Cheap Lenses ???

[Crazy Canuck]

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense. I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much. Is this lense worth buying?

[Nolz]

not exactly the lens you're after but i have a 75-300usm and have found it particularly useful for my amatuer bird watching and mostorsport racing pics. a few of my most recent pics with the lens can be seen here

http://users.bigpond.net.au/Nolz/skidpan%20net/Thumbnails.html

heres a quick eg of it
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Nolz/skidpan%20net/IMG_1908.JPG

a friend has the EF80-200 and although is compact, i dont think it is as versatile.....

depends on what you are planning on shooting really.....

[sp00g3]

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense. I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much. Is this lense worth buying?

I have this lense and have had pretty good luck with it. Though I will say the lack of IS hinders it on the 200mm range.

[Jesper]

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense. I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much. Is this lense worth buying?

That's too bad, because the most important thing for making good photographs are good lenses. Lenses are much more important than the camera itself.

I don't know about the 55-200, but the Canon EOS Beginners' FAQ (http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html) lists it as a "cheapie". In general, with lenses, the more expensive, the better the lens is - there are exceptions, such as the EF 50 f/1.8.

[Crazy Canuck]

So it seems the best thing to do is make do with the lense that came with the camera (18-55) and save up some cash for a decent lense. I know someone who mentioned I can borrow his lense to "test drive" a decent one. Sounds like a plan, thanks guys

[Canuck]

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense. I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much. Is this lense worth buying?

Let's start from the beginning...
What camera do you have the 10D or 300D? The next question becomes what are you planning on taking pics of? (This will help me decide what to reccomend.) You could look at the Sigma EX line. They have some really good F4 lenses for a lot cheaper than Canon L lenses.

Advice, stay away from the 120-300 F2.8 EX and 500mm F4.5 EX lenses. They will cost into the thousands. It really to me seems pointless to get into this if you can't get decent lenses. I have a 10D and with a very cheap lens the pics sucked! I got the 120-300 and that rocks. Rememeber, you are only as good as the glass you stick in front of the camera.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[Crazy Canuck]

Well lets see, the camera is a digital rebel, a entry level camera. I want to take general pictures of family and friends as well as a bit of nature photo's. After seeing numerous deer and other wild life while out camping I think that will be something I like. Take into account that I'm a real beginner at this.

[Canuck]

Well lets see, the camera is a digital rebel, a entry level camera. I want to take general pictures of family and friends as well as a bit of nature photo's. After seeing numerous deer and other wild life while out camping I think that will be something I like. Take into account that I'm a real beginner at this.


IMHO, I think maybe you shoulda gone for a high end p&s but that is my opinion...it woulda helped if you had 35mm SLR experience. I have seen decent pics come from the Canon A70. I would think the Canon S50 (5MP) woulda been perfect and you can throw it in ur coat pocket. Try that with the 300D and lens attached. It is nothing personal, but it is really getting on my nerves people getting this higher end camera kit and being clueless. The DSLR should be for those of us that 1) upgraded from the 35mm world, 2) feel that they have exceeded the capabilities of the p&s and can see themselves really taking off with it, 3) have ample funds to do said endeavour. This is far from the end of expenses in the camera world. Remember that Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens I mentioned? It goes for about $1900. The 16-35mm F2.8 L lens I have is about $1380. The 10D all set up w/ batteries and the like was about $2200. Add on filters and stuff another $500 and then the FlashTrax drive was $700 so you get the picture yet? This is NOT a cheap hobby, especially in the DSLR world. The Canon and Sigma lens are unreal for pic quality, but man do you pay for it.

Another bit is that when you shoot RAW, the pics will look not so hot. No worries...that is the way they should look. They leave it up to you to tweek them. Speaking of which, I have some pics to attend to.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[fwhitesides]

I say go ahead get a cheap lens to play around with. The limitations of cheap equipment can sometimes end up being a great learning tool. Once you figure out what you can and can't do with what you have, you'll be in a better position to assess what you really do no need to make the kind of photos you want.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with buying more camera than you can handle. It gives you room to grow and explore. Cameras and lenses are also easy to sell and trade, so if you do get more than you need, you can always trade down. The idea that a DSLR is for a select few "all-stars" is elitist nonsense. Get whatever you want and enjoy the hell out of it.

[TeraGram93013]

It is nothing personal, but it is really getting on my nerves people getting this higher end camera kit and being clueless. The DSLR should be for those of us that 1) upgraded from the 35mm world, 2) feel that they have exceeded the capabilities of the p&s and can see themselves really taking off with it, 3) have ample funds to do said endeavour.

(squint)

What do you mean by "ample funds"?

I don't know if you're a trust fund baby or just managed to do well in some stock bubble or what, but I feel the need to tell you the vast majority of the world has to budget wisely to get damn near anything they want in life.

