Telephoto (300-mm or 400-mm) for EOS 450D?

I'm thinking of buying an EOS 450D. The specific use will be cricket,
though I'll use it for landscapes and other purposes for which I suppose
that the 18-55-mm will suffice.

1. I'd like a 400-mm telephoto lens. I guess I'd tolerate F5.6, though
larger might extend my scope to winter sports. Any suggestions?

2. I see cheapish Tamron and Sigma 70-300-mm zooms (f4--F5.6) mentioned.
Any good?

3. I have an old Tamron 200-mm F3.5 with an Adaptall-2 M42 mount fitted;
would I be able to resurrect that?

Though this would be my first DSLR, I'm aware of the smaller than
full-frame sensor and the consequent approx. 1.5 apparent increase in
focal length w.r.t. 35-mm film cameras.

TIA,

Jon C.

 

It all depends on how much money you're prepared to spend. Canon make a
400mm f5.6 L USM and in my experience the quality at full aperture is better
very often than zoom lenses used at full aperture. With this lens and a 1.6
conversion factor you get an effective 35mm equivalent focal length of 640mm
which is probably better for cricket than just a straight 400mm. Even then
you might want to use a 1.4x converter for much closer shots. For cheaper
options Canon make a 75-300mm and 70-300mm zooms which gives you a 35mm
equivalent of 480mm at the long end. My friend uses Sigma zooms on his
Canon and the results are good so you have a lot of choices really.

Roger

 

Here is a cheap suggestion. As you are using a Canon DSLR, you can
use any of several brands of manual focus telephoto lens and fit it to
your camera with an adapter. For example, you can use anything with a
Nikon, Pentax M42 screw, Pentax K bayonet, Olympus OM, Contax/Yashica
or even Leica mount. All can be fitted with inexpensive adapters
(available from eBay sellers such as "roxsen") and used on the Canon
EF mount of your 450D. You can buy either a very cheap 'dumb' mount
that merely mounts the lens to the camera, or a more expensive one
which includes electronics that fool the camera body into allowing the
AF sensors to operate, giving you focus confirmation.

If you look on eBay UK you will see manual focus telephoto lenses in
these mounts selling for silly low prices, although Leica and Carl
Zeiss lenses still tend to be expensive as they are in great demand
for use on Canon DSLRs.

[Avoid Minolta, Konica and Canon FL/FD mounts as their Canon EF mount
adapters have to include an optical element which significantly
degrades the image quality.]

Not really. All the consumer-grade 70-300mm zooms tend to perform
reasonably well from 70-200mm but relatively badly from 200-300mm.

Yes. You would need a new or used Tamron Adaptall mount in EOS (Canon
EF) mount to fit your 450D. This is a good lens and should give more
than acceptable results on the 450D.

You might also consider a 1.5X or 2X teleconverter to go with it. You
can buy several brands of these in Canon EF mount. There was a 2X
Tamron teleconverter that fitted between the lens and Adaptall mount,
however this would make changing between 200mm and 400mm a bit of a
chore, as the Adaptall mount is a lot slower to remove and install
than an EF mount teleconverter.

A 1.5X converter would give a 300mm f/4.8. A 2X converter would give
a 400mm f/7.0. Depending on the brand, teleconverters can be
optically pretty good, although a good 400mm lens will tend to produce
better results than a 200mmm with a 2X converter.

In the case of your 450D, the apparent increase in focal length will
be 1.6X, because Canon "APS-C" sensors are smaller than those from
Nikon, Pentax, Samsung and Sony, whose sensors have a factor of 1.5X.

400mm is beyond most people's limit for hand holding. For shooting
cricket, a good quality monopod would be a very wise investment.

 

Sorry, should be 300mm f/5.3.

 

A good 400mm lens will set you back about £800.

I know its shorter than you want but the new Canon EFS 55-250mm has been
getting rave reviews.

--
Paul Giverin

British Jet Engine Website:- www.britjet.co.uk

My photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee

 

I have the 450D with the 18-55 lens.

I also have a cheapish Tamron 70-300 zoom.

