which zoom lens

[commando]

Yes, i'm sorry, it's another "which zoom lens" question. I'm new to digital SLRs and SLRs in general, I just have an EOS 300D with the kit lens. I've had a bit of a search and read around,

I'm after a zoom lens, my only real requirement is that I don't have to stand so close to something to take the picture ;) Being new that's my only requirement, other than keeping the price reasonably low. So i'm just after a general purpose lens really.

I'm in New Zealand, but i'm happy to order from the states or anywhere so long as shipping is reasonable. The options seem to be a little limited here, and more expensive than the states. My options here seem to be:

CANON EF 55-200MM F4.5-5.6 USM II: NZ$509 = $348 (or US$194 bought from BHPhoto & Video + 33 shipping)
CANON EF 90-300MM F/4.5-5.6 USM: NZ$389 = US$266
CANON EF 80-200MM F/4.5-5.6 II: NZ$272 = US$186 - no USM

Of course these have the 1.6 factor thingy, so the 200 lens is more like 320mm, and the 300mm is more like 480mm.

Any thoughts on which is the better lens for someone like me?

[robertwgross]

If you know your intended subject, then that makes it easier to pin down.

For example, if it is wildlife, that tells us something. If it is birds, that tells us something different. For example, bird photographers generally go after lenses at 400, 500, or 600mm.

If you are going after African elephants in your back yard, then that would suggest something totally different.

If you aren't sure, then you probably want something with a relatively broad zoom range. On the other hand, a narrow zoom range lens is often sharper.

If it is portrait photography, then that suggests a lens in the 50-100mm range.

---Bob Gross---

[commando]

You're answering all my questions today, aren't you? :)

I don't photograph anything in particular, which is why I don't know what level of zoom I want. I take photos of whatever I feel like at the time. Sometimes of people, sometimes of landscapes, sometimes of animals. For example, last week I was trying to take a photo of a bumble bee on a flower, and because I didn't want to get too close to it I could have used a bigger zoom lens. On the same trip I wanted to take a photo of a small waterfall, but again, the 300D kit lens didn't have enough magnification to isolate it from the surrounding stuff I didn't want.

I guess my question is what would most people use for a general purpose zoom lens, and then which lens is the best value. 200mm is 320mm equilivent, which is about "10X" in consumer camera speak, I think. That'd be enough. If I could get a lens that still performed reasonably well and went to 300mm though i'd probably be even happer with that. So 300mm is my ideal I think. If the 200mm lens performs much better than the 300 i'd consider that though. Having a wide range is good, it means I don't have to change lenses as often. Having the wrong lens on can mean missing a good picture.

Sorry for the overly verbose post! Summary: if I can get a decent quality zoom lens that goes out to 300mm and is reasonable quality, i'd be happy.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Your goal is reach..

I'd say go for the 300mm zoom and start there.

When you decide that quality is more important than money.. (most of us are in debt! :) ) then we can start over :lol:

[robertwgross]

Well, then, you want to go after a general purpose zoom lens, maybe one on the longer side. If you are at the beginner stage, you might want to get one that is not too terribly expensive. Then later, if you get more serious about it, you can move up to something serious.

The typical beginner long zoom (a guess) is the 75-300mm Canon. Several friends with either the Canon film Rebel or the Digital Rebel have those. They are not terribly expensive, and they are not terribly heavy. I have one that I bought years ago, and it works, but it is a little soft. I used it for wildlife photography in Africa a little, and it is good to learn with.

---Bob Gross---

[commando]

Thanks guys. The 75-300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=169269&is=GREY ) costs 169.95 at BH, a bit of reading i've been doing indicates the 100-300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12059&is=GREY) at 259.95 is a better lens. The cost difference isn't a big deal to me. Thoughts on those two?

Is image stabilisation a good idea for me, at the price it goes for?

[robertwgross]

Is image stabilisation a good idea for me, at the price it goes for?

A typical beginner does not use a tripod and does not intend to use a tripod. So, for handheld shooting, I.S. seems like a good help.

However, at some later point in time, you might get serious about shooting some subjects, and that might require you to use a tripod. At that point, you can simply switch off the I.S. on the lens.

The famous outdoor photographer John Shaw once wrote that of all the work he does, about 99% are with a tripod.

If or as you move toward telephoto lenses, tripods will become more important to you. The longer the lens, the more you need a tripod.

