Reddit mentions of Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras, Lens Only

Save up some money to purchase the Canon EF 75-200 f/4L for $700. It's worth the wait.

70-200 f/4 L

• L glass
  
• very, very sharp
  
  The 75-300 is one of if not the crappiest tele in Canon's lineup. If I had to choose between the two, I would get the 55-250

I'm a Canon guy, so I'm slightly prejudiced, but I'd consider something like a 40D or 50D body with something along the lines of the 70-200mm F4 L
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5

You should be looking somewhere in the range of $1600-1700 for the pair, which would give you some room for a nice tripod, and a few other random bits. You may want to spend some extra and get the camera body + kit lens, or look into a lower range telephoto to start your rig out though.

I second this. You should be able to get this combo with about 200 bucks to spare right now. If you buy used, maybe even cheaper. The only problem is that the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is highly sought after right now. So if you purchase it, it may take a day or two to come in. I wouldn't waste your time with the FE version of the 50mm f/1.8 since its autofocus in the dark environments can be quite unreliable. The 85mm f/1.8 is a really great bang for buck prime you can get for around $500 bucks.

There's also the option of upgrading what you already have. I don't know too much about Canon lenses since I'm a Sony user. But for your A6000, I'd consider getting either of the Sigma f/1.4 lenses (16mm, 30mm, 56mm) if you got any left over cash. That way you'll have a body with a nice creamy prime and another one with a solid zoom for more versatility. Telephoto options for Sony are scarce and I think all the ones that are f/2.8 will eat up your entire budget. There's f/4 options or you can adapt a Canon telephoto for much cheaper.

a7ii

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Alpha-Mirrorless-Digital-Camera/dp/B00PX8CHO6/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=a7ii&qid=1556891983&s=gateway&sr=8-3


Tamron Lens

https://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Mirrorless-Limited-Warranty/dp/B07CSLM1X8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=tamron+28+75&qid=1556892002&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Sony 85mm f/1.8

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL85F18-1-8-22-Medium-Telephoto-Camera/dp/B06WLGFWGX/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=85+f%2F1.8&qid=1556892184&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Sigma 16mm f/1.4

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-16mm-DC-DN-Contemporary/dp/B077BWD2BB/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+16&qid=1556893117&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Sigma 30mm f/1.4

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Contemporary-Lens/dp/B01C3SCKI6/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+30&qid=1556893096&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Sigma 56mm f/1.4

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Contemporary-Advanced-Travel-Bundle/dp/B07KSFNG5H/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=sigma+56+f+1.4&qid=1556893069&s=gateway&sr=8-1


Sigma MC-11 Canon EF mount to Sony FE mount converter

https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Converter-Adapter-EF-Mount-Essential/dp/B01D0JN6NU/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=sigma+mc11&qid=1556893034&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Canon

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=CANON+EF+70-200&qid=1556892462&s=gateway&sr=8-3

A used 70-200 f/4L USM (the non-IS version) will run about $400.

You can get the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 STM version for much cheaper and just as sharp, although it could be a little slow for birds. Unfortunately, wildlife photography is probably the most expensive niche of photography there is, with lenses costing upwards of $10,000+.

Just remember that there are 2 versions one with Image Stabilization and one without. The price difference is quite different too so buy carefully.

With IS 70-200mm L

Without IS 70-200mm L

I recommend the 75-200 f4 lens. I love the quality of this lens and it is on the cheaper side.

>First, IMO you severly underestimate the proportion of oil-drenched ducks to photographers. You're pulling that idea directly from your imagination, not from facts.

Ah. Ok - I agree, facts are always best. So - can you tell me how many oil-drenched ducks there are vs. photographers, what the exact ratio is? Because - being the advocate of facts that you are, I'm certain you didn't pull that statement from your imagination. Or elsewhere.

>Second, if photographers were to actually interfere with the work, they would get booted legitimately and nobody here has any problem with that to my knowledge.

Snarkiness aside, this gets to my point. If there were no distance limitations whatsoever, photographers and every John Doe Blogger would be interfering with the actual work getting done. So there's got to be some limitation defined, I hope you would agree? You're not allowed to walk onto an active police crime scene and get pictures of the dead bodies, because you might interfere with the work getting done or negatively impact the scene somehow. So why is this any different?

I think it's all a matter of distance -- if it were 200 meters, I would be in agreement as well that the range is ridiculous, and actually would be difficult to get any photos. But 20 meters is a piece of cake even for a decent 200mm lens.

Ill give you my two bits, as I have been doin this for a long while now.

