Second Lens for Canon Digital Rebel [EOS 300D]

[Padmasankar]

Hi Guys,

I am planning to buy a Canon Digital Rebel [300D] with the kit Lens. I need to buy a telephoto lens too .. is Canon 75-300 F/4.0-5.6 III USM Lens a good option for Digital Rebel ? Can I mount this lens on the Canon Digital Rebel [300D]. I dont see this as an EF lens in Amazon. But this lens cheap for 169 $.

Is there anyother telephoto lens suggested at this price range.

thanks
Padmasankar J

[RikWriter]

The 80-200 II lens is even cheaper and, I understand (having owned the 80-200 but not the 75-300) a bit sharper.

[vfilby]

hmmm... I just bought a 75-300 III used for a $100. I am no lens expert so I don't feel comfortable say this lens is better or worse than other options. But I will take test shots if you want and I can tell you that it fits my 300D.

Vince

[MTAtech]

As a relatively new owner of a Digital Rebel, I'm very much in the same boat. I bought the kit and wanted a longer zoom too. After reading th lackluster reviews of the Canon 75-300mm, I decided to get order the TAMRON 70-300mm F/4.0-5.6 that will be ou in August, for $146 US.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006I5WS/002-7848221-7781634?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Amazon is having a promo that gives a promotional certificate for $50 off a future Amazon.com purchase when you spend $250 in our Electronics and Software Stores. So, I bought the lens and a Sandisk 512K card for slightly over $250 total.

I just hope the lens is decent.

[jyrgen]

The Tamron is a decent lens, stopped down a bit. I bought it as a temporary solution before I can afford (and really need) something better. It also positively surprises in it's "macro" range.

[Jesper]

You can find a lot of reviews by users of different lenses here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

that might give you an idea of what many people think of the lens you're looking for.

Note that there are different versions of the Canon EF 75-300: there's the 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM and the 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. The latter has IS (Image Stabilizer), which is a feature to help stabilize the image and get a sharper image at slower shutter speeds.

[Lamplight]

The 75-300mm will fit the DRebel, and it's an ok lens for the money, IMO. If you can afford something nicer, definitely spring for it (like the 70-200L). I took this shot with it (@300mm):

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v214/lamplightsg/Bird21.jpg

As you can probably see it's not especially sharp. However, I still find that it's good enough to have fun with. :) Here's another one (can't remember what the focal length was for this one):

http://img70.photobucket.com/albums/v214/lamplightsg/Cougar1.jpg

Overall, I don't regret buying it at all because it fit my needs at the time. Eventually I'd love to upgrade to the 100-400L as funds allow, but right now funds definitely do not allow. :lol:

[Conk]

Here's another one (can't remember what the focal length was for this one):

Too close for comfort! :shock: :lol:

Now this has got me thinking. :? I just bought a 75-300mm (hasn't arrived yet) and had/have the chance to buy a 80-200mm.

[cmM]

The 75-300mm will fit the DRebel, and it's an ok lens for the money, IMO. If you can afford something nicer, definitely spring for it (like the 70-200L).

Perfectly said. I have the 75-300 as well, and I'm satisfied with it, but it's just a compromise until I get something eLse :wink:

If you look under my "sports" galleries most of those shots are taken with this lens (on my website)

[msvadi]

the kit lens is not particularly fast, its maximum aperture is f/3.5. and around 50mm it's even worse - f/5.6. I know you want a telephoto lens, but it's better, first, to get a lens that has better low light capabilities. What lens, depends on the type of photos you take and your budget. But, it's safe to say, that 50mm f/1.8, is probably, the first thing most people buy after they get their camera: it's fast, sharp and very cheap.

On a DRebel, "normal" 50mm lens becomes telephoto (80mm in 35mm equivalent), so many people use it as a portrait lens.

[polloloco81]

I don't reccomend getting the Canon 80-200. It's not a particularly sharp lense. I bought in a while back for 120 bucks from B&H, and I felt that I wasted my money. Well, you get what you pay for, but I did not like the quality of the photographs taken with that lense.

I have no experience with the Canon 75-300mm, but I've read comparisons that it is not as sharp as the Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro II, which is the lense I recomend getting if you're on a budget. I got the lense about a month ago and so far it has given me some amazing shots. Worth every dollar I spent. It also does 1:2 macro photography.

