CANON DIGITAL REBEL LENS RECOMMENDATION

[mashinhead]

I have a canon digital rebel and i need a macro lens for it ASAP. About 100mm. I was wondering if someone could recommend one that is good that i can purchase cheap and used. I want something that works well but doesn't break the bank.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I can't comment on used bargains..

But these are the ones I would recomend in the following order

Canon 100mm Macro

Sigma 105mm Macro

Tamron 90mm Macro

All very good..

[Malaxos1]

I don't own one but I have seen some incredible photos from the Canon 100mm Macro. Check out photosig and search by lens...Dean

[cmM]

I want something that works well but doesn't break the bank.

Those 2 don't mix very well. You get what you pay for. for $470 (approx) you can get the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. Read reviews on it, and if you find a bad one, let me know. I haven't been able to find one. It's flawless, and the pictures are astonishing !
I will buy one as soon as I my budget recovers.

[blinking8s]

Is the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM worth it? I have the EFS 18-55 kit lenses that came with it, I’m not a huge fan...it doesn’t do a bad job; I just don’t like the feeling.

and I am looking into an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for some odd reason, I’ve read its comparison to the f/1.8 but I cannot decide really, I’ve seen a lot of portraitish work with the 1.4 and loved it all.

Id love to get some zoom, but I cant really find anything I like within a low budget. That 17-40 maxes out all I could ever afford while on a college budget, class, and working basically full time between 2 jobs.

again, you are reading this from an UBER n00b to photography, so I am probably wrong about everything anyways

[roanjohn]

Is the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM worth it?

Ummm.......YES!!!

Ro1

[blinking8s]

I just dont like my EF-S 18-55 kit lense, pictures turn out ok, but not what I am looking for.

I read in another forum where they were going over the photography reviews site and this lense came up as a replacement for the EF-S 18-55...I have always read and been led to believe that the kit lense is a POS and the 17-40 cannot even be compared. But you never know if what you read is true I guess.


Sure... what's the price of the 17-40 f/4L again? What's the big difference in terms of quality between it and the EF-S 18-55?

To pay big bucks for the 17-40 f/4L is a waste of money for the 300D in comparison to the kit lens; a 300D's crop factor turns a great ultra wide angle lens into an average normal zoom lens; a 28-70 f/4 with good sharpness is all you'll get. The 17-40 is a great lens ok; but its strength is in its edge to edge definition; while a digital camera only has the central part of the lens used. Why pay that much to use the lens to half its abilities? I'd rather go for the Sigma 12-24 EX then. At least that'd be a nice wide angle even on digital.
-----
So in short. You would have the kit lens, and you'd shell out $700 for basically the same thing with maybe 5% more quality as an amateur? I see a lot of things that could be added in a shopping cart for a total of $700 that'll do more to image quality: tripod, tripod head, remote release, good quality polarizer, just to name a few.

You could as well consider the Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8 ASP HSM EX; at least you get a few stops more of light and good quality on a digital camera considering the lens is soft at the edges mostly outside the cropped frame. Or put the money towards the Sigma 12-24mm EX; that would open the 18mm range on a 300D with more than decent optical quality.

The only gain from the 17-40 f/4 is redundancy with the EF-S 18-55mm; optical quality is better alright but you would be buying a lens which price is justified by the fact it's an ULTRA WIDE angle; which is barely a wide angle when put on a 300D.

That's a waste of money imho.


I know I like the EF 50mm f/1.4...I havent see a photo I have wished I had taken that it was used for. But should I start out with the f/1.8 since I am a complete amateur?

[Adam Hicks]

That L lens is going to be way more expensive than you probably want to spend right now. Pick up the Canon 28-135 IS for under $400 on eBay, or I still love and recommend the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. So bright you probably won't need the IS, and tack sharp. Also under $400.

These are lenses you can stick on the camera and do just about anything with. You'll be ashamed to own the ultra-cheap feeling kit lens after using these. Of course the kit lens is still a pretty darned fast focus'r!

Good luck,
Adam

[Guillermo Freige]

Now I'm actually using a combo of a Canon 28-135IS (from my old EOS 5) and a Sigma 12-24 EX to cover the ultrawideangle to wideangle area. Those are my main lenses now. The 18-55 is gathering dust somewhere.

[blinking8s]

most reviews that I have read (judging off poor research) say the Canon 28-135 IS is poorly built and feels cheap. Any opinions?

how about the 40mm f 1.4 and f 1.8? anyone have those?

thanks for everyones input though, I am full of questions...

[Sector001]

whatever lens u decide to get, don't get the Sigma 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 (even though this is not a macro lens, but i thought u should know about it) their earlier lens doesn't work for the Digital Rebel as i have found out the hard way. I am in the process of sending in the lens for a rechipping, free of charge...

unless they have already fixed the problem.

[Guillermo Freige]

most reviews that I have read (judging off poor research) say the Canon 28-135 IS is poorly built and feels cheap. Any opinions?

how about the 40mm f 1.4 and f 1.8? anyone have those?

thanks for everyones input though, I am full of questions...

Probably it'll feel cheap compared to a 24-70L, but compared to the kit lens is MUCH better built. After all the 28-135 is a good "consumer" lens and the 24-70L is a "pro level" L lens.
Regarding the 40mm, I think you are talking about the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 :). I've the 50 1.8 and it´s a little plastic (the 28-135 is better built than this one) but image quality is very good after f/2.8. There is no meter scale and it has a plastic mount, but it also cost 1/4 of the f/1.4...

[Tom W]

most reviews that I have read (judging off poor research) say the Canon 28-135 IS is poorly built and feels cheap. Any opinions?

how about the 40mm f 1.4 and f 1.8? anyone have those?

thanks for everyones input though, I am full of questions...

Probably it'll feel cheap compared to a 24-70L, but compared to the kit lens is MUCH better built. After all the 28-135 is a good "consumer" lens and the 24-70L is a "pro level" L lens.
Regarding the 40mm, I think you are talking about the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 :). I've the 50 1.8 and it´s a little plastic (the 28-135 is better built than this one) but image quality is very good after f/2.8. There is no meter scale and it has a plastic mount, but it also cost 1/4 of the f/1.4...

Agree - the 28-135 IS is a good, solid lens. It has the metal mount, good focus scale, and middle USM focus. Its well built. As Guillermo says, its not quite a Professional lens (though some pros use it), but it is a good, well-made lens.

[Radtech1]

most reviews that I have read (judging off poor research) say the Canon 28-135 IS is poorly built and feels cheap. Any opinions?

The absolute worst thing that I have noticed about the fit and fininsh of this lens is a SLIGHT - I mean barely perceptable - wiggle in the distal element. For $400 bones it is a great piece of glass. (Why go to EBay to get it at that price? http://www.samys.com/product.php?ItemNo=CANOC219931) Granted, it does not have the "Shaper than a Serpant's Tooth" reputation of the "L" series, but look at what I have gotten:

0.7 (that is to say 7/tenths - over a half) second exposure

f6.7

41mm focal length

ISO 100

HAND HELD in the Stuttgart Bonhoff using existing light.

Reduced Full Frame:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/78486/train1.jpg

Full Resolution Crop:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/78486/train2.jpg

Junk? I don't think so.

[Tom W]

that's a great example, Radtech. Even with IS, it still exhibits a good, steady stance (not to mention a very good lens).