Lenses for Newbie DSLR User

[tumble]

Well the time has come to dip into my deep pockets and part with some hard earned cash and get a DRebel (ok my wife's hard earn cash, its for my b'day) - couldn't justify the 10D cost to her.

I'm looking at getting some lenses to supplement the 18-55mm in the kit (these i have to pay for) and was hoping for some advice from everyone here.

I will mainly use the camera for wildlife shots and my step-daughters softball games and later in the year for her High School Marching Band. My G2 although having produced some excellent pictures over the last 2 years just doesn't give me that extra zoom in close up I sometimes wish for.

I have about $1000 budget which kinda rules out "L" glass with "IS" oh well, maybe in the future but I think one or two of these might be ok. Any experience with them, pros/cons much appreciated.

Ok my wish list is:

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM $400 at B&H
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 IS USM $415 at B&H
Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM $580 at B&H

I think the 28-135mm could be my everyday lense?


Thanks

John

[ifurlong]

do your self a favor, dont even use the lens that came with your cam, at the very least, get the canon 50 1.8, you will be suprised at the difference. But if you have the money, one of the best lenses made is the canon 50 1.4, for ~300 it is equal to any of the L lenses.

[KO_300D]

My last camera was an Olympus C-840L which I got in 1998 (!!).
I got a 300D for xmas so as you may guess am very inexperienced with my new one as yet, although VERY keen. I got a Sigma 55-200mm lens with it alongside the 18-50mm, and I'm blown away by the detail!

Have a look at the following link for a picture I took by a river on Sunday with the 55-200;

http://www.tobie.co.uk/pictures/IMG_62.JPG

If explorer scales it to fit the screen, hit the maximise button that appears when u hover over the image and scroll across. Really pleased with the results!

[Vegas Poboy]

I have the 70-200 f/4 and love it you can't go wrong with it also if you need extra zoom it will work with the 1.4 or 2.0 extenders.
I've read and seen good results with the 28-135 IS it's sharp and a great multi purpose lens I'm sure one day I'll have this one in my bag but I'm currently saving for a light kit.
I've heard mix results on the 75-300mm

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tumble,
I think your own research is right in the money :)

Get the 28-135mm IS for your every day lens,. and it will also offer a nice wide zoom range with IS for the longer end of things.

The 70-200mm f/4 is another excelent choice. I would definately take that lens over the 75-300mm.

However you mention wildlife,. and 200mm is a bit short a lot of the time...

So i would suggest either of three options.

1. Canon 70-200 f/4: (as you indicated) with the option of a 1.4X T-con for an occasional 280mm @ f/5.6

2. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX: About the same cost as the Canon f/4,. but it gives you that extra aperture for higher shutters speeds in low light. But it also gives you acces to the lower priced Sigma T-cons,. including the 2X which will give you a working 140-400mm f/5.6 for longer wildlife telephotos.

3. Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX: Personally,. I think this is a great choice. It is better to get your 300mm from the indeginous lens than to rely on a t-con.. and 300mm @ f/4 is a great start. Coupled with a 1.4X T-con you can have a 140-420mm f/5.6

Do not confuse the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX with all the other 100-300mm & 75-300mm lenses out there,. it is in a class by itself as a truly high end well built 100-300mm zoom. If it were Canon it would be an "L"

[ifurlong]

again CDS provides good advice, I am just a big fan of primes as I think they provide the most bang for the buck, and I think it forces a photographer to be more aware of composure, hence making a better photographer out of you

[robertwgross]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
...
However you mention wildlife,. and 200mm is a bit short a lot of the time...
...


There's wildlife, and then there's wildlife. If you are shooting African elephants at a range of 50 meters, then that is one thing. If you are shooting field mice at 10 meters, then that is quite another thing.

The birders go crazy when migratory birds fly over. In general, they have to use lenses of focal length 400mm to 600mm to get anything useful.

I find myself out after small to medium size mammals mostly. Marmots, bobcats, bighorn sheep, etc. My wildlife lens is a monster (Sigma 170-500mm), but I got the optional trailer for it all fixed up for the winter.