I also have a Minolta 70-200 lens with a Minolta to canon lens converter.

All these work great. But the minolta has to manualy focused.

I use a 2x converter which makes the 70-300 into a 180-600.

To convert these to 35mm film sizes you multiply by 1.6. So the makes my
Tamron lens from 112mm to 960mm.

John.

 

Thanks everyone. Instant gratification and all that, today I bought the
£580 two lens + memory + bag bundle (incl. Tamron 70-300-mm) from my
local Jessops.

The only impression so far, while I wait for the battery to charge, is
how light everything is. My previous camera set comprised Pentax
Spotmatics and lenses bought in the 1970s (+ a frustrating spell with 2
1/4 sq. TLRs).

I suppose the next impression will be how easy it is to spoil a nice
afternoon watching cricket.

I'll eventually get round to buying a cheap 500-mm + adaptor on eBay ---
as advised. Pity I sold that 500-mm many years ago.

Thanks and best regards,

Jon C.

 

Maybe put some up somewhere for us to look at.

Its been a long time since I used to play the game.

John.

 

John wrote:
[...]

Sure, that was my intention, though I'll have nothing that I want to
boast about to this newsgroup.

Keep an eye on

http://www.jgcampbell.com/stjcc/

but my purchase seems to have triggered an extraordinarily wet spell and
lighting conditions that seem to be what I remember as f2 1/30th sec.
territory.

Incidentally, I'm reading the manual, but would anyone like to give me
cheat sheet for EOS 450D sports photography?

Specifically, and most simply, with the camera on a tripod and focussed
and composed, I want to be able to press the button to take a picture
immediately. Plus, maybe, a burst.

Best regards,

Jon C.

 

That sounds more like doing football in the middle of winter, something I
used to do including under floodlights. But I wouldn't settle for f2 1/30th
second (especially as my lens was f2.8 which I left it on aperture
priority), I would use whatever ISO setting is available to freeze the
action. I can't speak about the EOS 450D but Canon's are generally not too
noisy at high ISO settings. It depends on the lighting conditions.

I've never done cricket photography but the action is a long way away and
'little figures' don't have a great deal of impact so I would use the
longest lens you have and experiment. If you are including players at a
distance from one another make sure you have enough depth of field as well.
When you take the shot can also make a huge difference and you will develop
an 'eye' for this over time.

Roger

 

First results at:

http://www.jgcampbell.com/stjcc/2008720/

and I'm quite pleased, not least by the cup win!

The 300-mm end of the Tamron 70-300 seems plenty big for my needs.

The camera seems a little willful at times, but I guess I'll have to
accept that it does most things automatically as well or a lot better
that I could do manually.

Best regards,

Jon C.

 

Tamron 70-330mm lense?

Hi John,
I have been reading your quotes on lenses for cricket.
I have been looking at purchasing the canon 450D and a further lense
for sports, particularly cricket. The bundle from Jessops looks good and have a few questions.
1. Were your photo's taken with the Tamron 70-300mm?
2. Did you use the lense at 300mm?
3. Did you have to use a tripod or will you get camera shake?

My main concern was the camera shake without a tripod and was wondering if its worth spending more for the canon 55-250mm or 70-300mm with image stabiliser?

Thanks.

Craig

 

eos 450 with tamarin 300mm lens

Hi, interesting thread, particularly as bought exactly the same package from Jessops - the 450d with the Tamarin 300mm telephoto.

I have absolutely no camera experience beyond holiday snaps, but I do have access to lot of sporting events through my line of work. Before I mix it with the professionals on the touchline, I wanted to practise.

I just took my camera to some games, pointed and clicked. Everything is on auto. I wouldn't know how to set shutter speed and f5.6 could be a low quality car race for all I know.

You can see the results here. These shots were taken 3 hours after I opened the box, everything on auto.


I'm sure experienced photographers would tear them apart, but for an absolute beginner on a budget, I'm pretty pleased in general.

The next step is a move up to 400mm. When shooting from the corner flag, the 300mm gives you quite limited options. Any suggestions for a second hand 400mm lens for less that £800? Lots of bad weather and floodlit shots in Wales.