---Bob Gross---

[wolf]

My vote is for the 100-300 and throw in a 50mm f1.8 :)

[Olegis]

Hey commando !
What's the budget ? For about $550 you can get the terrific Canon EF 70-200 f/4L zoom, which is FAR better than the lenses mentioned here - optically, mechanically and electronically.

[commando]

Hmmm. 550 for the 70-200, 389 for the IS 75-300, or 289 for the plain 100-300. It's getting expensive! I don't really have a budget, but any money I spend now I can't spend later...

What advantages would the 200 lens have for a beginner like me? It has 50% less zoom, which would be an issue I think.

I have a tripod, a reasonably light weight one but sturdy enough, but I don't think i'm going to be taking it everywhere with me. I'm thinking the 100-300 lens is looking pretty good right now. The 75-300 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=102854&is=GREY ) IS is $389, the same price as the 100-300 non-IS. Does anyone have any thoughts on the 73-300 IS vs the 100-300?

[ron chappel]

I've used most of these :)

The 80-200II is a much underated lens,it's amazingly sharp for a cheap consumer zoom!
Here are two example pics http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/80-200II%20a.html
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/80-200II%20b.html

The 90-300 i didn't like one little bit :? i got several good pics with it but everything else was pure crap!!
Here's one of the best ones-notice that it's been sharpened a fair bit which really makes the water look good...which then gives the imression that the whole pic is sharp.It's not quite as good as it first looks.The only good thing i can say about this lens is that it has good contrast
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/image%20EF%2090-300.html

The 75-300 is an OK 300mm zoom .It does most things well enough to get very good pics at times.Some examples...
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

The 100-300 is a winner :D A VERY nice lens for a consumer zoom.Not as razor sharp as an L lens but decent just the same.Here are some comparison pics of the 75-300 Verses 100-300
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_4.html
There are also several pics on other pages...my website design skills need some work,lol
Also these pics were taken with the 100-300 .Note that some of the bike pics are just plain out of focus!They would look better if they were focused right :oops:
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/IMG_0263-web.html
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/IMG_0273-web.html
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/IMG_0192-web.html
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/IMG_040web.html

[commando]

Thanks ron.

Thanks ron.

;)

Well i'm convinced not to buy the 75-300, the images from the 100-300 look much better, and it only costs a little more. The question now is do I want to go with the 70-200L, or the 100-300? I lose 50% of the zoom capability, but I gain a bit (a lot?) in quality. I wonder how usable the last 100mm of the longer lens is anyway? Thoughts anyone?

[Olegis]

Hmmm. 550 for the 70-200, 389 for the IS 75-300, or 289 for the plain 100-300. It's getting expensive! I don't really have a budget, but any money I spend now I can't spend later...

What advantages would the 200 lens have for a beginner like me? It has 50% less zoom, which would be an issue I think.

It's not just zoom reach, it's the overall quality thing with Canon L lenses. The optical quality of these lenses is the best there is, the focus is smooth, fast and precise, and the build quality is impeccable. In other words - you'll never use a consumer-grade zoom once you'll touch the 70-200 f/4L lens - trust me.

The zoom reach is whole other thing - if you absolutely NEED the 300mm reach, then 70-200mm lens would be useless, so you'll have to decide what range you want to buy.

[commando]

Well the cost of the 70-200L is almost double that of the 100-300, plus it's huge and white. If I were really serious maybe i'd go for it, but this is my first SLR camera and first lens, it's probably not worth spending the money on the really expensive one right now.

So, in the price range of up to about $300, what would be the best general purpose zoom lens, preferably with 300mm zoom, but image quality is probably as important as zoom. I'd consider non-canon brand lenses too, but i'm in NZ so I don't want to have to be sending lenses around to be rechipped if they don't work.

Thanks for your help so far everyone, it's been most helpful :)

[Olegis]

I understand. What I can recommend is this - leave all the "big zoom" thing behind and start with just one lens, or what it's called "a walkaround lens". Many of the first time Canon DSLR users buy the Canon EF 28-135 IS lens and use it untill they feel the need to upgrade to something with longer reach, or something wider. It doesn't have the best optics ever, but the quality is very sufficient, and it has the IS of course.

