Canon lenses

Well, as you know, Sheal, I'm a Pentax man so Canon is an unknown area for me. But the obvious step up in lens from a 55-250mm would be a 500mm. There are quite a few 75-300mm on E-Bay from around £75 upwards but to be honest that's not much of an increase in telephoto reach. There are two problems with a 500mm lens though, [a] price even if second hand and size and weight which makes it awkward to take hand held shots, although you can. I sure that there are quite a few Canon users who should be able to give you good advice.

 

Well, if you do decide to go for a 500mm then the Sigma 150-500mm f5.6-6.3 APO DG OS HSM lens or the Sigma 50-500mm f5.6-6.3 OS HSM lens are pretty good and should cost less that a Canon lens. I use the Sigma 150-500mm lens and I like it.

You're right, they are made of a light material but they're still quite a lump and heavy. Most photographers will use a Tripod with a gimbal, [as I do], to make sure they get a steady shot. An ordinary tripod head won't take the combined weight of a camera and large lens and it will lean down.

I'm surprised no one else has come into the thread as there are a lot of Canon users out there!!

 

Hmmm, not often do I disagree with you, Dave, but I deliberately didn't mention the option of using a converter because I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. I have a 2X Pentax converter and another two that I used in experiments. But to be honest I find the loss in light gathering and the loss, to me, in resolution plus the increase in camera shake if you try to hand shoot doesn't make me happy or confident in using them. Therefore I would always use a tripod if I'd got a converter on a lens

 

Yes, you're right, Dave. The higher the ISO [up to say 800] would give the higher shutter speed to help eliminate camera shake. I wouldn't take it beyond that due to "noise" problems.

What I was thinking of was trying to make the increase in lens size easier and simpler for Sheal by recommending a prime lens which wouldn't hand her any other problems than size or weight.. Any of the 500mm's are a lump but with a little practice good shots can be gained with them using hand held methods and I'm pretty sure that Sheal is determined and talented enough to be able to use one effectively with practice. However, you and I know that a bigger lens isn't always the answer in getting good wildlife shots....being sneaky and getting closer to the target without spooking it can be 80% of getting the shot!! But if Sheal does decide to go for a bigger lens then we both know she'll need a good tripod and mount

 

A Converter is a device that you attach between a camera and a lens which basically magnifies the focal length of the lens depending on the magnifying strength of the converter i.e: X1.5, X2, X3. But in doing so it loses the original light gathering maximum aperture of the lens and makes the lens less efficient of gathering light. So if it was an f2 lens using a converter could make it slower into a f5.6 which would mean using a slower shutter speed than you might want ot.. It also reduces the resolution of the lens making the image softer when you take the photograph. Also because it also pulls the center of the picture into the frame you get an increase of the normal camera shake if taking a hand held shot. I think it could work better on a tripod but you still have the problem of loss of lens resolution and light gathering abilities.

 

The more information and opinions the better, Sheal. Dave has the right idea in saving you getting a bigger lens but he acknowledges the problems that a converter solution could give you. Take your time in sizing up the situation and take all the advice you can!! Let us all know how you get on.