Hands up -who has a cheapo 55-250mm type lens and never uses it?

.Longshanks.

Following on from a point made in this thread, how many of you bought a 50-250mm kinda range lens around the time you got your first DSLR and now never use it? I did, and apart from a couple moon pics over the winter its never ever used.

In my case I think it came from the point and shot (silly) concept of a long zoom and lots of pixels made a good camera.

....So who else wants to own up?

PopeBuckfastXVI

*gingerly raises hand*

PopeBuckfastXVI

Just went through my website, of 93 photo's I've deemed fit for human consumption only 7 were taken using my 55-200. Mind you one if these is in my all time favourites list, and I'd hate to have missed out on it, so maybe it's worth it.

It's this one:

Slidinginfinity

Shortly after I bought my camera, I bought the cheap Nikkor 70-300mm. Picked it up used for a nice price, from a Boardie, to find out if I would really use the zoom.
While it is not a permanent fixture on my camera and only gets used on occasion, I have discovered that when I want/need the zoom I am glad I have it.

gandalf

I got a Sigma 70-300mm and it only gets slapped on the 40D on very rare occasions these days.

pullandbang

Well Santa brought me a Canon 75-300 USM Zoom and I haven't had a chance to give it a proper outing yet. I did take this shot and love the effect of the compression.



Not the sharpest of lenses and I haven't printed anything yet (though will see this one tomorrow courtesy of katiemaloe:)) so should be interesting to see it blown up.

smelltheglove

I do use it sometimes. About twice ayear.

elven

I think it's worth someone starting out having a large range zoom. If they don't know what specific lens to get, using that for a while will show them which focal lengths they gravitate towards, and its also less scary for anoob to have one single zoomy lens than the prospect of having to choose which lens to use in which situation and change them over.

Of course, I'll then completely contradict myself and say that if i were to choose what kit for a noob, i'd send them out with an entry level dslr with a nifty fifty on it

wersal gummage

did the same. sigma 70-300. took maybe 20 photos in two years with it. stuck it up on adverts and it was gone within 24 hours.

got the canon 70-200 and use it a LOT.:)

Ghost Train

Use it the odd time, sigma 70-300,

some fringing(as above) and lack of sharpness but that sort of stuff can be fixed with software if needed

lissard

I shoot mainly indoors so my Canon 55-250IS is pretty much unused and unloved. If it were F2.8 that might be a different story.

acquiescefc

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

Shortly after I bought my camera, I bought the cheap Nikkor 70-300mm. Picked it up used for a nice price, from a Boardie, to find out if I would really use the zoom.
While it is not a permanent fixture on my camera and only gets used on occasion, I have discovered that when I want/need the zoom I am glad I have it.

and ditto, saved up for the 2.8...a million miles better

Diabhal_Glas

Yup I havent used my Canon 70-300 in a bout 2 years.
To be honest though I had great fun in India with it on a cropped sensor body giving me 480mm zoom (with a high ISO) scoping out photos of passers by in all their colours and glory, from a dark corner
Image quality wasnt the best but hey I got some interesting shots from the shade

Nforce

Soon after I bought my first DSLR ( a Nikon D70s) I bought a Nikon 70-300 VR. Kinda went a little mad in collecting zoom lenses in that range as I've a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 and Tokina 80-400mm too .

It's still used today on my D80 and D300.

Fionn

i use a 70-200 zoom a lot for portraits it gives great bokeh and allows lots of different distances to shoot from, although my fave is the 35mm.
the only lens i haven't used in ages is a Sigma 150mm macro, which i must get to at some stage!

honerbright

Since winter started, I've barely used my 70-200mm as I've only really been shooting indoors, but I do love it for shooting wildlife or at the zoo - great shots without disturbing the animals etc (and gives lovely bokeh.. see below ), and also love it for street photography.
But since I got my 50mm lens, I don't think i've actually used anything else

Kintarō Hattori

Initially when I bought the Sigma 70-300mm I didn't use it that much. Even now I don't use it terribly often as the 50mm stays on most of the time. I don't think I'd get rid of it thought as it has given me several shots that I'm quite happy with such as the below:

The only post processing was some cropping:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka

I think I paid €199 in Conns at the time which was a decent price as I have seen it since around town for as much as €249.

tritium

Bought a nice cheap 55-200 when I got my SLR. I think I've used it about half a dozen times. Love the range but got the Canon 70-200 shortly after for a great price, and I just love that lens!

AnCatDubh

I use a sigma 70-300 from time to time - soft as anything at the extremes, low contrast, aberation, fringing, bad autofocus (hunting, hunting,...) etc, etc... but feic it, perfection can be soooooo overrated folks or at least imperfection can produce some interesting aesthetics.

Yeah, if you are seeking technical perfection then there's not much point in having one of these. But when you go beyond technical perfection you might go put a plastic holga lens on your 20MPx digital body (Its such a great notion if your journey takes you there). Ah but there are so many angles you can take on photography.

I also have a Pentax F 100-300 which is marginally better than the sigma - better colour rendition imho and more contrasty, better autofocus, and not as many aberrations etc.., etc... Now there's a dilemma - do I want a marginally better quality of end image or do I want an extra few mm's focal length.

I guess you can only ever use a limited number of lenses because while they are of course interchangeable you probably won't have time to change when you would like to - as dynamically as scenes may change if you are out and about.