---Bob Gross---

[hickory]

tumble,

I think you mentioned High School marching band. I shoot a lot of those kind of shots with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I have to agree with CDS that it is a great lens for the price. Let me know if you want to see a sample.

tom

[drisley]

I currently have a G3, and I'm eyeing the DREBEL.

I hear alot of good things about the Canon 50/1.4 lens.

Since it's a 50mm lens, does that mean there is no zoom?

Sorry, I'm a potential SLR newbie.

Thanks!

[hickory]

yeah a 50 mm is a standard lens that might come with a film slr. no zooming with it, zooms will be listed as 70-200mm or some other combination of focal lengths. then it will also be followed by the maximum aperature opening such as 1.4 or 2.8.

go for the dslr you'll love it! :-) I love spending other peoples money, LOL

tom

[Tom W]

tumble wrote:
Well the time has come to dip into my deep pockets and part with some hard earned cash and get a DRebel (ok my wife's hard earn cash, its for my b'day) - couldn't justify the 10D cost to her.

I'm looking at getting some lenses to supplement the 18-55mm in the kit (these i have to pay for) and was hoping for some advice from everyone here.

I will mainly use the camera for wildlife shots and my step-daughters softball games and later in the year for her High School Marching Band. My G2 although having produced some excellent pictures over the last 2 years just doesn't give me that extra zoom in close up I sometimes wish for.

I have about $1000 budget which kinda rules out "L" glass with "IS" oh well, maybe in the future but I think one or two of these might be ok. Any experience with them, pros/cons much appreciated.

Ok my wish list is:

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM $400 at B&H
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 IS USM $415 at B&H
Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM $580 at B&H

I think the 28-135mm could be my everyday lense?


Thanks

John



John,

I can't speak for all brands, though there are plenty of Sigma owners that are very happy. But, if it were me and I were buying strictly Canon for $1000, I'd buy the following 3 lenses:

50 mm F-1.8 - cheap, very good picture quality, and good in low-light situations.

28-105 F3.5-4.5 - I recommend this lens because I have it and mine is very sharp. It's Canon's mid-range quality level, sitting between the "kit" lenses and the top-notch "L" lenses. It covers a good range and could be a good all-purpose lens, though you will be a little weak on the wide-angle end with the smaller sensors and this lens (this is also true with the 28-135). The 28-105 boasts a relatively inexpensive $220 price tag.

The 70-200 F 4.0L is an excellent lens. I am convinced that anything "L" is very good glass. You'll see a clarity that wouldn't otherwise exist. Also, I believe that you can use the 1.4X converter with the F 4.0 lens (but not the 2.0). Considering the multiplication factor of the 10D sensor, and the 1.4 multiplier, you should have a pretty long telephoto range available if you get the 1.4X converter in the future.

[Tom W]

drisley wrote:
I currently have a G3, and I'm eyeing the DREBEL.

I hear alot of good things about the Canon 50/1.4 lens.

Since it's a 50mm lens, does that mean there is no zoom?

Sorry, I'm a potential SLR newbie.

Thanks!


The Canon 50/1.4 lens is a fixed focal length lens. In other words, it is not a zoom lens. Its advantage is that it provides extremely clear glass at a decent price and allows photography in low-light conditions without flash. Its disadvantage is that it isn't as convenient as a zoom.

If you decide on a DSLR, get the Digital Rebel with its standard lens (18-55 MM zoom lens). It is pretty decent glass, and the camera is compatible with Canon's full range of lenses. As you gain familiarity with the SLR's functions and capabilities (and you are probably familiar with some of them already with the G3), you will have a better handle on what lenses you might want to purchase. Only then should you decide which glass to purchase.

[defordphoto]

drisley wrote:
I hear alot of good things about the Canon 50/1.4 lens.


Overpriced for what you get. Get the $70 50mm f1.8. Much more bang for the buck and you more $$$ to spend somewhere else.

I use the 28-135IS as my 'walkaround' lens. Anything in this range will work. As a sidenote: I use the IS on this lens more than any of my other IS-equipped lenses. It's not the sharpest lens in my bag, but that's why the PhotoShop gods invented USM.

[Tom W]

RFMSports wrote:


Overpriced for what you get. Get the $70 50mm f1.8. Much more bang for the buck and you more $$$ to spend somewhere else.