Here's a couple of shots taken at 300mm with the Sigma
http://www.digitalempiredesign.com/bricktown2004/web_moon.jpg
http://www.digitalempiredesign.com/bricktown2004/web_fly1.jpg

[robertwgross]

Wow! What kind of bird is that with the red eyes?

---Bob Gross---

[MTAtech]

the kit lens is not particularly fast, its maximum aperture is f/3.5...Back when we used film and a roll had a fixed ISO, the minimum aperture was more important as it often meant that the lens required so much light that one had to shoot too long an exposure. Digital per-frame ISO makes it less critical as one can boost the ISO for that image to get more speed. The only drawback to a slow lens is limited depth of field. Let me know if I'm missing something.

Summary: The point being that slow lenses had more drawbacks in the film world than the digital one.

[robertwgross]

The only drawback to a slow lens is limited depth of field. Let me know if I'm missing something.


I think what you meant was that a slow lens gives you limited control on depth of field. A fast lens allows you to control it more fully. A slow lens only offers a wide depth of field.

---Bob Gross---

[Johnnynf]

The 75-300 4.0-5.6 III is a DECENT lens (not great) provided you can get the shutter speed fast enough...especially at 300mm. Without the IS or a tripod, the image can get blurred very easy at anything under about 1/250 shutter speed. If you can spring for it, I HIGHLY recommend getting the IS version. The Image Stabilization is a big help at this type of focal length.

[msvadi]

I think that f/1.8 is still important, even with ISO 800. May be it's no as important as with film, but it still can be crucial for low light photography.
Better control over the DOF, of course, is another reason.

[vfilby]

msvadi, remember we are talking about telephoto lenses here. We all love the thrifty fifty but it doesn't serve as a great tele, however slight the distinction.

I have never used the Sigma 70-300 APO but I checked on photozone and they gave it a lower rating than the 75-300, but another site (photodo) gives the 80-200 a higher rating. I am not sure how reliable these figures are. I know the 75-300 isn't a great lens but it suited my budget and I am satisfied with it, until I can afford the covetted 70-200L IS USM.

Polloloco81, perhaps you could post some 100% crops?

Here are a couple from my 75-300 taken today. Both were taken at the wide end, 290 and 300 respectively. The apertures were 6.3 and 7.1 respectively. I am sure a better photographer could probably do better with the lens, so please keep that in mind as well.

http://www.filbar.org/Pictures/75-300crop.jpg
http://www.filbar.org/Pictures/75-300crop2.jpg
http://www.filbar.org/Pictures/75-300crop3.jpg

Vince

[ron chappel]

This subject comes up so often i can see i'm going to have to write a dedicated web page on it! :shock:

First of all take no notice of those that are purely guessing!!

I've used quite a few cheap telezooms and this is what i've found:

The EF80-200 II is a bargain *if* you only need to zoom to 200mm
It's slightly sharper than the 75-300,tiny,light an very fast to focus.
(note-you must get the II version! The original or usm versions are not worth using,being much worse)

The EF75-300 is the usual popular cheap 300mm zoom choice(note-all 75-300 models are the same optically).It feels like plastic,is soft above 300mm and is quite slow to focus-even the usm version!BUT-
it does seem to get some pretty good pics
Here are some examples-
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

The EF90-300 i didn't like.Sure it has good contrast but the sharpness is just not good enough to get decent pics.I got one very good photo and heaps of throwaways :x . I won't bother mentioning it's good/bad points as i wouldn't recommend it

The EF100-300
Definitely a good one!
Well built,very fast focus ,nice contrast colour and sharpness.Most pics i took turned out well with few throwaways :)
Some say that this lens is no better or not much better optically than the 75-300 but mine was definitely better than all the 75-300 versions i've used :) ,especially at the long end.
I'd say by the average of comments online that it is al least slightly better optically than the 75-300.

Also i'll add,as mentioned above-the sigma 70-300 APO macro super II does get very fabvorable comments from owners (while the cheaper non apo version and the very cheap 100-300 DL model are never praised)
It would be one worth looking into

*edit*
Oops-i should mention to be sure that you understand which version tamron zoom the owner is talking about.There are at least three current versions of the 70-300 alone! (not all sold in the same markets)

also

If you can stretch to something like a canon EF70-200/4 L then DO IT :D
There are no doubts about image quality once you get into that kind of class of lens

[vfilby]

Thanks for the tips ron! Also thank you for clearing up the confusion.