I've spent about $3K on my 10D and lenses et cetera in the last six weeks. I budgeted for MONTHS to get to that level and I'm budgeting still because there are other things that I want/need to do what I want/need.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone planning incremental purchases. Those who can go out and lay down even the modest amount I did in the last days of December 2003 are really few and far between.

- T, feeling a bit touchy today. Lack of sleep? Perhaps.

[boBquincy]

I bought the older 55-200 when I couldn't afford anything else and still use it when I don't need ultimate sharpness or the size/weight of the 70-200 f4 L.

The 55-200 is better than the low price would indicate.

http://www.mindspring.com/~bobquincy/IMG_3272_800.jpg


boB

[chipiii]

Wow, guess you told him. Stay outta my club if ya can't afford to play with my toys. Feel better?
Chiii

[CyberDyneSystems]

I did my lens purchasing incrementally myself..

On the advice of many,. I did get the "thrifty fifty" soon,. but my first lens was a "Quantaray" 28-200mm :roll:

I understand this is the same as the original Sigma version.. not the newer updated ones...

I traded that one in for a 28-300mm.... :roll:

Anyway,. I still have some images i like a lot from both of those "CrapO" lenses.

[Kinger]

I have one of those cheap lenses that everyone is talking about (75-300 4-5.6 USM III), and I knew going into it that it wasn't that great. But since I am on a limited budget I figured spend $100 now and see if I really do need a lens at that range before purchasing the higher end ones. Then I figure if I really use this lens, I will then save for a much better lens within that range. And so far I am very happy with what I got, but I only wish I got the IS version for $300 more, and still thinking of doing that temp upgrade now.

anyway here is a sample of that lens indoors in an NHL arena.

http://www.fototime.com/AA0FEF5256C7410/standard.jpg

[smeyer]

Has anyone got an opinion about the Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5,6 DC for the Digital Rebel?

/Steffen

[ron chappel]

Oh d*mn.had a nice reply written and the windows lost it!

The summary is:

The 55-200 could indeed be a good one.....I've found the 80-200 II to be significantly better than the 75-300 for example,the 55-200 may have similar qualities?

The ones i've tried i rate:

sigma 100-300 DL (the cheapest model).Not too bad really.Definitely abit soft but with digital corection for that and the slight blue tint i got some nice pics.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=367694


EF75-300
I've had several of these
They tend to be low in contrast and colour,soft -especially at 300mm-and slow to focus(regardless of USM).Drives me nuts that i can't usually get sharp pics @300mm without using stupidly high shutter speeds.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=368574

EF80-200 II
Definitely better than the 75-300 in sharpness and contrast.Very small,light,fast focussing (even without USM)


EF100-300
I've heard that these are a little better than the 75-300 and now that i have one i can say it is MUCH better in every way!
Very similar at the short end but definitely sharper at the long end.Fast focus,better build,better contrast gentler out of focus blur(but not ness. better-the strong blur 0f the 75-300 can be quite good).
Also i can get sharp shots at much lower shutter speeds than the 75-300.
I bought mine 2nd hand-i seem to recall the new price is quite high?

One possible good tip-don't be afraid to buy 2nd hand when trying out lenses.It's a very good way to trade up to better ones later on without losing much!

[timmyquest]

[quote=Crazy Canuck]It is nothing personal, but it is really getting on my nerves people getting this higher end camera kit and being clueless. The DSLR should be for those of us that 1) upgraded from the 35mm world, 2) feel that they have exceeded the capabilities of the p&s and can see themselves really taking off with it, 3) have ample funds to do said endeavour.

(squint)

What do you mean by "ample funds"?

I don't know if you're a trust fund baby or just managed to do well in some stock bubble or what, but I feel the need to tell you the vast majority of the world has to budget wisely to get damn near anything they want in life.

I've spent about $3K on my 10D and lenses et cetera in the last six weeks. I budgeted for MONTHS to get to that level and I'm budgeting still because there are other things that I want/need to do what I want/need.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone planing incremental purchases. Those who can go out and lay down even the modest amount I did in the last days of December 2003 are really few and far between.

- T, feeling a bit touchy today. Lack of sleep? Perhaps.

Well said

I make $160 a week, just bought a 300D and am about to buy a 550EX and then shortly after a 100-400mm L.

[Andy_T]

IMHO, I think maybe you shoulda gone for a high end p&s but that is my opinion...it woulda helped if you had 35mm SLR experience. I have seen decent pics come from the Canon A70. I would think the Canon S50 (5MP) woulda been perfect and you can throw it in ur coat pocket. Try that with the 300D and lens attached. It is nothing personal, but it is really getting on my nerves people getting this higher end camera kit and being clueless. The DSLR should be for those of us that 1) upgraded from the 35mm world, 2) feel that they have exceeded the capabilities of the p&s and can see themselves really taking off with it, 3) have ample funds to do said endeavour. This is far from the end of expenses in the camera world. Remember that Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens I mentioned? It goes for about $1900. The 16-35mm F2.8 L lens I have is about $1380. The 10D all set up w/ batteries and the like was about $2200. Add on filters and stuff another $500 and then the FlashTrax drive was $700 so you get the picture yet? This is NOT a cheap hobby, especially in the DSLR world. The Canon and Sigma lens are unreal for pic quality, but man do you pay for it.

