View Full Version : LENS'
Rau_127
15th of September 2003 (Mon), 21:12
Probably a stupid question, but. . .I just bought a 10D and I have a Canon 80-200mm lens from my rebel 2000. I was going to buy a Canon 75-300mm Lens. . .will the extra "100" be that much of a difference or should I get something bigger?
lightandlife
15th of September 2003 (Mon), 21:27
Since you already have a good zoom 80-200mm, the next zoom should be 24-70mm if you want an L. Canon 75-300mm would be redundant, as you would be paying full price for the extra range 200-300mm.
You would also want at least one prime for available light photography, depending on your preference.
Belmondo
15th of September 2003 (Mon), 21:33
Most people in this form will probably suggest you consider something wider. Remember, because of the 1.6X magnification factor, your 80-200 lens is the rough equivalent of a 128-320 lens on your Rebel. Maybe you should look at something like a 24-70. That would be like a 38-112. That way, with a small gap between 70 and 80mm (112 and 128mm), you'd have continuous coverage between 24 and 200 mm (38 and 320mm). Besides, anything beyond 300mm is tough to shoot hand-held.
Tom
Rau_127
15th of September 2003 (Mon), 21:40
Thanks, I'm kinda new to this but have been taking pictures of just about anything. I do have two other lenses for it, which I'll keep since I'm selling my rebel. I usually go into Manhatten and photograph details of buildings. Why I would opt for something a little bigger.
elm54
15th of September 2003 (Mon), 22:00
Hiya, good luck with your new camera. A popular lens that wasn't mentioned is the 28-135mm with IS. I've seen some good examples taken with it . I personally don't own it . I bought a 24-70mm and am very happy with it. the people that use the 28-70 seem to swear by it and say it is the lens most on their camera. As the 24-70 is on mine. I happened to be flush at the time and bought it . The truth is the lens is better than I am as a photographer, I could've probably worked with the 28-135 IS for a while and grown into the 24-70 L.
So what I am saying is if you have the cake to go for L there are several ....17-40, 16-35, to mention a couple . But if your funds are low ... I've heard good things about the 28-135 IS. ;) Just passing on what I've read here.
Good Luck.
Eric
Rau_127
16th of September 2003 (Tue), 06:51
Thanks for the info Eric. I'm on somewhat of a buying spree, heh. . .sooo. :-) I don't remember exactly which lenses I have off the top of my head (i'm @ work), but I will use what you told me for future buys.
ron chappel
16th of September 2003 (Tue), 07:46
Most people think the 75-300 lens is a little 'not quite good enough' in sharpness and contrast.I have found the same thing but my cheap 80-200 zoom is much better,so it's a good idea to stay with that one if you can
Rau_127
17th of September 2003 (Wed), 07:43
Thanks Ron, I will stick with my 80-200. I just went ahead and bought something a bit bigger for far away shots. I just hope it measures up to its hype.
CyberDyneSystems
17th of September 2003 (Wed), 08:09
If you want a LONG lens without having to pay too much,. you might want to look at some of the Sigma Zooms,. they have a 134-400mm and two Zooms that go out to 500mm!!! Of the tow I prefer the 50-500mm EX lens. It is a monster to carry around though :)
Rau_127
17th of September 2003 (Wed), 09:02
I actually made an impulse buy, you know how they can be. . .and bought a 500-1000 mm, I believe it's a Phoenix/Samyang. Not the best I'm sure but for the price I jumped on it- :)
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.