Vince

[rowdy]

As with many here, I can't say either way on the 75-300's and such, but as Ron said, if you can spring for the 70-200L, then do it. I can vouch for that one. It seems to be a superb lens. In the "old" days (film), I shot with some Sigma and Tamron glass and got "good" results that I thought were great. Now I know better. Save up for the 70-200L, it'll make ya glad ya did.

[DocFrankenstein]

If you actually like photography and you think that you're gonna want sharp images, then go for the L from the beginning.

"We are not rich enough to buy cheap things"

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36696&highlight=

[Bodog]

I'm a little late getting into this discussion, but FWIW, here are some samples from the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM. I think it can be pretty sharp, especially stopped down.

http://webpages.charter.net/j.earley/glads

[ron chappel]

Good one bodog.
I allways regret selling my 100-300 before i could get more comparison/example pics with it
The thing that i notice most about that model lens is that it has contrast and colour that looks JUST like an L lens(but not as sharp)

while the 75-300 looks "very different" :?
The best way i could describe the look of the 75-300 is that the background blur is incredibly thick looking.Allmost fake in a way,not natural looking like the 100-300.
...and these characteristics carry over into the sharp parts of the image

A weird description i know
ill try to post a comparison some time because it really shows in the photo's :wink:

Interesting website you have bodog,it looks exactly like windows XP :)

[vfilby]

Since there seems to be so much knowledge here I will venture to ask an off topic question.

When I purchased my first zoom lens a week ago all I could afford was a 75-300 and a used one at that. I doubt I will regret the purchase because I am sure I will be able to recover my investment. Since I have this beast what is the best way to get the most out of it? I am assuming that I should be shooting stopped down a bit and preferrably not zoomed all the way to 300mm. If I take these precautions will the pictures be better than otherwise?

Thanks,

[DocFrankenstein]

what is the best way to get the most out of it? I am assuming that I should be shooting stopped down a bit and preferrably not zoomed all the way to 300mm. If I take these precautions will the pictures be better than otherwise?

Thanks,

Yeah, you can always do that... if you can bring the sun closer

You'll need 1/400 or 1/500 of a second to shoot at 300mm. It must be pretty bright to give you such shutter speeds when stopped down to f/8

Anything less than direct bright sun and you'll end up opening the lens all the way.

[catastrophe]

The EF75-300 is the usual popular cheap 300mm zoom choice(note-all 75-300 models are the same optically).It feels like plastic,is soft above 300mm and is quite slow to focus-even the usm version!BUT-
it does seem to get some pretty good pics
Here are some examples-
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/


Can I ask if you have the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM or the III USM version? Please let me know as it seems to take acceptable action photos. I need the reach of a 300mm lense and I'm on a budget. :P I've read people seem to like the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM better... Kinda seems like a toss-up to me. :?

[c0ntr0lz]

Padmasankar it's all about what you're going to do with the photos and the lens. If you're looking to take photos for your use and not for pro work then you can use a lens like that and love it. but if you're going to really really look for a perfect photo then you'll have to go with a bigger/better lens. I'm in the same debate right now so i know that it's like. have fun and good luck

[ron chappel]

Can I ask if you have the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM or the III USM version? Please let me know as it seems to take acceptable action photos. I need the reach of a 300mm lense and I'm on a budget. :P I've read people seem to like the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM better... Kinda seems like a toss-up to me. :?

That particular one is a non usm ,version II

I had two problems with it that day that caused alot of pics to be duds--shutter speed and focus speed
High shutter speeds are needed to get consistantly good action pics(and becomes a potential real problem if you want to stop down the lens to get better image quality).Because the sun was shining strongly i had few problems at the wider focal lengths,but at the long end this lens kinda NEEDS to be stopped down abit to get reasonable quality.Even with full sun and ISO 400 the shutter speeds were not high enough to get sharp pics at f8+
-this is where an image stabilization would be hugely usefull! :D


As the 75-300's all focus rather slowly(and this non usm version is even slower :shock: ),i had quite a few dud photo's that day :lol: .
Mostly i used prefocus and hoped it would get it right from there
-This is where the 100-300 would be much better :D

All in all,you can still get reasonable action shots with the 75-300 lenses-it's just that image stabilization would be extremely usefull at longer focal lengths so you can stop it down abit.While those pics i've posted don't quite do justice to it's ability at 300/wide open,i must admit it isn't very good at that setting :?

