Suggestion for 2nd lense for 300D

[cyber888]

Hi,
I'm a new happy Digital Rebel user. The camera comes with a EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6. Now I feel that I need a second or replacement lenses for more details and long range.

Lens choices (to my knowledge, and only in my order of preference):
1. CANON EF 75-300 ~ $250
2. Tamron EF 75-300mm ~ $190
3. CANON EF 75-300 4/5.6 USM Image Stabilized ~ $500
4. CANON EF 70-200 f2.8L IS ~$1200
5. Other brand/range? Such as 28-135 IS?
6. Live with existing 18-55 until more experienced.

Questions:
1. Regarding range: Which lens range is best fit with existing 300D and 18-55mm?
Please note the 300D has a conversion factor of 1.4. Does it matter to choose lenses? There is a gap between 18-55mm, and 70+. Does that matter?

2. Regarding IS and L: Does Image Stabilizer worth the extra money?
I guess this is an old topic. Does the IS worth the extra money for an amateur? If so, does the L series worth the extra money?
Does ¡°USM¡± version make any difference?

3. Regarding value: How long can the lens last? How quickly/slowly the price for IS drop? I noticed that they are 3+ year technologies. Does it make sense if I wait several months for price drop?

------------------------------------
Below are my current situations to consider:
Skill level:
My level of photograph skill is between entry and medium, in the scale of 3 of 10. The 300D is the first SLR I own.
I'd like to take more pictures of portrait, and outdoor scenes.

Financial:
Money is not a major problem. $1000 won't break me, but $200 vs. $1200 does make a difference. Each $100 is worth of 1 more week of aggregation from wife :) She has just started realizing the difference between 300D and A70.

Management opinion:
My wife is only interested in the investment if the lens can bring something good for our new baby. IS may help for low light. Are there any convincing reasoning you guys used to achieve goal?

Please comment with your pick. All expert¡¯s and amateur¡¯s opinions welcomed. Thanks in advance.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The zoom range that you would want depends entirely on you and how/what you like to shoot.

If it is in your budget,. I would skip the low priced 75-300mm lenses and jump to a high quality lens with a bright fast aperture. This will give you a way to compare a "standard" quality lens with a more high end one right off the bat, thus leaving you the ability to set your future lens purchase "road map" at an early stage.

Look at either the Canon 70-200mm f/4 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 "EX" Both sell for about $550.00-$600.00 and both are top notch glass. The Sigma has the aperture advantage with f/2.8 (Canon's f/2.8 costs $1,100.00) but many swear the Canon f/4 is sharper. (I use the Sigma and love it)

If you think you want the 300mm,. then look at Sigma's new 100-300mm f/4 "EX" HSM lens. This too is part of Sigma's high end "EX" line and is a well built high quality lens.

The Canon 28-135mm "IS" is an excellent choice for an affordable yet solid quality lens in the middle zoom range. Personally,. I would get the longer range zoom first and then go back and get the 28-135mm if I hadto do it one lens at a time. In fact, I have yet to get myslef a "decent" mid range zoom while I have invested quite a lot in both the wide end (Canon 17-40mm "L") and long range ends (Sigmas 70-200mm f/2.8, 50-500mm, and a 500mm f/4.5 prime arriving monday)

But again this depends on how you shoot,. (but judging from your own list it seems you are more inclined to the longer zooms right now,.. I'd stick with your gut on that :) )

[CyberDyneSystems]

P.S.

re: Baby pictures,.. Since you have the wide end covered,. I would suggest again one of the 70-200mm range zooms for that application as they cover the "85mm Sweet spot" for portrait work. You may want to compare the close focus distance of the Canon f/4 and Sigma f/2.8,.. I know the Sigma does not focus very close!

[Guillermo Freige]

cyber888:
For your baby, buy a EF 50/1.8. It's fast, it's cheap, it's small, and it's just in the 80mm (50x1.6) portrait sweet spoot. It will cost less than $100, and the 1.8 will be really useful in low light situations like indoor pictures without flash. And as it's a prime lens, the image quality is very good. The EF 50/1.4L is even more luminous and the image is better, but it's 3x more expensive, and the DoF is REALLY shallow (not the best for portraits sometimes)

[cyber888]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
P.S.

re: Baby pictures,.. Since you have the wide end covered,. I would suggest again one of the 70-200mm range zooms for that application as they cover the "85mm Sweet spot" for portrait work. You may want to compare the close focus distance of the Canon f/4 and Sigma f/2.8,.. I know the Sigma does not focus very close!

Thanks for the advice.
For 300D, would the 1.6 factor makes the 70-200mm into 112-320mm, and then make it miss the "85mm Sweet spot"?

[tony723]

cyber888 wrote:
CyberDyneSystems wrote:
P.S.

re: Baby pictures,.. Since you have the wide end covered,. I would suggest again one of the 70-200mm range zooms for that application as they cover the "85mm Sweet spot" for portrait work. You may want to compare the close focus distance of the Canon f/4 and Sigma f/2.8,.. I know the Sigma does not focus very close!

Thanks for the advice.
For 300D, would the 1.6 factor makes the 70-200mm into 112-320mm, and then make it miss the "85mm Sweet spot"?
Maybe you can also consider Tamron 24-135mm F3.5/5.6, I heard that it is very good but I never tried before.