help me choose a lens

[arumdevil]

hi,

I'm new here and only recently into photography (except a bit in school 5 years ago).

So I just got a 300D last week and am looking at getting a new lens (oh dear, here it begins :o )

I'm on a tight budget so something as all round as possible is what I'm after, but at the same time I don't want something cheap and nasty!

I have singled this TAMRON 70-300 F/4-5.6 (http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=TAM703004MCAF&BRAND=&CONTI NUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MODE LNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=143&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY=&Q UANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNODE =0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=300&S HOWCASEID=&STARTROW=11&SUBS=52583,263&WORD_SEARCH= N&) out as a good compromise between price and functionality, but I don't know if it's a good choice, could anyone offer their opinions on it, and if it's a bad idea point me in the right direction. (is it only for macro or is it a tele zoom also? told you I was new to this :))

bear in mind that I am based in the UK

thanks


arumdevil

[Jim_T]

Do you have the 300D kit lens ? If you don't, the 70-300 isn't a good choice..

[arumdevil]

yes, I have the 18-55mm.

could you tell me why it would not be a good choice for this reason?

cheers

[Belmondo]

He was only saying that the 70-300 isn't a good choice if you don't have the 18-55 because it would be too long (telephoto) to be useful as your only lens.

That's all.

[arumdevil]

ah, ok, sorry I missread and thought he meant if I DID have the kit lens it was a bad choice. Sorry Jim.

so now that that's cleared up - what are your opinions/suggestions?

[psk4363]

On a tight budget and looking for an "all round as possible" lens then I would opt for the 28-135 IS lens. You may lose out on the wide angle, but then you've got the 18-55mm lens to cover that range, and with the 1.6x factor you will have two lenses that will cover 90% of common shooting focal lengths and one that gives the benefits of Image Stabilising.

Cheers,
Barry (from the UK too)

[brainwerks]

I agree with psk4363. The 28-135 makes a good all around lens. This lens stays on my body 95% of the time. Maybe because all I currently have is this lens and the kit lens! :lol:

[JoeTampa]

If the budget is limited, I suggest the 28-200 USM. Good all-around non-L (read: $300 or so) lens. One of Canon's better kept secrets.


- Joe

[Jesper]

If the budget is limited, I suggest the 28-200 USM. Good all-around non-L (read: $300 or so) lens. One of Canon's better kept secrets.
Hmmm.... don't expect miracles from the Canon 28-200, it's one of those cheap, lower quality consumer zoom lenses. Here are some reviews: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=11&sort=7&thecat=27

I think the 28-135 IS USM will be much better. It has a bit less range, but it's quite nice (good optical quality) and the IS is great.

Here's an interesting link to get an overview of Canon lenses: http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

[JoeTampa]

I didn't mean to imply that the 28-200 would be better than the 28-135 IS, just that it was a good all-around lens for those on a budget. More range than the 28-135 for less money. It's worked well for me, although it of course is not L glass.

[arumdevil]

Hmm, I appreciate your input, but I'm still leaning towards the Tamron. I want the long range and the macro adds to the bargain. I know it won't be the best lens but I don't have a lot of money to spend right now and I want more options for my photos.

I also found this Sigma 55-200 (http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?PRODUCT=SIG552004DCCAF&BRAND=&CONT INUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&MOD ELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=143&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY=& QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHNOD E=0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=300& SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=11&SUBS=52583,263&WORD_SEARCH =N&) quite tempting, but it isn't so versatile.

If anyone has any reason why I shouldn't get the tamron then please tell me (and if so what to recommend in the price range up to £150 GBP /$250 USD)

otherwise after reading some user reviews (taken with a pinch of salt of course) I think I will go for the Tamron.

thanks,

arumdevil

[robertwgross]

If anyone has any reason why I shouldn't get the tamron then please tell me (and if so what to recommend in the price range up to £150 GBP /$250 USD)


Before you make any final decisions, you might compare the different lens specifications for minimum focus distance. For me, the ability for a wide-range zoom to be able to focus at a few inches is very important (basically, so I can shoot a flower close-up without switching to a macro lens or sticking on an extension tube). My trusty old Canon 28-200mm covers that well, even though it is not the most elegant solution.

---Bob Gross---

[arumdevil]

sounds nice, but at £350 it's beyond my budget for now :(

[robertwgross]

sounds nice, but at £350 it's beyond my budget for now :(

$345 USD.

---Bob Gross---

[arumdevil]

sounds nice, but at £350 it's beyond my budget for now :(

$345 USD.

---Bob Gross---

at Jessops in the uk it costs £350, even £200 is more than I can stretch to

[arumdevil]

I'm liking the sound of the Sigma 70-300mm F4/5.6DL (http://www.jessops.com/search/viewproduct.cfm?product=SIG703004DMS2CAF&BRAND=&CO NTINUE=false&FEATS=&FIRSTPRICE=0&KEYWORD=&LEVEL=&M ODELNUMBER=&NEWQUERY=True&NODE=143&ORD=ASC&ORDERBY =&QUANTITY=10&RECENT=0&REFINE=&SEARCH_FOR=&SEARCHN ODE=0&SEARCHURL=dointellisearch.cfm&SECONDPRICE=30 0&SHOWCASEID=&STARTROW=11&SUBS=52583,263&WORD_SEAR CH=N&)

it seems to have the same spec as the Tamron one I mentioned before. which do you think would be a better buy?

thanks[/url]