The focus speed issue i think is less important,even though i complained about it above.I'd suggest going for the USM version at least or maybe choosing the 100-300 instead if you really need fast focus (such as birds in flight,etc)



PS
I'm happy to add that i aquired a tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD yesterday so i'll do a few tests with it soon.Of the tests i've done so far it's pretty close to the 75-300 overall.The most difference i see so far is a very cool colour ballance.
It does seem to be a little sharper at 300mm than the EF 75-300 so it's promising
*Note that this tamron is the 1;3.8 macro version but NOT the (better?)1:2 macro

[ron chappel]

Can I ask if you have the 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM or the III USM version? Please let me know as it seems to take acceptable action photos. I need the reach of a 300mm lense and I'm on a budget. :P I've read people seem to like the 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM better... Kinda seems like a toss-up to me. :?

That particular one is a non usm ,version II

I had two problems with it that day that caused alot of pics to be duds--shutter speed and focus speed
High shutter speeds are needed to get consistantly good action pics(and becomes a potential real problem if you want to stop down the lens to get better image quality).Because the sun was shining strongly i had few problems at the wider focal lengths,but at the long end this lens kinda NEEDS to be stopped down abit to get reasonable quality.Even with full sun and ISO 400 the shutter speeds were not high enough to get sharp pics at f8+
-this is where an image stabilization would be hugely usefull! :D


As the 75-300's all focus rather slowly(and this non usm version is even slower :shock: ),i had quite a few dud photo's that day :lol: .
Mostly i used prefocus and hoped it would get it right from there
-This is where the 100-300 would be much better :D

All in all,you can still get reasonable action shots with the 75-300 lenses-it's just that image stabilization would be extremely usefull at longer focal lengths so you can stop it down abit.While those pics i've posted don't quite do justice to it's ability at 300/wide open,i must admit it isn't very good at that setting :?

The focus speed issue i think is less important,even though i complained about it above.I'd suggest going for the USM version at least or maybe choosing the 100-300 instead if you really need fast focus (such as birds in flight,etc)



PS
I'm happy to add that i aquired a tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD yesterday so i'll do a few tests with it soon.Of the tests i've done so far it's pretty close to the 75-300 overall.The most difference i see so far is a very cool colour ballance.
It does seem to be a little sharper at 300mm than the EF 75-300 so it's promising
*Note that this tamron is the 1;3.8 macro version but NOT the (better?)1:2 macro

[Padmasankar]

thanks Guys.
Which is the best place to buy ?Amzon, Circutcity, B&H or ebay ??

thanks
Padmasankar

[Belmondo]

In order:
B&H
Amazon (probably Adorama who is one of their approved dealers)
Circuit City
eBay

I'm not a big fan of eBay. This is not to say there aren't bargains out there, but you can't always find them when you want them, and there is the risk element. Buy it from B&H.

[mrcoons]

I agree with Belmondo, B&H Photo is always my first stop with Amazon the second. I also like Sigma lenses and recently discovered Sigma4Less.com but have not ordered anything from them as yet.

[LightRules]

The Sigma 70-300 APO (red ring) is generally considered the best optical lens (in this range) at the consumer level for Canon mount. That said, if you can save up, I'd recommend you invest in something like the Canon 70-200 f4 or the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. Best wishes.

[ed rader]

Hi Guys,

I am planning to buy a Canon Digital Rebel [300D] with the kit Lens. I need to buy a telephoto lens too .. is Canon 75-300 F/4.0-5.6 III USM Lens a good option for Digital Rebel ? Can I mount this lens on the Canon Digital Rebel [300D]. I dont see this as an EF lens in Amazon. But this lens cheap for 169 $.

Is there anyother telephoto lens suggested at this price range.

thanks
Padmasankar J

i think the best consumer zoom out there for $200 is the discontinued 70-210 3.5/4.5.

very small and lightweight and the AF is RING USM.

i sold mine yesterday but i am getting the 70-200L f4 tomorrow :). i like light lenses and both these zooms are the best in their class, imo.


ed rader

[condyk]

fStopJojo is spot on as usual, but as Ron mentions the Canon 100-300mm is a close runner and only really let down by its price against the Sigma. From my research before buying the Sigma several moons ago it seems all the cheaper zooms produce more or less softish images at longer lengths. That's why I sold mine ultimately ... but you also don't need to buy L lenses to get quality!