best lenses

[CindyS]

Ok..my question is this..

I can't afford an "L" lens...Lord KNOWS I want one. What i have currently is a

50mm f18 (thanks to everyone's advice..love this lens)
70-300 Quantaray 1:4-5.6 LD Lense..(not impressed)
and the Kit lens

Are the Quantaray's typically crappy lenses?? and which would everyone recommend to replace it ( I can't do L at this time)

How is the Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 IS USM a good upgrade?? Will there be quiet a bit of difference??

What do you all think is a good lens to add to my collection for around $500 or so? Before you ask, I like to shoot everything..macro, landscapes and portraits..

Thanks in advance for your input...

[robertwgross]

Cindy, you might get better replies if you mention what kind of Camera you have.

---Bob Gross---

[Cadwell]

How big is the "or so" attached to that $500?

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L $579 at B&H (USA Warranty) or $549 (Imported). That would be one L of an upgrade from the Quantaray 70-300.

[Sketcher]

IMO, a good "all around" lens for under $500.00 is the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS. You're considering another lens that'll do 300mm though so I don't know that the 135mm suits your interest other than it'll do a little bit of everything.

The 70-200 f/4 gets you into the "L" club in style and I haven't heard of anyone ever regretting that purchase (I regret selling mine); other than the tripod ring isn't included (but the f/4 isn't that heavy, can use the camera body tripod mount to get by). You can also add the 1.4X TC to extend your reach.

[CindyS]

OOOps..I have the Digital Rebel

or so..$100 or more maybe..heh guess depends on how much the extra is worth it.

[cmM]

cindy,
If you are willing to spend the money on a 75-300 IS, you're better off adding a little more and getting the 70-200 f/4 L. The 75-300 IS is optically worse than the non IS version (which I own), and I think it's the 1st generation IS (not sure though).
The 75-300 USM lens is okay, but I only own it until I can afford something eLse
here's one with the 75-300:
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/aug21cyc12.jpg

[CindyS]

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L $579 at B&H (USA Warranty) or $549 (Imported). That would be one L of an upgrade from the Quantaray 70-300.



I thought this lense was a LOT more...where is B&H??

[robertwgross]

EF 28-135mm IS

---Bob Gross---

[Cadwell]

Canon EF 70-200 f/4L $579 at B&H (USA Warranty) or $549 (Imported). That would be one L of an upgrade from the Quantaray 70-300.



I thought this lense was a LOT more...where is B&H??

B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/. One of the most rock solid on-line retailers you will ever come across according to most people on this forum.

[Panza]

Quantary isn't known to be top of the pops so to speak.

For landscapes you could do with a wide angle. For absolute best shapness etc (within your budget) a canon 20mm or 24mm prime will get you very nice pictures.
With a Sigma 15-30 EX zoom you get more coverage on the wide end with a little trade-off on the picture quality.

For your people shots the 50 1.8 should do nicely.

If you want to improve the tele you could try to get hold of a used Canon 100-300 F5.6L. They go for less than 500.

[cmM]

B&H http://www.bhphotovideo.com/. One of the most rock solid on-line retailers you will ever come across according to most people on this forum.
You mean the biggest online photography equipment retailer in the world :wink:

[tommykjensen]

How is the Canon EF 75-300/4-5,6 IS USM a good upgrade?? Will there be quiet a bit of difference??


I had that lens and was pleased with the results from it until I bought the 70-200 mm f/4 L.

You won't regret it if You get the L lens instead.


Here is one of my best shots to showoff this lens, several users have been convinced by this photo :wink: (http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=HarrisHawk1.jpg)

[CindyS]

Thanks for the quick responses!

I didn't relize the 70-200 was that price..I guess I was looking at the one with IS (Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens) which is MUCH more..

Sounds like this is the lense..even better than a Canon 100-300 F5.6L maybe because I can add the 1.4 extender right? (never used an extender but can't be too hard) and would have my first "L" Lens!

Thanks for all your input!