Before you can really dive into deep celestial photography, you're going to need to get a telephoto lens--these can be had for anywhere from $200, to $15,000! I'd suggest a Canon 70-200 4.0(http://www.amazon.com/camera-photo/dp/B000053HH5). It's affordable, and great quality. It's no where near the spectacular image you'd get from the 2.8 ISII version, but for sub $400, it's a favorite for astrotography.

Next, you're going to want to look into a technique called photo stacking. Does this sound simple? Good, because it is!

The process is three steps:

LIGHT FRAMES: These shots are your image. You take a series of 400 photos of SIMILAR exposures...so, that's 400 of the same shot. If you have a good night sky with bright stars, I'd recommend opening your lens upto its lowest aperture, range your ISO right around 400 to 640, and set your shutter accordingly. Set your White Balance to your sky tone. Again, if you want that frozen-in-time shot, with no star trails, than you're not going to want to go past 3 2 or 3 seconds. Now, once that is set up, snap away till you hit around 400 exposures.

DARK FRAMES: Dont touch a thing! These shots are meant to help counteract the noise you're going to be getting from the previously mentioned step. Leaving your settings exactly as they are (white balance, shutter, aperture, iso), throw your lens cap on and take about 20 shots.

BIAS FRAMES: Similar to dark frames, you'll take 20 more shots with the lens cap on, at the same settings. The difference here, you want to crank your shutter to the fastest setting possible (1/8000th second on my 5D2/5D3).

After all your shots are taken, load them up into a stacking software such as Deep Sky Stacker(http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html)

The program is outdated, but still works flawlessly, and is completely automated. All you do is assign your Light, Dark & Bias frames accordingly, let it run, and "fiddle" with your RGB until you get a desired "starting point".

Take the final "RAW" image (in TIFF 16/bit) into your favorite photo editor, add your flair, and be amazed!

Okay, so here is what I have so far:

Canon 6d Body Only - $999 Canon EOS 6D 20.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only) - Wi-Fi Enabled https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009B0MZ8U/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_ztfUAbQ2EFJEK

200mm telephoto lens - $599 Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000053HH5/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_xvfUAbCW0138S

Gimbal - $65 The OFFICIAL ROXANT PRO video camera stabilizer Limited Edition (Midnight Black) With Low Profile Handle for GoPro, Smartphone, Canon, Nikon - or any camera up to 2.1 lbs. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00S10KFTC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_YxfUAb4K36DB2

Look good?

So you think a 70-200 would be good enough alone for just starting out?

No need to buy a 50mm prime lens?

This is the 70-200 I was thinking about buying for her. There is also this one. I'm not really sure the difference except for price.

This is the 50mm

The 35-350 is [around 900](http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1052657&highlight=35-350
) these days, which is pretty inexpensive for an 'L' tele. The reason it's so cheap is the variable (and small) max aperture, and relatively low performance. It's also a pretty old lens.

The 28-300 is a [bit more expensive](http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1067292&highlight=28-300
), mostly because of the addition of IS and slightly better image quality. I would say 1950 is an unreasonable price for this lens, I expect you could find it for 1500 or less.

The new 70-200 2.8 ii is around 2.4k new, and around 2k used.

As far as a good "beginner" tele lens, you have to know what you want. 200mm on a crop body is decent reach, but it's not going to blow your mind; if you need something longer, I'd look at the various Canon 70-300 offerings. The top end of this bracket is the 70-300 L IS for around 1500, and the low end is the standard Canon 70-300 IS which goes for around 4-500. I typically recommend getting the best glass you can afford; if you are serious about it, you will soon outgrow the "regular" Canon 70-300.

Note that all the 70-300s have variable apertures, which can be a dealbreaker for some. If you wanted my one recommendation for a starter tele lens, it would be the Canon 70-200 F/4. Its incredibly sharp wide open, has a fixed max aperture, and is a GREAT value (700 new, ~500 used).

But again, it's all dependent on what your use case is, so do think about that before dropping 1k+ on some glass :).

Hope this helps!

EDIT: formatting

What telephoto, Canon EF lens would you suggest? New, or lightly used is ok too. It doesn't have to be a Canon brand. I'd like to stay as far below $1,000 as I can. I don't care much about what the lower focal length is as I have other lenses that cover those, but I'd like the upper length from 200-300mm. This is going on a 6D.

I'm debating between the Canon 70-300 IS USM, the Canon 70-200 L, or the Tamron 70-300. Should I stay away from any of these, or is there another one to consider?

Thanks!