Another bit is that when you shoot RAW, the pics will look not so hot. No worries...that is the way they should look. They leave it up to you to tweek them. Speaking of which, I have some pics to attend to.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

Canuck,

I'm afraid you misread 'Crazy Canuck's question. That can happen.

He asked (shortened):

Hi, I'm a new Canon dSLR user. Can somebody give me an opinion on a cheap lens, please?

Hi did not ask:

Hi, I just bought a Digital rebel. Could some snotty self-proclaimed 'pro' please please insult me and tell me that I obviously am a stupid git who doesn't know anything, isn't willing to spend serious money and should rather have bought a P&S. Thank you. :twisted:

The 'soul' of this forum - to me - is the wit and good humour of those, who have more experience and are willing to share their experience with those who are still learning.

Best regards,
Andy (bit touchy as well from hearing the same tirade from the same guy for the umtieth time on this here forum)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Amen to that Brother.........

[MediaMagic]

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense. I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much. Is this lense worth buying?

Another thing you will need to learn is the posts processing software.

To begin with though, consult you manual and learn how to boost the in -camera sharpening. Shoot a gazillion pictures in jpg mode with the various programmed and creative zones, studying them on the monitor (and also your monitor may need to be calibrated for viewing shots accurately). Later, as you learn more, get used to the camera, etc, you can reset the sharpening back to default and begin post processing study. You can also start shooting in Raw mode here if you wish for more control, but I would recommend beginning with camera sharpened jpeg large fine.

You've got a great little dSLR to learn with, so you can make the best of it. Now, to lenses....

There are so many inexpensive zoom lenses from which to choose. There have been several good recommendations here so far. You could also consider a few non L, primes rather than a cheap zoom. The Canon non L primes give excellent performance, sharper than zoom images, and won't break the bank. For your family shots I'd say get the 50mm f1.8 mkII, or, since you have the 18-55, maybe the 85mm f1.8 (a truly wonderful, no make that superior, lens for nice portraits but a bit more expensive than the thrifty fifty 50mm 1.8 mkII). For your nature stuff, perhaps the 75-300 or one of the other zoom recommendations to get you closer a little closer with some options.

You have a bit of a learning curve ahead of you, so just take your time and take tons of shots.

David

[Canuck]

I know I have said it for the upmteenth time, but also it has been asked as many times. Why on earth can't someone look it up? There is the search engine on the front page. How many times has this question been asked? You wanted advice I gave it and take it or leave it. I am by no means a pro but when you get pics that aren't what you expected...deal with it.

If I seemed rash, I will not appologise. Someone could stand to cull the forum and sort the answer themselves. I don't have to stand for this flaming and futhermore I might be better off staying away from newbie questions. I just get tired of the same thing month in, month out.

My real job sucks! I hate it, I am pissed off to no end at it! There is no joy there at all and the politics are mindblowing daft. I would imagine some of the anger/frustration has overflowed to this forum and well, maybe I will just vanish for some time.

[ilya]

Canuck, check out www.dpreview.com, its probably a place you may feel more comfortable at.

Cheers

[Canuck]

Canuck, check out www.dpreview.com, its probably a place you may feel more comfortable at.

Cheers

Not a chance that is why I hang out here. I will not do that.

[AndyDe]

[quote=".....My real job sucks! I hate it, I am pissed off to no end at it! There is no joy there at all and the politics are mindblowing daft. I would imagine some of the anger/frustration has overflowed to this forum and well, maybe I will just vanish for some time.....[/quote]

lol, maybe we both work for the same company !
I've just vanished from a few newgroups for simular reasons.

[2new]

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense.

I was in a similar situation and after reseraching the topic for weeks I purchased a used canon 80-200 for ~$60us from B&H. Very good lens and for the price it can't be beat.

a good review of this lens is located below. Email me and I'll send you a couple of dample shots.

Good Luck,
Michael

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/ca_Which_lens_should_I_buy/a_Choosing_lenses.html

[Canuck]

[quote=".....My real job sucks! I hate it, I am pissed off to no end at it! There is no joy there at all and the politics are mindblowing daft. I would imagine some of the anger/frustration has overflowed to this forum and well, maybe I will just vanish for some time.....

lol, maybe we both work for the same company !
I've just vanished from a few newgroups for simular reasons.[/quote]

Andy, unless you work in Suffolk, then it is doubtful that we work for the same company.