Buy it and try to learn to use it to the maximum. When you feel that this lens starts to limit you - upgrade to something else (better optics, larger apertures, longer reach or wider angle). That's the beauty of the SLR world - the possibilities are limitless because you can fit whatever lens you want (and can afford).

[cc10d]

oops.

[cc10d]

If you are serious about a good telephoto zoom and are looking for reach. The Canon 100-400 IS L is the one to use. It covers the range, and does it with good quality. It is the best walk around wildlife lens I have used. Most people interested in handheld telephhoto eventually get to it after spending more than enough on lesser lenses to have bought it and not having been satisfied with the results.

I second the idea of the 28 - 135 IS as a good walk around lens. A bit better than most low cost lenses and suplements the lower focal lengths for the bigger telephotos. I have the Canon 100-300 it is pretty good up the 200mm or so then starts to soften ( I like it better than the 75-300s) but it served me well until I got the 100-400 IS L. The 100 -300 cannot hold up in picture quality to the 100-400 IS L toward the long end and does not have the IS so important to any handheld telephoto.

Mainly get something and get out there and enjoy. Wishing you the Best of picture taking fun and reward.

[cc10d]

If you are serious about a good telephoto zoom and are looking for reach. The Canon 100-400 IS L is the one to use. It covers the range, and does it with good quality. It is the best walk around wildlife lens I have used. Most people interested in handheld telephhoto eventually get to it after spending more than enough on lesser lenses to have bought it and not having been satisfied with the results.

I second the idea of the 28 - 135 IS as a good walk around lens. A bit better than most low cost lenses and suplements the lower focal lengths for the bigger telephotos. I have the Canon 100-300 it is pretty good up the 200mm or so then starts to soften ( I like it better than the 75-300s) but it served me well until I got the 100-400 IS L. The 100 -300 cannot hold up in picture quality to the 100-400 IS L toward the long end and does not have the IS so important to any handheld telephoto.

Mainly get something and get out there and enjoy. Wishing you the Best of picture taking fun and reward.

[ron chappel]

Thanks ron.

Thanks ron.




LOL :lol: yeah sorry about the double post
I wonder if it's a server glitch?I'm sure i didn't submit twice and i notice other double posts too :?

[commando]

Thanks everyone. It's starting to sound like I need to just play around with the camera and the kit lens for a little while to work out exactly what I need, and what my usage patterns will be, and see if I end up taking my tripod with me. With that information i'll hopefully work out if I need a longer zoom, or to just stick to a single lens with a decent range.

Olegis - I like the suggestion of just using the 28-135 zoom lens, if I didn't already have the kit lens i'd jump on it. I wonder how the quality would be compared with the kit lens?

Is there any prospect of Canon bringing out more EF-S lenses any time soon? And if they do is it a good idea to get one over EF? I don't plan to use film cameras, but when canon release a reasonably priced camera with a 35mm sensor I might eventually upgrade, so EF lenses might be a good idea.

You've all been most helpful and have probably stopped me wasting a load of money, thanks everyone :) I'll be around, and I might ask for suggestions again when I know a little more :)

[Headcase650]

Here is a sigma consumer zoom that gets bretty good reviews
http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Sigma/PRD_83600_3128crx.aspx
Just make sure you look at the "Sigma 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 APO Macro Super II"
It should have a red ring around the lense NOT GOLD, The old ones are gold and would need to be rechipped.

[chris.bailey]

If you flick back over several pages of this board you will find a common theme of Newbies who go down the route of 28-135 a longer non L zoom like the 100-300 and then go L. In the long run many of us have spent a fortune to get to where we have got. As they say, "been there got the t-shirt"

If it were me I would go for the 70-700 F4L (even second hand if you can find a good one, they do come up as people go from the f4 to the f2.8). Aside from all the optical qualities of an L lens one of the side benefits is the strong second/third or fourth hand value. I bought a second hand 70-200 f4 and sold it for the same as I bought it for. Not many lens' you will do that with !!!

[commando]

I had the pleasure of trying a 70-200 2.8L lens yesterday, owned by my tutor. Damn that's thing's heavy! And for the photos of the sunset we were taking, it didn't seem to give me photos any better than my kit lens. It was too heavy, too big, and I don't need 200 zoom I think.

I'm starting to think that the kit lens is limiting me, mainly in that it's absolutely crap at narrow depth of field shots. What I need to start with is a good general purpose lens, one that's not too big or heavy so I can leave it on my camera all the time, but big enough to do a solid job, especially at depth of field shots.