I use the 28-135IS as my 'walkaround' lens. Anything in this range will work. As a sidenote: I use the IS on this lens more than any of my other IS-equipped lenses. It's not the sharpest lens in my bag, but that's why the PhotoShop gods invented USM.

Good point WRT the 1.8 vs. the 1.4 lens. Tests show the 1.4 to be marginally better, but both have better image quality (supposedly) than almost any zoom lens including some "L".

I recently had an interesting experience, though I don't want to attach it to any lens. I acheived sharper pictures with my 28-105 3.5-4.5 lens than what I got with my 50 mm 1.8 metal mount. BUT (and a big but), my 50 mm was bought used in bargain condition. It is not representative of the 1.8 lenses in general. Its a bad example from which my recent past opinions may have been biased.

The 50 mm 1.8 lens, plastic or metal mount, is a good lens in general. New, its nearly unbeatable.

[defordphoto]

The 1.4 is marginally better than the 1.8 and costs 4.5 times more. I recommend the 1.8 for all camera bags.

[tumble]

Thanks everyone for the advice.

I think i'm going to get the Canon 28-135mm IS for now and get used to the camera before i invest in a longer zoom.

Happy New Year

John

[DaveG]

RFMSports wrote:
The 1.4 is marginally better than the 1.8 and costs 4.5 times more. I recommend the 1.8 for all camera bags.


You miss the point since it's also a stop faster and that's far from marginal importance. Have a look at what a 300 mm f4 costs compared to a 300 f2.8.

The 50 f1.4 is a very good lens. It has on demand MF and - to my knowledge the 1.8 does not.

The newer 50 f1.8's have a plastic lens mount while the 1.4 has a metal one. Under no circumstances would I get the 1.8 unless it was one of the older metal mount kind.

If you are going to use this as an 80 mm for sports type stuff speed is of essence, and if you are going to use it on 24x36 cameras you might as well have the speed as it get overlooked in your camera bag otherwise. If speed has NO use to you buy the 50 mm f2.8 macro. That way you'll get the focal length and an extra bang for the buck.

[msvirick]

tumble wrote:

Ok my wish list is:

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM $400 at B&H
Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 IS USM $415 at B&H
Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM $580 at B&H

I think the 28-135mm could be my everyday lense?


Thanks

John





The first 2 lenses are a must for a deep pocket. Save the 3rd for another day

msvirick

[defordphoto]

DaveG wrote:
RFMSports wrote:
The 1.4 is marginally better than the 1.8 and costs 4.5 times more. I recommend the 1.8 for all camera bags.

You miss the point since it's also a stop faster and that's far from marginal importance. Have a look at what a 300 mm f4 costs compared to a 300 f2.8.


I absolutely do not miss the point and I know very well what one-stop means otherwise I would have not bought the 70-200L f2.8 IS. We pay a dear price for speed that's for sure!

With most folks here, we're dealing with a limited budget and the 50mm f1.8 fits that bill perfectly. It fits a hole in their camera bag giving them a very fast, very sharp lens at a nominal cost. Most people are not going to care if it has a plastic mount. It's only $70. If it wears out, which I doubt, they can just buy another one. I'm certainly not losing any sleep over my plastic mount 50mm f1.8.

In this member's case the best choice (in my opinion) is the 50mm f1.8 which will serve them quite well. Mine serves me quite well and I can't really recall where I really needed and desperately wished I had a 1.4.

And yes, the 1.4 is a better built lens. I know that. It has better AF and has the little marks on the lens that so many people seem to like so much, but (again, IMO) it's not worth it for most people to spend almost 5 times more for a lens they will probably not need that extra stop for.

[defordphoto]

That is a very good choice. It is an awesome all-around lens and you'll have fun with it. It's not the sharpest lens on the planet, but don't let all this talk of sharpness concern you. IMO, way too many people are concerned about how sharp their pictures are and many times you'll see over-sharpened photos that don't even look real. You've probably already seen some.

Anyway, you'll get alot of use out of that lens as it covers a nice range for most general photography, and it has macro too and IS. So you're getting pretty good bang for your buck.

Congrats!