I need to level with you lot...
I am under a lot of stress and just general crap that is work related. It is really taking its toll on me. It is making it harder for me to enjoy the stuff I enjoy doing. I am not going into it as this has been ongoing for about 4 months and would take too long to explain. Admittedly, it has me feeling like crap and depressed. I am not in this forum or in my job or anything for politics/flaming. I loathe the fact that people think they have a bigger (whatever) because they can step all over someone else and make themselves look much better. All this does is make the people gtting crapped on feel like they are not worth much, is detrimental to morale, and creates disdain towards superiors.others playing the game. Believe me I see it all the time and it is happening at work. I am a firm believer that your performance should sort everything else out - good, bad, or indifferent. Likewise, on this forum, I am not in it for the flaming like received earlier and I was NOT implying that as said earlier "The idea that a DSLR is for a select few "all-stars" is elitist nonsense." I was saying that a sufficient grasp of the camera word would help immensely. The idea of using a 10D/300D in full auto all the time is a waste of time and money. This was a real factor inn someone who said, "I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much." I shoot full manual and I enjoy the heck out of my 10D. I gave my opiinion and advice and you can take it or not take it the choice is yours. I could be a real jerk, but it isn't me. I have been on this forum long enough to see many people come and go, good, bad and everywhere in between!

Another note is that I have an very dry sense of humour, so any sarcasm shown is probably that.

Lastly, let's all get back together and have fun doing what we all do here. Have we forgotten what brought us here in the first place? We all like photography, with Canon kit!! Let's just call this a truce and press on with what we enjoy!

-Canuck

[Brianbar]

I have an EF 75 - 300mm f/4-5.6 III Canon lens, and I have just recently contacted Canon Canada with the same question.
They advised me there is NO difference in the quality to the USM lens, the EF lens is just a little slower and not as quiet.
Brian

[fwhitesides]

I was saying that a sufficient grasp of the camera word would help immensely.
Yes, having a good idea how the camera works is important, but it's difficult to learn that without said camera.

The idea of using a 10D/300D in full auto all the time is a waste of time and money.I'm not sure it's a waste of time. And if it is a waste of money, it's not your money, so why get bent out of shape about it? Why do you care how others spend their money? You seem to be positing the idea that in order to deserve to own an advanced camera, you have to already know how to use it to its fullest potential. I'm not sure that's logical.

I shoot full manual and I enjoy the heck out of my 10D.
Great! Now wouldn't it be crappy of me (even with sarcsam) to tell you that the way you shoot isn't proper?

Let's just call this a truce and press on with what we enjoy!
Sounds good to me. No more condescension and no more getting mad about it. Right then, off we go. Let them eat cake.

[TeraGram93013]

Let them eat cake.

I happen to have a box of Hines (I think) Super Deluxe White Cake.

Do I hear any nominations for frosting flavors?

I'm partial to Orange for white cake, but that's not everyone's idea of optimal.

And before you flame me for using boxed cake mix, I'll have you know that boxed cake mixes are now generally superior for the home-cook who only bakes cake occassionally (as opposed to the professional who bakes them every day) because cake flour is so very perishable.

I will, however, use only the best and freshest ingredients to make the frosting from scratch.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Philistine!

Boxed Cake,. I think it is clear that you belong in a different forum,. as this is the "Scratch Layer Cake" forum..

FYI I was making pan cakes from scratch for about 8 years before I decided I was skiiled enough to even attempt a layer cake! To think that a box cake newby thinks they can come in here and ask a bunch of newbie layer cake questions.. :evil:

Do the research,. work in a diner for the summer flipping johnny cakes.. and make your own batter from scratch. ....

In the mean time leave the Scratch Layer cakes to us select few All Stars!:roll: :wink:

[TeraGram93013]

Philistine!

Naw. Irish, mostly.

FYI I was making pan cakes from scratch for about 8 years before I decided I was skiiled enough to even attempt a layer cake!

Slow learner, eh? :P

Do the research,. work in a diner for the summer flipping johnny cakes.. and make your own batter from scratch. ....

Not only am I skilled at making cakes (I've been baking on and off for over 35 years... oh damn! I'm old!) but I know how to make my own ganache, can make a pie crust that'll make Julia and Jacques weep with joy, and I make a risotto that has Italians pledge their allegience to me after one bite. (OK so that last one isn't baking but I had to boast anyway.)

(squint)

So listen here you suckling whelp, (imagine the shaking of a wooden spoon here) don't you sass your elders, or I'll box your ears and send you to your room with out any cake!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,.... I am getting REALLY hungry reading your post!!! :P

Can you insult me some more while describing your cooking skills in greater detail??? :wink:

Where are you now,.?

Could i swing by for lunch and we can argue about this over a bite to eat?
Risotto sounds nice... mmmmm... risotto.... :P

:mrgreen: