PDA

View Full Version : Second (zoom) lens for 300D


simonstl1
16th of February 2004 (Mon), 22:32
After years of using digital cameras that made me miss my old fully manual Pentax K1000 desperately, I finally have a Canon 300D, with the kit lens. I'm looking for my next lens, and planning on a telephoto zoom, as that seems to be where I most frequently curse the current lens.

I had a (mediocre) 70-300mm on my old Pentax, and did a lot of work in its 70-150 zone. With the 1.6x multiplier on the 300D, the 70 would start out at 112 (75 is 120), so I'm thinking that the Canon 55-200 lens is a better idea than a 75-300.

No stores seem to carry the 55-200, though. I've tried the local Ritz, a few places in Philadelphia, and Nelson Photo in San Diego. Everyone still seems to think 75-300 or 80-200. I can mail-order the 55-200, but it's odd that no stores I've found carry it and it doesn't get much discussion I can find.

In general, it seems like manufacturers and stores are still thinking mostly about 35mm film. The 50/1.8 lens sounds good, though it's a telephoto on this camera, and the 35/2.0 costs about four times as much.

Any thoughts on the 55-200? Is there some reason no one carries it? It seems like a natural second lens for the 300D, but its absence at stores is troubling.

CyberDyneSystems
16th of February 2004 (Mon), 23:09
Well,. I don't know that it will be any better than your Pentax.. Pentax makes fine glass,. and the 55-200mm is not one of Canon's "best"

You may want to look at the 75-300mm IS lens,. or.. dare I suggest,. a 70-200mm f/4 L :wink:

simonstl1
17th of February 2004 (Tue), 11:12
My old 70-300 was a Tamron, not a Pentax, so it wasn't great glass. My Pentax 50mm lens was wonderful, though, even just the f/2.

I'm aware that the 55-200 isn't Canon's best glass, but from what little I can tell it's no worse than the Canon 75-300 or 80-200 in the same price range, and it fits my usual shooting range better. Image stabilization might be nice, but I'd prefer to solve that problem with technique rather than technology.

Guess I'll have to buy it and report back, since it seems like almost no one's tried the thing. Canon did update it to a II at some point, though who knows what the differences are.

Bruce Hamilton
18th of February 2004 (Wed), 09:54
I have the 75-300 myself, but I also located a smaller 28-90 USM lens on eBay. It's the same physical length as the 18-55 "kit" lens, longer telephoto, and it's a faster lens.

Riod
18th of February 2004 (Wed), 20:18
I am considering buying a 28-200 or 28-300 zoom. I am trying to decide between the Tamron, Sigma and Canon.


Besides cost, what are the differences between them? I am an advanced amature, but no where near "professional" although I have sold some of my work. I used a Pentax K-1000 and Kodak DC-4800 for that work.

Now that I have the 300d, I am looking to expand my capabilities. I want a general lens with zoom so I don't have to keep taking the lens off and putting it on to avoid dust on the sensor.

Thanks.