I agree with the poster earlier who loves the focal length induced bokeh that you can get if that is what you are looking for. I like it lots.

For me, at the present stage, I tend to plan a bit better than I have done previously so if i'm organising in my head what i'm going to shoot I probably will be reasonably specific in what lens I bring.

Speaking of poor quality lens. My most recent interest comes from a rikenon 50mm manual yoke which I got on ebay for about 10 yoyos - meh, maybe it was 15 now that I think about it. I didn't bother with it for about 2 years but of late i'm lovin it (da, da, da, da, daaahhhhh).

Its manual focus. The camera doesn't like when its attached and can't read the aperture. Metering won't work when using it - I presume it mustn't have the right contacts, so one might think what a heap of c**p. Well, maybe its not worth very much money which means that value wise, I'm probably doing pretty ok with it.

And better still I'm having a heap of fun choosing what to shoot, as i'm being forced to do so. You don't have much choice with it. I'm presently liking the optics and aesthetic it yields. Fair enough, it might be just for me but in some ways a large part of photography should be 'me' driven imho.

Chorcai

I have the 70-300mm sigma APO, it does marco on the 200-300mm range which is a bit handy. I only have 2 lens the other been the 50mm. Saving for some L glass, either the 24-105L F4 (it looks so sechy !) or the 70-200L non IS (poor student !)

freddyhard

i bought a cheap 55-300mm lens with my pentax, but i use it all the time. of course i'm not a photographer like everyone here.

AnCatDubh

freddyhard wrote: »

i bought a cheap 55-300mm lens with my pentax, but i use it all the time. of course i'm not a photographer like everyone here.

A 55 - 300 is a lovely general purpose range. I'm not surprised that you use it all the time.

Hmnnn.... would it be overkill if I had a 70-300, a 100-300, and now bought a 55 - 300?????

Quackles

I had an 18-200mm but sold it on, I'm more into width these days

freddyhard

AnCatDubh wrote: »

A 55 - 300 is a lovely general purpose range. I'm not surprised that you use it all the time.

Hmnnn.... would it be overkill if I had a 70-300, a 100-300, and now bought a 55 - 300?????

well the OP asks who has a cheapo 55-250mm lens and does not use it. i'm just curious as to why anyone would buy a lens and not use it - unless cheap means poor quality photos . if so, then where does cheap become expensive and worth while? i'm considering buying a sigma 150-500 (a cheap one naturally), because the 300mm isn't enough.

in answer to your (rhetorical?) question another 300 would be overkill. unless it was a better build and expect to get sharper images.

Ricky91t

I have a zoom of worse range than that and I always use it(Sigma 70-200 f/2.8) my sigma 20-40 f/2.8 barely ever sees the light of day now..And the Sigma 70-200 is very sharp at f/2.8

Maybe that's why it spent more time on my camera than when I had my 90-300

freddyhard

Ricky91t wrote: »

I have a zoom of worse range than that and I always use it(Sigma 70-200 f/2.8) my sigma 20-40 f/2.8 barely ever sees the light of day now..And the Sigma 70-200 is very sharp at f/2.8

Maybe that's why it spends more time on my camera than my 90-300

so why did you buy the 90-300 or the 70-200, which ever came first?

nice photo of the donkey (i hope he survived the snow), but why did you remove the EXIF data? i always find it interesting to see what settings others use while taking a photo.

Ricky91t

freddyhard wrote: »

so why did you buy the 90-300 or the 70-200, which ever came first?

nice photo of the donkey (i hope he survived the snow), but why did you remove the EXIF data? i always find it interesting to see what settings others use while taking a photo.

I got the 90-300 cause it was cheap and Until that point the only lens I had for my camera was an MF Kodak 80-200 which was crap :pac:

The 70-200 was an upgrade as I got more into sports photography.

Sorry for removing the exif,It might be lightroom that does it as I import all my photos through that..And I' always leave the exif intact

There is some there:
Camera Make Canon
Camera Model Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Exposure 0.0025 sec (1/400)
F-Number f4
Focal Length 205 mm
Exposure Bias 0
X Resolution 240 dpi
Y Resolution 240 dpi
Date and Time (Original) 2010:01:10 15:11:43
Date and Time (Digitized) 2010:01:10 15:11:43
Maximum Lens Aperture 4
ISO Speed ISO-400
Flash Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Metering Mode Pattern
Date Time 2010:01:10 17:11:35
Artist Richard Toolan
Aperture 4
Shutter Speed 8.643856

Ettna

Longshanks100 wrote: »

Following on from a point made in this thread, how many of you bought a 50-250mm kinda range lens around the time you got your first DSLR and now never use it? I did, and apart from a couple moon pics over the winter its never ever used.

In my case I think it came from the point and shot (silly) concept of a long zoom and lots of pixels made a good camera.

....So who else wants to own up?

I got a Canon 50 - 250 mm is lens two years ago and find it good for outdoors and landscape and even getting close up to insects and butterflies etc in the summer.

I would like to have a 50mm lens but cant decide between the 1.4 and 1.8. Is the 1.4 worth the extra.

What lens do you find most useful?

pullandbang

pullandbang wrote: »

Well Santa brought me a Canon 75-300 USM Zoom and I haven't had a chance to give it a proper outing yet. I did take this shot and love the effect of the compression.

Got another chance to use the 75-300mm on Saturday night with the Boards Flash Mob!

I do like the compression effect.......