but the materials and manufacturing process are why and if the cost becomes an issue why don't you looking into hiring some lenses for your trip instead of buying them outright?

 
Glaucus said:
Hiring doesn't really make sense. As there will be other trips.
Click to expand...

I've never bothered owning anything longer than 210mm as I use it so infrequently the cost of ownership was ridiculous. I've been on a few trips where I have needed longer so have always rented or bought second hand and sold on. I did the same when I needed a fast ultrawide for the northern lights. I've your going to use a lens once every couple of years you can keep the cash much more liquid than having a depreciating asset under the bed.
 
How much is hiring and it'll probably be a couple of times a year.
jessops is £40 a day, be cheaper to buy, is there some where much cheaper?
is there total waivers for breakage/theft?
 
Last edited:
ReCoN1989 said:
The general rule on safari is you can never have enough length. One thing is often missed is that a lot of action happens when the lighting is poor, dawn dusk etc. An f5.6 lens will struggle in these conditions.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed, which is why I didn't end up getting the 80-400 Nikon and went for the sigma instead (and it being significantly sharper).
ReCoN1989 said:
The sigma 120-300 was updated a year or 2 ago. The latest version has significantly improved optics but is also expensive. The older (second version) lens may be available second hand. If you go this root make sure you take a beanbag or monopod to support the lens. F2.8 will be useful, yes you lose focal length but cropping is a lot easier than noise reduction in post.

A spare body is also worth consideration. Murphy's law says that if you only take one body you will get dust on the sensor or worse.
Click to expand...

There are actually three 120-300s, the first one to be released was the non OS version which was Ok but pretty soft in places and had no OS. The second one had OS and the optics had a significant upgrade (released about 3 years ago). The third one is the OS "sport", released last year it's essentially the same as the older OS but has weather sealing, a slight optics change and can now be configured using the USB dock you can buy. The upgrade hasn't really changed the optic quality though (the original OS is tack sharp anyway) but the weather sealing is a benefit.

The second two are both worthy lenses and great options, but the third one will be like the teeth of hens teeth to get hold of used (it's over £2500 new), the second one is only as rare as hens teeth used and will cost about £1k... Ignore the first one unless you must have 300 f/2.8 as its not brilliant.

I took both a beanbag and a monopod with me and used neither more than once. When walking I found a rapid strap and holding normally was the easiest option, it gave greater mobility than a monopod and when I was in vehicles they weren't set up for bean bags so it was useless, in other vehicles it may be better. A tripod is a great investment, I use a 190CX with mine as its light and sturdy and obviously good for lower light times and when staking somewhere out for a while. I know that advice might be contentious but that's what I find best for me after owning the lens for 2 years now.

Edit: oh, and if you do end up buying a 120-300 then check for back focusing. It's a fairly common problem on at least the second version (not sure about the third as I haven't looked). It's easy to fix though, either with microadjust in camera or send it to Sigma in Welwyn and they will do it for you for about £30 (IIRC).
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
I've never bothered owning anything longer than 210mm as I use it so infrequently the cost of ownership was ridiculous. I've been on a few trips where I have needed longer so have always rented or bought second hand and sold on. I did the same when I needed a fast ultrawide for the northern lights. I've your going to use a lens once every couple of years you can keep the cash much more liquid than having a depreciating asset under the bed.
Click to expand...

To be fair as long as you get it used at a good price and keep it in good order you should be able to sell a lens for around the price you bought it a wee or a year later.

There are obvious exceptions but I've slbought and sold about half a dozen lenses and some have sold at a slight loss, others at a slight profit. I usually keep them for at least a year so a lot less than hiring them.

If you want to look into hiring AH then try lensesforhire, they do good prices and are very good apparently. You get insurance with them to cover any damage or loss.
 
Amp34 said:
To be fair as long as you get it used at a good price and keep it in good order you should be able to sell a lens for around the price you bought it a wee or a year later.

There are obvious exceptions but I've slbought and sold about half a dozen lenses and some have sold at a slight loss, others at a slight profit. I usually keep them for at least a year so a lot less than hiring them.

If you want to look into hiring AH then try lensesforhire, they do good prices and are very good apparently. You get insurance with them to cover any damage or loss.
Click to expand...

Indeed buying and selling repeatedly just seems like far to much effort.
Lenses depreciate incredibly slowly once purchased second hand. Over 5 years you might loose 100-200 quid so the monthly rental cost is nothing.


Also just because you don't use a lens like a tele very often currently doesn't mean once you own one you won't make much more use of it. Maybe you will decide you actually really like wildlife/airshows/sports.
 
Thanks, even lenses for hire, looking at almost £275 just for the telephoto lens so hardly seems worth it.
Sigma seems to come at a very good price second hand. Will have to do some saving though.
 
For wide-angle starfield shots you want a lens with as little coma as possible. Samyang/Rokinon lenses are getting stellar (bwahahaha) reviews.

I have the 12mm f2, it's pretty much glued to my Fuji. Haven't tried it at night yet though. Huge value for money, but manual focus, although focusing a UWA lens is dead easy.

Tokina is also a good shout though- a stop slower but obviously slightly more flexible given it's zoom range.

A couple of links:

http://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/20...-night-photography-a-case-for-rokinon-primes/

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/lenses-for-milky-way-photography/

I have the wireless variant of the remote release you mention. I'd stump up for the wireless one if you can, it's only a few more quid but a little more flexible, and if the receiver battery dies you can still connect it with a cable anyway.
 
Glaucus said:
Thanks, even lenses for hire, looking at almost £275 just for the telephoto lens so hardly seems worth it.
Sigma seems to come at a very good price second hand. Will have to do some saving though.
Click to expand...

I've never thought the rental prices are worth it.
Ultimately there is a decent cost in shipping a big lens in 2 directions and adding insurance before we even speak of the business overheads. Buying and selling second hand will almost always work out cheaper.

What you get with the rental places is peace of mind and an easy process. Fine if you run a bussiness but it doesn't make sense for personal use.


If you have the time you could actually make a profit buying and selling on the lens second hand.
 
CGrieves said:
For wide-angle starfield shots you want a lens with as little coma as possible. Samyang/Rokinon lenses are getting stellar (bwahahaha) reviews.
Click to expand...

Another vote for the Samyang/Rokinon it's pretty much the default budget astro lens, nothing else really comes close for the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom