Question A Day: Canon’s 55-250mm

Q: Hello, I was wondering if you could offer any insight into this lens: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens. I am looking for a ‘zoom’ lens for landscapes and events and my price point is pretty pathetic ($300-$400). I would like something of decent quality and no fuss but I realize my bank account may make me work a little harder. Thank you. ~Liz

A: While we’re talking about lenses this week, this is a good question too.

In a landscape lens, you’re looking for something that offers a true-to-eye perspective with sharpness in every corner. Because of this, an aperture wider (lower) than f/4 isn’t really necessary. This lens does a great job capturing mountains and mole hills, that’s for sure.

For events, however, you want something that can focus quickly and adjust well at any length it is zoomed, and I bring this up for a reason. I’ve had the recent opportunity to compare this lens to others in its range and it definitely lags ever so slightly when focusing on a moving subject. It’s not horrendous, it’s not catastrophic, and it’s a good lens with good mechanics at a good price point for its capability. But there is just that ever so slight delay which could mean the difference of nailing the shot of Grandma June on the dance floor and, well… not.

Your $300-$400 price range is hardly pathetic! But if you’re going to spend a penny over $5 for a lens, you should really know what you’re investing in. I’m a big believer you buy the best equipment you can afford and, as I said yesterday, the nice part about glass is they hold their value and are easily traded in/sold for upgrades.

That said, I definitely think you should go into your local camera store with 30 minutes to spare. Compare the 55-250mm ($230USD) with the 70-300mm ($530USD). The 70-300 has a much better reputation for autofocus accuracy and speed, as well as sharpness for the <$700 price point, although it is much heavier than the 55-250 admittedly. Also, there’s definitely a financial spread between the two, but I feel it’s worth you exploring hands on to see which is right lens for your needs and if the $300 difference unlocks a new level of image opportunities for you. 

Hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

6 October 3 Permalink

Question A Day: Sigma Lenses

Q: nosmokewithoutpryor asked:

Hi Tamara!

Question. Do you know anything about the Sigma HSM lenses? I have a Nikon D60 with the kit lens, and I also bought a “prime” lens (because I heard those are great at giving me that fuzzy, bokeh effect). I do like the prime, but it’s a manual focus lens, which I’m finding to be a big pain in the toosh.

I was reading about these HSM lenses by Sigma - there is one that’s an F/2.8 18-50mm for only $199, which seems really cheap for a lens! Do you know anything about them? Are they any good? For someone who is just an amateur photographer taking pictures of her baby for the most part, would that suffice just as well as the $400-500+ versions?

Thanks!

Henna

A: Hi Henna! Thanks for the question!

Let’s see… The prime you purchased, I’m guessing is the 50mm manual focus? I can understand the frustration of that, considering you’re dealing with a mobile subject and you want to snap fast.

I personally haven’t used any Sigma lenses but a friend of mine has and he says they can pack a beneficial punch to your bottom line, you just have to know what you’re getting into.

Essentially, third party lenses are going to generally be less money, but they’re going to lack a certain finesse that you would get with a lens from the same manufacturer as the body by default. That said, lenses are one area in photography where you really do get what you pay for, so buy the best lens you can afford. The nice part is that lenses don’t really lose their value if you treat them well, and so you can always sell or trade them in for an upgrade as your budget allows.

The reason prime lenses have such a great reputation for their depth of field and bokeh blur is that, by design, they can achieve a much wider aperture than their multi-length counterparts. The beauty of this 18-50mm is that you’ve got a nice wide aperture at any of those focal lengths, whereas other zoom lenses in that range tend to offer a spread (as in, you can get f/2.8 at 18mm but only say f/3.5 or smaller at 70mm, etc.)

The reason the HSM 18-50mm is less than other lenses is that it is specifically formatted for crop sensor cameras (such as yours) and won’t work well with full frame  professional cameras. Because of this, the lens can be designed slightly differently.

