Next Lens after 55-200

[ElChago420]

I have an M50...the lens I have now is the 55-200mm.
Whats the next lens I can buy above the 55-200?. I am aware that I would need to get an adapter due to the M50 not having many lenses. Right now Im using my camera to capture my daughter playing softball and sometimes I sit far in The outfield so I want something I can zoom in with. Can I get some feedback on what Type of lens and adapter I could get

[Waddizzle]

---

@ElChago420 wrote:
I have an M50...the lens I have now is the 55-200mm.
Whats the next lens I can buy above the 55-200?. I am aware that I would need to get an adapter due to the M50 not having many lenses. Right now Im using my camera to capture my daughter playing softball and sometimes I sit far in The outfield so I want something I can zoom in with. Can I get some feedback on what Type of lens and adapter I could get

---

Before I get into gear suggestions I have a couple of questions.  Would I be correct in assuming that your daughter plays the outfield?  ...and this is why you sometimes sit far in the outfield?

If you want really nice, detailed pictures of a subject, then you need to be as close to your subject as what is practical.

If you own an M Series camera body, and do not have the Canon EF-M lens mount adapter, then I suggest that you buy one.  Beware of buying low priced, third party adapters.  Some of them do not support autofocus and aperture control. 

In addition to the lens mount adapter, you may want to consider investing in a monopod, or tripod, to support heavy EF lenses when you use them with the adapter.  With exception of “pancake” lenses, you will need to support EF mount lenses via the tripod foot supplied with the Canon EF-M mount adapter.

Even if you were not using an M-Series with an adapter, a monopod is smart investment for sports photography.  Your hands and arms will fatigue over the course of a game, which will lead to camera shake and OOF, out-of-focus, photographs.  You will see just about any professional photographer on the sidelines of a baseball game using a monopod.

After those two investments, then I would recommend the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM telephoto zoom lens.  Tamron sells a lens that is nearly identical to it, except when it comes to performance in image quality.  They are both very good lenses, but most reviewers seem to favor the Sigma version.

That is my advice for a lens.  But, my first advice was to get as close to your subject as what is practical.  When I shoot baseball games, I like being near first base.  I can get good shots of the batter, because most are right handed.  Most plays are to first base, anyway.  I also have a good view of second base because I will sit slightly on the outfield side of the base.

[Ray-uk]

Buying extra lenses is not compulsory, only you can decide which focal length of lens that you need to cater for the type of subjects that you commonly photograph.

Take some sime to analyze the photos you have taken so far, (the focal length used is in the EXIF information), if you find that you frequently have to crop shots and enlarge them then you probably need a longer focal length. If you find that you often have difficulty getting everything you need into a shot then you need a wider angle lens.

[ebiggs1]

"I have an M50.."

A far better question is what camera should I buy.  Check out the 80D.

[ElChago420]

Thank you for the responses...I do have a monopod which is really great...My daughter plays 3rd base. But I sit in the outfield as to not get thrown out of the game for making comments. I have been moving around from one side of the field to the other... First base side is my favorite because My daughter is a right handed batter and Ive been able to get great shots of her...Ive tryed to capture the plays at 3rd base but I find myself watching the play instead of snapping away... I still got to get used to holding down the button for them rapid shots..I tend to push softly sometimes and I don't capture everything I want. Anyways...thank you for your suggestions

[Tronhard]

I have a Canon M5, which is essentially the same setup physically as the M50.   I too have the 55-200 lens, and while I usually work with a DSLR above that focal range, if you were looking for a longer reach then I would consider these things:

1.  As has been said already, getting closer is the cheapest and most practical option.  If that is not a possiblity then...

2.  You will need a decent adaptor (you have already been warned about the poorer non-OEM units).  Realize that whatever you put in front of that is going to add weight to the camera forward of the body, causing potential balance issues and stress on the lens mounts ( you will have 2 such interfaces if you have the adaptor).  I personally am not keen on that, hence my preference for DSLRs, and they have battery grips for improved balance as well.   You have not mentioned budget, so that makes it difficult to zero in on your preferred range of options, however I would consider the Canon EF 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS II that I reviewed in another thread  (Non-L 70-300 mm Lenses).  

I suggest considering this unit for a few reasons:

   (a) I assume you went to the small physical format of the EOS M50 for a reason, possibly weight or bulk(?), and this lens

         is relatively light, so won't unbalance the camera too much, also it would put less strain on the various lens mounts - a

         good sign is that it does not come with its own tripod mount, but the adaptor for the EOS M to EF lens does.