I'm thinking that a lens in the 24-70 or 24-135 area is going to be perfect for what I want. It's got a wide angle for when I need it, and has a pretty good zoom, especially on the 135 - probably as much zoom as I could reasonably use without a tripod (which i'll not use all the time). It's quite hard to narrow the range of lenses down, to work out what I really want. What do you guys think of these lenses (in my current order of preference, before reading reviews):

Sigma 24-135 F2.8-4.5 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=283380&is=REG &si=spec#goto_itemInfo) (reasonably fast when wide, good zoom)
Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=149629&is=GRE Y&si=spec#goto_itemInfo) (slower, good zoom, IS)
Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=213154&is=REG &si=spec#goto_itemInfo) (slower lens, good zoom)
Tamron 27-75 F2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG &si=spec#goto_itemInfo) - great speed, not as much zoom
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=223624&is=REG &si=spec#goto_itemInfo) (faster lens, less zoom)

Which of those do you guys think would be a good lens for a beginner, given I want a general purpose lens that can do ok narrow depth of field shots?

[robertwgross]

Which of those do you guys think would be a good lens for a beginner, given I want a general purpose lens that can do ok narrow depth of field shots?

Well, the ones with the wider aperture, e.g. f/2.8, will get you there better. On the other hand, f/2.8 isn't all that much better than f/3.5. Now, if you had a choice that was f/2 or f/1.8, then you could really narrow down that depth of field. Or, an f/1.4 if you wanted to go wild.

At a beginner stage, you probably don't want to go too wild trying to get one special lens to be able to get one special shot, such as you were describing, unless that is a serious priority shot. More likely, you'll get something more general, and you will push that to the limits of what it can do... and you know how to go farther if you had that one special lens.

---Bob Gross---

[commando]

I've just read reviews of the Tamron 28-75 2.8, and everyone says it's an great lens, and amazing for the price. Both the Canon and Tamron 135 lenses, on the other hand, review as only average, with people having issues with the sharpness and the color.

I'm thinking this is a very good candidate as my single "walking around" lens. I'll keep the kit lens for closer work for now, and I can get a 70-300 IS lens or similar later, when I need it.

Good plan?

Edit - would the 50mm 1.8 lens for a good cheap lens for close up work with a really narrow depth of field?

[robertwgross]

- would the 50mm 1.8 lens for a good cheap lens for close up work with a really narrow depth of field?

Yes.

You don't find a hell of a lot of lenses faster than f/1.8 unless you spend a lot more. I guess if you need to buy one special purpose lens, then one like this would be a good choice (only $70 or whatever).

---Bob Gross---

[commando]

That 50mm changes to 80mm with the crop factor applied. That's a fair bit of zoom. I guess that's good for close up shots, you just stand closer to or further from what you want to take a photo of ;)

I'm thinking what I should do is get the Tamron 27-75 and the Canon 50/1.8 now, because they're both fast and can do the depth of field stuff I want to play with. If I decide I need more zoom later, I can get a 100-300 IS lens.

Are there any accessories that I should be getting with either of these - lens hoods, padded lens bags, that sort of thing? Since i'm in New Zealand it's better for me to buy things in one big purchase, rather than lots of little ones. Right now i'm looking at B&H, since they seem reasonably priced and they ship to New Zealand.

Edit - are filters a good idea, just to stop me scratching my nice new lenses?

[Headcase650]

If you want to do some close up macro with the 50mm 1.8 pick up a "52mm Close up filter" its the poor mans macro.

[commando]

If you want to do some close up macro with the 50mm 1.8 pick up a "52mm Close up filter" its the poor mans macro.

Thanks. Any chance of a link? I can't seem to see any suitable 52mm filter at B&H.

[Headcase650]

adorama http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?page=searchresults&searchinfo=52mm%20c lose%20up%20filter

B+H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=4038&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes& O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=52mm+close-up&image.x=0&image.y=0

[commando]

The filter costs almost as much as the lens! I think i'll skip it for now, but thanks for the suggestion - i'll grab it later if I need more close-up ability.

[Headcase650]

look closer you can get them for like 20 bucks indivudaly

the canon is expensive, just pick up the tiffen kit
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=56779&is=REG
its only 36 bucks and you cat 3 of them

[commando]

Thanks for pointing those out :)