Because I’ve yet to play with this lens hands on, I can’t offer a guaranteed review. Based on specs alone, I think if you’re taking personal photos of your little jam face, this lens should most definitely work. The nice wide aperture allowance is going to allow you flexibility with lighting and depth of field, and there is some room for play on your focal length. Just be mindful that the 18mm is going to funkify faces just a bit, heading into the fish eye/slight distortion realm, so be sure to know what distance from your subject you’re most pleased with the results by.

Hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

5 October 3 Permalink

Question a Day | All Subjects in Focus

Q: Anonymous asked:

how do i make sure that the whole picture is in focus? do i have to increase my aperture? i have the canon 24-70mm l 2.8

A: Good question! Yes, you want to boost the number of the aperture in order to gather more things in the frame to be in focus. 

At f/2.8, your lens will automatically lock onto the item closest to the camera and give sweet bokeh in the background. This is good for a single person portrait or object. 

At, let’s say f/5.6, you’re going to get a bit more in focus but still have some bokeh to play with. This is good for two or three people, etc. I photograph a lot of my newborn shots starting with this aperture. 

At, say f/9, you’re going to start getting everything sharp and in focus, and it will only increase from there. This is good for a hearty group shot, landscape, etc. 

These numbers are not hard and fast rules/recipes. Play around depending on your conditions, equipment and subject matter to find the right one for you! 

And remember to compensate with your other settings to accommodate the loss of light, such as shutter speed, ISO and exposure bracket. 

•••

I’m back! Computer troubles had me drowning my sorrows in a random jar of Nutella that was mysteriously left in my office… And this blog is difficult to update effectively on an iPhone app! Updates are coming along, as is a site redesign! Thanks everyone for your continued interest, enthusiasm and patience!

12 July 2 Permalink

Question a Day | Different lens, different price

Q: ambergray asked:

I’m so confused about lenses! I’ve been trying to decide on the next lens to buy and hear a lot of good things about the Canon (or Sigma in my case..) 24-70mm f/2.8. Except even the Sigma 24-70mm is around $800. Then I found the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens and it’s around $400!?? That sounds like the better option to me, more range, but am I completely missing something? Is the 24-70mm really the better choice?

A: I know. This is a great question. It can definitely seem confusing, especially when the numbers are that close together and don’t really seem to be that far off of each other. 

Here’s why one of those — the 24-70mm — is $800-ish while the 17-70mm is $400.

It’s not the focal length, it’s the aperture function at said focal length. 

Both lenses act as both a modest wide angle with zoom functionality and are equally incredibly flexible lenses for portrait, landscape, event and general picture taking merriment.

But the more expensive lens maintains a maximum aperture (opening of the lens) of f/2.8 whether you’re at 24mm or 70mm whereas the other one will only open as wide as f/4.5 at 70mm. If you want to get your opening as wide as f/2.8, you can’t be zoomed in on your subject much beyond 24mm.

Extra jargon alert: One lens I have is a 17-85mm f/4-5.6. Focusing at 17mm, the largest opening I can get on it — aperture — is f/4. At 24mm, it’s f/4.5. At 35mm, it’s f/5. At 50mm, it’s f/5.6, and remains there all the way up to 85mm. 

Numbers aside, what it means is, if you opt for the less expensive lens and have it extended beyond the 17mm mark, and want to keep the exposure the same, you need to lower the shutter speed to compensate for more light getting into the camera. 

You have to look at what type of photography you’re doing primarily, and that can help with the evaluation. If you’re photographing things that allow you to zoom with your feet, meaning get closer to your subject and don’t need to necessarily get to 70mm all the time, you can get away with the $400 lens and not notice much of a difference. 

I always advise to buy the best lens you can afford today, not yesterday or tomorrow. They hold their value much better than camera bodies so you can always resell later and put it towards an upgrade. Don’t settle, but don’t break the bank either.

30 June 3 Permalink