   (b) With a crop sensor it will give you a field of view Equivalent to that of a 112-480mm lens on a FF camera

         - is that enough?

   (c) As you will read in my review, it is blindingly fast to focus, which is a great asset for a sport photographer.

   (d) If you decide to upgrade to a DSLR body, particularly a FF unit, it will work on that too.

   (e) This unit has 4 stops of IS, which is great asset if you using it under challenging conditions.

   (f)  I have used the unit in combination with the M5 and have read the reviews of others who agree that it works

         well on the M series bodies.

[stephencock987]

The following stage up from the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II regarding central length is the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6mm IS, yet that is just going to pick up you half more reach from your 55-200 and just 20% more reach than the 55-250. To my eye, the 70-300 is not really worth generally double the value you would pay for the 55-250. There isn't much distinction in picture quality between those two focal points, either. So you truly don't increase much by spending twice what you would for a 55-250 to purchase a 70-300. Anything longer than 300mm will require a significant venture contrasted with your present focal point.

[Tronhard]

---

@stephencock987 wrote:

The following stage up from the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II regarding central length is the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6mm IS, yet that is just going to pick up you half more reach from your 55-200 and just 20% more reach than the 55-250. To my eye, the 70-300 is not really worth generally double the value you would pay for the 55-250. There isn't much distinction in picture quality between those two focal points, either. So you truly don't increase much by spending twice what you would for a 55-250 to purchase a 70-300. Anything longer than 300mm will require a significant venture contrasted with your present focal point.

---

Hi Stephen and welcome to the forum.

I have some issues with the logic of your post.

First: Since the OP has indicated that he has a EF-M 55-200 lens, I am not sure why you are referring to the 55-250, which is an EF-S lens and would require an adaptor - was that reference a typo?  Compared to the 55-200 the 70-300 lens offers a 50% increase in magnifcation, on the AP-C body he has the OP could expect a Field of View equivalent to that of a 480mm lens on a FF body.

Second: the optics of the 70-300 MkII unit are excellent - it was intended for just this situation where a user wishes to upgrade from a tele kit lens to something of better quality and magnifcation.  I have gone to some lengths to investigate that in my own experiments and posted on the link in my post.  I have demonstrated that it is possible to get good results from significant crops using the lens, further enhancing its tele capabilities.  The 70-300 has a higher quality build with metal mount, (while the 55-250 is plastic) which has significance if it is going to be attached to an adaptor.  It has 4 stops of IS and the latest tech in the use of a nano motor, giving it top end focusing performance.

Third: the 70-300 is an EF lens, not an EF-S unit, so he is assured of compatibility if the OP upgrades to a FF unit at some stage, or decides to sell the unit.

Fourth:  If, as you suggest, the 70-300 is not offering the OP enough magnification, and since the OP wants a zoom, then we are looking at something like the 100-400 L lens, which is expensive and massively heavy.  It would totally unbalance the M-50!

DEPENDING on what the OP wants to use the images for - i.e. if it is just for electronic and social media, he could consider going with a superzoom bridge camera.  It will give him massive reach for less than the cost of an adaptor and lens for his existing unit.

The Canon PowerShot SX60HS and 70HS have zoom ranges from 21 - 1365mm equivalent, but the down side is they have small sensors - hence my comment about output.  Such a camera would cope well with the outputs I mentioned, but not so well with large, high-quality prints for example.  The super-zoom bridge cameras are popular with bird photographers because of their reach, and what you lose in sensor size you offset with the ability to zoom right in.  Both of the latest SX units can shoot RAW, so the images can be tweaked, they have all the controls of the M50, but the SX70 has lost the flash hot shoe, which I consider a mistake - the SX60 is still available and probably cheaper.

I have the SX60, and in decent light it does a great job in capturing images at a long distance.  As an example of its capabilities, all of these shots were taken hand-held.

An image taken with the SX60HS,  at 21mm

In the distance, observe the dome. This shot is taken at 86mm equivalent

This shot at 552mm equivalent

The next image captures the figure on top of the dome at 1365mm equivalent

The point is the OP should easily be able to zoom in on his subject from a considerable distance away.

The SX units even have a sports mode that will automatically try to get the fastest shutter speed within an ISO range defined by the user, and it can fire off at 10 frames per second.

It has a tolerable viewfinder and a back flip rear screen.

For specs see:

https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx60hs along with reviews of the unit.