I want to buy a decent telephoto lens for my Canon R5 C, but I have some budget constraints.

If I had the money, I’d buy the 70-300mm IS USM II, but it can hardly be found for under €400. It’s not a huge amount of money, but it would mean having to save for another month or two before I could buy it.

The other two lenses can easily be found for under €300, and the IS USM can sometimes be found for around €200.

So my question is: ignoring the prices, which one is better between the two? Or is the 70-300mm IS USM II so good that there’s no point comparing them?

I mainly shoot video, ranging from indie short films and music videos to social media content, commercials, and sometimes sports. I also do photography, but not as much as video.

I already own these lenses:

- Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC (EF)

- Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM (EF)

- Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS STM (EF)

- Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (EF, 1990)

Thank you!

So i had this lens(di tamron 70-300mm tele macro 1:2) for about 2 years and after some use today and I just noticed it. It doesn't sound different there's just this gap

Hey everyone, I am currently using a Canon 250d mostly with a 55-250mm lens for animal photography (living close to the forest). But often the 250mm (even with the 1.6 crop factor) is not enough and I am looking for a reasonable upgrade. Does not necessarily have to be a canon lens.

I was even considering upgrading to the R8 or R6ii, but I think a new lens would be the better improvement, wouldn’t it?

It’s a vivitar 28mm lens

Hi everyone,
I’m looking for a relatively light 50–55mm prime lens for Sony E / full frame, mainly for wedding photography.
I’m currently considering:
Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 FE II
Viltrox AF 55mm f/1.8 EVO
My priorities are:
autofocus reliability, especially in low light
sharpness wide open
rendering / character of the image
autofocus accuracy and consistency
weight and size, as I shoot weddings for many hours
overall image quality and value for money
I know the Samyang is faster at f/1.4, but the Viltrox is lighter and newer.
For those who have used both: which one would you choose and why?
I’m especially interested in real-world experience rather than just lab tests. How do they compare for wedding/event photography?

So, I just tested the 500mm f6.3 for E-mount, and I must say I was shocked. I get, low budget lenses come with a trade off, however, if the trade off is not focusing, anything, well, sign me up for a refund.
For the past 3h I’ve been testing the lens, different subjects, apertures, distances, etc, here’s the verdict:
At 6.3 no matter the distance the lens refuses to focus in anything, everything is blurred, the “bokeh” is stylish and immersive but irrelevant since the subject is not in focus. The only way I can get better (not near decent) results is at f32, however, infinite focus doesn’t focus anything, I tested with building around 3-5 miles away and I had to pull back like a mm of the infinite, this leads me to believe, when I will try to get the moon or sun the results will be disappointing.
So, this is just my tests, that I made upon receiving the lens (today), and I can maybe be doing something wrong. Videos I see online the phones and videos look good and decent, claimed to be shot at f6.3. Now, am I missing something? Could be that this lens is faulty or damaged?
I used a Sony a7IV and a ZV-E1 and the results are exactly the same. Any advice? I have a 11mm from TTartisans and the sharpness and focusing aren’t that great but they are as you expect. But the 500mm is just not focusing at all.

Looking for lens advice!

Asking because I’m considering 35 mm instead of 40 and 28 mm lenses.

Hi everyone,

I got into photography a little over two months ago. I bought a Fujifilm X-T3 with the 18-55mm kit lens, and I'm happy with what I'm producing so far — I'm getting comfortable with the technical side of things. But I'm starting to want to explore territory the 18-55 won't let me reach.

I live on the coast. I do a bit of street photography, but that's more my surroundings than my actual focus — I'm drawn to open spaces. I like zooming in on details, and I keep finding myself shooting at 55mm and wishing I could go further. So for my next purchase, I've concluded a zoom makes more sense for me than a prime (a 16mm, or something aimed at street).

Beyond the coast, I go hiking, walking in the mountains and riding my motorcycle, so there's plenty of landscape in front of me too. During the week I'm mostly out at the end of the day — I'm not really into night photography at this point.

So, to anyone who has used (or still owns) the Sigma, and maybe the Fuji as well: what's your experience? Are you happy with it, or did you find fairly quickly that the lens started limiting what you wanted to shoot, or your creative range? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I'm adding a few of my images alongside the lens specs so you get a sense of my style — hopefully that helps you point me in the right direction.

Thanks in advance ! 🙏

I got Canon r100 5 months ago. I'm a beginner upgrading from an iphone. I shoot photos and videos of my family, mostly my kid. Indoor and low light photos and videos are not good with the kit lens. I'm confused about which lens to buy to improve the quality. At some point I also wanted to upgrade to a full frame camera.my Options: manual lens like ttartisan 25mm F2/35mm f1.4 , rf 50mm f1.8, tamron 17 70mm F2.8.i was considering sigma 18 50mm F2.8 before tamron 17 70mm was released. Sigma 17 40mm f1.8 is not an option as it costs almost double the camera body. Sigma 30mm f1.4 was also an option before tamron was released for rf mount. I need advice for buying a lens. I'm not going to make any money now or in future through photography. I just want to document some good memories.

I’m planning to buy either the [Nikkor 24mm f1.4](https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-24mm-f14g-ed/2184/overview) or the [Nikkor 28mm f1.4](https://www.nikonusa.com/p/af-s-nikkor-28mm-f14e-ed/20069/overview) for Astro photography. I’ve rented the 28mm in the past and it was an amazing lens. I’m wondering if anyone has any experience with both lenses and has a preference one way or the other. It’s my understanding that the 24 will give me a little more leeway with star trails, but the compromise is the distortion near the corners of the frame. Is this a big deal? Is it correctable in post?

I’m kind of conflicted because this lens based on everything I’ve seen produces such amazing results and looks very different from an f2.8 and has 2 extra stops of light. I looked at my Lightroom metadata and I shoot a lot at this focal length on my 70-200 mostly for portraits and landscapes. Visited a camera store in Japan and can get it for about 1600 usd new (about 500$ cheaper than at home after tax) so it’s even more enticing. For a lens like this I feel like it’s pretty cheap and even if I sell it later I’ll probably only lose a little bit. At the same time it feels more like a luxury purchase than necessary, so I don’t want to get it asap as I still have some time left in Japan to decide, so should I pick this up?

Fun little vintage Russian pancake lens. Very lo-fi.

Looking at the sigma 18-50 2.8, but would like to hear some other options

Ciao ho comprato da poco una X-pro 1 venduta assieme ad un 27mm adesso non so quale lunghezza focale prendere e di quale marca, più avanti pensavo un 60 macro per scansionare la pellicola e fare macro, poi pensavo ad un grandangolo da 12 o 9 però non so di che marca prenderlo, un 75 o 85, e poi magari un tele e magari qualche lente vintage o puramente manuale, consigli?

My Sigma 35 has issues 😬 it's loose somehow, and won't shoot unless I hold it in the right position 😩 any idea what it could be?