[tommykjensen]

Thanks for the quick responses!
Sounds like this is the lense..even better than a Canon 100-300 F5.6L maybe because I can add the 1.4 extender right? (never used an extender but can't be too hard) and would have my first "L" Lens!
!

Yes You can add an 1,4x extender without loosing auto focus. I just got an extender a few days ago and tried it in the zoo with the lens, here is a penguin (http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/zootest14x2.jpg) shot with this combination.

[Cadwell]

Thanks for the quick responses!

Sounds like this is the lense..even better than a Canon 100-300 F5.6L maybe because I can add the 1.4 extender right? (never used an extender but can't be too hard) and would have my first "L" Lens!

Thanks for all your input!

The 70-200mm F/4L is something of a bargain (if anything costing that much money can be called a bargain). It's light, well made and has fantastic optics. Yes, you can use a 1.4x TC on it. That gives you 280mm @ f/5.6 so it will still autofocus with the 300D and there is little (if any) degradation in image quality.

[Jesper]

Thanks for the quick responses!

I didn't relize the 70-200 was that price..I guess I was looking at the one with IS (Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens) which is MUCH more..

Sounds like this is the lense..even better than a Canon 100-300 F5.6L maybe because I can add the 1.4 extender right? (never used an extender but can't be too hard) and would have my first "L" Lens!

Thanks for all your input!

There are actually three versions of the 70-200 L:

70-200 f/4 L
70-200 f/2.8 L (without Image Stabilizer)
70-200 f/2.8 L IS

[Shakespeare]

Howdy, all, first post on this board. I've got the 300D and was in the exact same boat as the original poster, CindyS. A photographer friend of mine suggested the 75-300 after viewing its stats, but then suggested I plunk down the extra money for the 70-200 f/4 L after he found out how much I could get it for. So I will, but I'd still like to get close to 300mm.

Long story short,

The 70-200mm F/4L is something of a bargain (if anything costing that much money can be called a bargain). It's light, well made and has fantastic optics. Yes, you can use a 1.4x TC on it. That gives you 280mm @ f/5.6 so it will still autofocus with the 300D and there is little (if any) degradation in image quality.


this makes me very happy. Could someone please point one of these 1.4x TC on b+h? I'm not sure where to look, or exactly what they're listed under.

Thanks!

Shakes

[Shakespeare]

Howdy, all, first post on this board. I've got the 300D and was in the exact same boat as the original poster, CindyS. A photographer friend of mine suggested the 75-300 after viewing its stats, but then suggested I plunk down the extra money for the 70-200 f/4 L after he found out how much I could get it for. So I will, but I'd still like to get close to 300mm.

Long story short,

The 70-200mm F/4L is something of a bargain (if anything costing that much money can be called a bargain). It's light, well made and has fantastic optics. Yes, you can use a 1.4x TC on it. That gives you 280mm @ f/5.6 so it will still autofocus with the 300D and there is little (if any) degradation in image quality.


this makes me very happy. Could someone please point one of these 1.4x TC on b+h? I'm not sure where to look, or exactly what they're listed under.

Thanks!

Shakes

[Scottes]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220456&is=USA

[CoolToolGuy]

this makes me very happy. Could someone please point one of these 1.4x TC on b+h? I'm not sure where to look, or exactly what they're listed under.

Thanks!

Shakes

Here you go! 2x or not 2x - That is the question. :roll:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=4668

Have Fun,

[Molydood]

something that you may need to consider if going the teleconverter route is that a 1.4x will loose you one stop, and a 2x will loose you two stops, on your lens.
this is from memory, AND I am a newbie so please ignore this until somebody with a brain verifies this information :-)

[tommykjensen]

something that you may need to consider if going the teleconverter route is that a 1.4x will loose you one stop, and a 2x will loose you two stops, on your lens.
this is from memory, AND I am a newbie so please ignore this until somebody with a brain verifies this information :-)

That is correct and with the 2x autofocus is also lost.

[CyberDyneSystems]

NOT NOT NOT 2X !!! :)

It won't work with the 70-200mm f/4 on a 300D (it won't autofocus)

And the image quality will be "impaired"

Go for the 70-200mm f/4L and the 1.4X T-con listed in Scotte's link.

