# Requesting example of 500mm lense shot



## Flowbee (Nov 25, 2006)

I dont mean just one picture but a picture of a far away object without using a 500mm lens and then a picture of the same object using one for comparison.  I just want to get an idea of how much zoom power this is and see if its worth shelling out the money for one of those big hunky things. Thanks.


----------



## Peanuts (Nov 25, 2006)

Someone might be able to do that for you, but have you also considered renting a 500mm for a day or weekend? That would give you a much more 'hands on' experience and will help you better determine whether it is necessary in your lens line up


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 26, 2006)

This link doesn't have 500mm (400mm to 600mm) but it has the same view from wide angle to super telephoto. Good example that you are looking for. Just click the green button to change focal length either way.

There is a link at the bottom "lens comparision chart"  It will bring up all photos at once.
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lens101/focallength/index.html


----------



## Flowbee (Nov 26, 2006)

Peanuts said:
			
		

> Someone might be able to do that for you, but have you also considered renting a 500mm for a day or weekend? That would give you a much more 'hands on' experience and will help you better determine whether it is necessary in your lens line up



Yea I'd like to see some of your photos taken that demonstrate the ability of the 500mm (or similar) at a given distance. Renting might be a good idea but right now I just have a small point and shoot that cant change lenses. Plan to invest in a quality SLR soon and wondering if its worth buying a big telephoto lens with it.



			
				benhasajeep said:
			
		

> This link doesn't have 500mm (400mm to 600mm) but it has the same view from wide angle to super telephoto. Good example that you are looking for. Just click the green button to change focal length either way.
> 
> There is a link at the bottom "lens comparision chart"  It will bring up all photos at once.
> http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflens...gth/index.html



That is awesome. That was from a digital camera right? I thought I heard the MM lengths mean different results between digital and film cameras...


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 26, 2006)

No, just a comparision of the view you get with each lens focal length.  The key word is angle of view.  But is it for regular film 35mm view.


----------



## sp_key (Nov 26, 2006)

There is a simulator here: http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

This will give you a pretty clear idea.


----------



## Flowbee (Nov 26, 2006)

Thanks.

One more question about these....

The examples I saw were taken in the day time. If you wanted to take a picture of the moon or something in dark conditions.....If you have your camera setup on a tripod, how long does it take to shoot an acceptable looking picture? Seconds? Minute? The camera has to process longer right?


----------



## LWW (Nov 26, 2006)

The easiest way to shoot the Moon is to use the "sunny 16" rule, and bracket.

The Moon is very bright, everything else is dark.

LWW


			
				Flowbee said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> One more question about these....
> 
> The examples I saw were taken in the day time. If you wanted to take a picture of the moon or something in dark conditions.....If you have your camera setup on a tripod, how long does it take to shoot an acceptable looking picture? Seconds? Minute? The camera has to process longer right?


----------



## astrostu (Nov 27, 2006)

Flowbee said:
			
		

> The examples I saw were taken in the day time. If you wanted to take a picture of the moon or something in dark conditions.....If you have your camera setup on a tripod, how long does it take to shoot an acceptable looking picture? Seconds? Minute? The camera has to process longer right?



This was recently discussed in a different thread, but since I don't remember where/which at the moment, I'll summarize (assuming you're shooting the moon):

(1)  Shoot in manual mode because it's a very bright object against a very dark background so your camera won't know how to expose.
(2)  Personally, aperture really doesn't matter to me for these, so I would suggest a relatively low f-number so you can get a faster shot.
(3)  Exposure time for a full moon for me is generally around 1/200 sec.  That's 0.005 sec, so not on the order of minutes.
(4)  Use a low ISO or the image will look grainy.  Since your exposure is short anyway, a slightly longer exposure for the low ISO won't matter.
(5)  I don't know what you mean by asking if the camera has to process longer ... it's just a normal shot.

Shooting other stuff at night is different, but again, I'm assuming that you're just asking about taking pictures of the moon.


----------



## Flowbee (Nov 27, 2006)

OK this thread has made things more clear for me. I'm planning to get a DSLR and make my first lens addition a telephoto lens. I asked that last question because I read somewhere that pictures are usually darker when using the longest focal lengths and can give you extra problems in dim light unless you buy a lens that has a real low F-number like F2 to F4 which means $$$$


----------



## THORHAMMER (Dec 2, 2006)

that thing on canons website is cool, but I think its misleading a little. 

it just crops in. thats not at all what a real lens does. 

when you zoom in with a real lens you get compression things look flattned 

together, its an awsome look, and the reverse when you go wide. 

Also keep in mind if you get a 500mm or bigger, its very very hard to get 

any wildlife shots at the nice light (dusk, dawn) because of the aperature. 

probably birds flying will be too blurry at dawn or dusk... unless you go 

really high iso and introduce some grain.

Im just saying theres a tradeoff with everything, your not gonna run 

around handholding shots with this thing.. it needs a seperate tripod just

 for the lens !!! keep that all in mind !!!


----------

