1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Recommended a Canon EF lens (please)

Discussion in 'Lens Matters' started by Scott French, May 22, 2021.

  1. Scott French

    Scott French New Member

    Hello everyone!

    I'm brand new hear and reletively new to the world of photography. I'm loving it so far and feel I'm learning a lot so far.

    I own a Canon EOS M50 With the 15-45mm kit lens at the moment.

    I quite like taking landscape pictures and I want to venture into the world of wildlife.

    While the kit lens does it's job, I feel that there must be better lenses that will help me take the photographs I want for the above subjects.

    What would you guys suggest?

    Thanks in advance.

    Scott.
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Hi Scott, welcome to the forum.

    It is a mixed thing as to whether “better” lenses help you take “better” photographs. The success of a picture is down mainly to composition and getting technical things right such as focus, exposure and avoiding camera shake. It is “true” that if you spend £2,000 on a lens it should produce cleaner, sharper results than a £200 lens but everything else needs to be right too and the difference can be smaller than you think. It is also “true” that some examples of lenses are off-spec and perform less well than they should, but that is rare.

    You mention wildlife photography so perhaps you mean what is a good lens for wildlife? This is a different question to what EF lens would outperform the kit zoom. It also depends on what wildlife you are talking about. Taking pictures of small things at great distance is difficult. For birding, for example, a focal length of 400 mm (full frame equivalent) is a traditional “affordable” starting point and Canon do the EF 400 L F5.6. This is too long for walking around the zoo with, especially on an APS-C camera, so the 100-400 L zoom (mk ii) is a more expensive alternative. BUT I have no idea how useable such lenses are on a small camera mirrorless camera such as the M50. Certainly it isn’t something you should rush into buying without trying. I’ve never used a M50.
     
    peterba likes this.
  3. Scott French

    Scott French New Member

    Thank you so much for your reply. I guess I'm just looking for a quick 'solution' really rather than actually practicing shots with what I have. May I ask what camera(s) you use and what you like to photograph?
     
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Practice makes perfect :). You can have a lot of fun with "big" wildlife without needing a really big lens.

    I'm not sure that what I use is much help to you. My main purchases were made before mirrorless cameras came along. For birds I use a camera I bought in 2012.

    I do a use mirrorless cameras when I don't want to carry the big cameras around but I haven't bought any long lenses for them. My longest mirrorless lens is a 55-200 mm zoom (max 300 mm full frame equivalent field of view). It is OK for large wildlife like deer and environmental shots. It would be fine for the zoo and larger birds such as ducks, geese and swans that let you get close. Mostly people using APS-C cameras will get a zoom out to about 300 mm (actual focal length) as their longest lens. Longer gets more expensive.

    This isn't a great picture just a snap at 200 mm focal length, using Fuji mirrorless, with a small crop so it is closer to what a ~300 mm zoom would do.

    [​IMG]DSCF2545.jpg by Pete, on Flickr
     
  5. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I can't help with Canon lenses, as I don't use Canon cameras, but I can ask good questions.

    What do you mean by
    Wild life varies in size from a few mm to several metres so which end of that spectrum interests you?
    I take birds using a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.7x converter giving me a 340mm focal length with a full frame camera. Under the right conditions that can be too long for larger birds but it can be too short for garden birds.
    For larger wild animals, red deer for example the same combination can work well but for smaller deer, where getting close isn't a good idea, it can be too short.
    The price of that combination, used, was around £1,500 is that within your budget*?

    Landscape is another matter, I have used the 70-200 for landscape but more normally I use a 24-70 f2.8, you don't actually need the wide aperture but I like the shallow depth of field it makes available. I also have 14-24 lens which can be useful for some landscapes. Again it depends on the type of landscape you enjoy.

    My suggestion, probably in common with others on here, would be to play with what you have and then see where it falls short of your requirements. I would expect that would be around the "too short for wild life" region but find out for yourself. Then come back and ask for a more specific recommendation.

    * I ask because if you can't afford the 70-200 f2.8 you won't be able to use a converter because the resulting combination may be too slow for AF and quite possibly Canon converters won't even fit slower Canon lenses.
     
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    The rule book on max aperture for AF gets thrown away with the latest mirrorless. Canon has two F11 telephotos in the R range which can be used with teleconverters. With an electronic viewfinder you can actually “see” at F22 and the on-sensor AF also works down there. BUT for this questioner I’ve no idea about how low a light the M series cameras will work at.
     

Share This Page