:)


As for Quantaray lenses?

I am going to use an advanced technical term in regard to those lenses.. so I don;t want to lose anyone here..

They are "poop" :P

In fact, Quantaray doens't "make" a single product.
It is the generic "brand name" for Ritz stuff that they buy from a vast number of various Tawianese and korean etc.. manufacturers... the "house brand" if you will. For the most part the quality is sub par. (there may be exceptions.. I like my bulb blower just fine :wink: )

[tommykjensen]

I am going to use an advanced technical term in regard to those lenses.. so I don;t want to lose anyone here..

They are "poop" :P


:lol: :lol: :lol: Care to elaborate that, I don't understand that technical term :?: :?:



No on second thought don't :!:

[CoolToolGuy]

Geez, I hope I don't have to spell everything out...

The member's name is Shakespeare - I'm shooting for a little humor - 2x or not 2x...

And the link covers both the 1.4x as well as the 2x, grey market and USA.

The 1.4x is the smart move for the 70-200 f4L, but I'm not sure the 2x is as verboten as CDS suggests. Check the latest from Canon:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&mode lid=7463

This suggests that the 2x can be used on the same lenses that the 1.4x can be used on, although autofocus would be lost on the 70-200 f4L. The compatibility chart on the B&H web site reflects this as well.

Have Fun,

[CyberDyneSystems]

Aaaah Shakespeare. That's very good CTG,.. "I didn't know they put Shakespeare in Comic Books" :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

(anyone who can nail that quote gets a free No Prize! :wink: )


Yes the MkII version of the 2X is a step up.. it's been around for some time though.. and it is the one I have.

You still lose AF with an f/4 lens on the 300D that's the biggest thing.. but to my eyes the image degradation.. though not terrible,.. is noticeable.

I tend to only use the 1.4X t-con... even on the 1D MkII where I can use the 2X with most lenses and retain AF.

My recomendation for T-cons remains consistent.

The 1.4X can be used with many Canon lenses seemlessly. Highly recomended to anyone who has a lens that it will fit and function on.

The 2X is less usefull,.. and will only be used on rare occasions when you absolutely have to get that extra "ummph" :)

Just my H.O. :)

[Panza]

The 1.4X or 2.0X extender issue was dicussed quite a bit on this topic too:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40938

[Andy_T]

Aaaah Shakespeare. That's very good CTG,.. "I didn't know they put Shakespeare in Comic Books" :lol: :lol: :lol: 8)

(anyone who can nail that quote gets a free No Prize! :wink: )


I didn't find the quote, so I will win no No Prize.

Wait a moment ... does that mean I win a prize, after all ???

But you might take a look at this: http://www.shakespearecomics.com/index.php

Best regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

"Is the 75-300 is lens much better than the quanteray?"

If you are talking optically then,no,not alot.
Note that the normal (non image stabilized) 75-300 versions are the same optically as the IS version.
If you don't need the IS feature then make the real step up to a 70-200/4
That will be a serious improvement

Unfortunately there is no real middle ground
The sigma 70-300 APO macro super II is about the only candidate

[Shakespeare]

Aaaah Shakespeare. That's very good CTG,.. "I didn't know they put Shakespeare in Comic Books

Weird that you should say this, as I'm using the same name as a comic book character from another site

http://www.valiantcomics.com/valiant/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=18

as this companies comics are another of my interest.

Weird world.

BTW, thanks for all the info...I'm very much a newbie and am happy to be here.

Shakes

[ohenry]

Take a good look at the Tamron Di lenses. They're less expensive than Canon lenses and are solid performers. The 28-75 Di is a great walk about lens. I believe they have a longer lens either newly produced or in the really near future.

[Morden]

As has been metioned, the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

This is my "walkaround" lens - and I know from past lens threads that many other regulars here use it in the same way. It doesn't cost a fortune. It is a good quality lens. It isn't too heavy. It has a good zoom range. It has IS!

Does anyone disagree?