PDA

View Full Version : Upgrading my lense, need advice


avsfan
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 20:16
I have the Canon Digital Rebel 300D. The kit lense EF-S 18-55mm is a decent lens for the money, but it didn't take long to figure out I am very limited without an upgrade. I am pretty new to all of this so your advice and expertise is appreciated!

I was originally looking into just one replacement lense that would cover a wider range of what I shoot. I have come to the conclusion I would be better off getting 2 lenses to cover me. Any opinions?

I use my Digital Rebel for various pictures. I used it extensively when on vacation (example being Walt Disneyworld). I will use it take outdoor scenery pictures on the golf course or in the mountains when we go fishing/camping. People pictures of course, indoors and outdoors. Will probably start using it more for scenery pics, sunrises and sunsets, and maybe even some wildlife. I've used it some indoors at family gatherings. I've taken pics of my daughter's volleyball games, but that is coming to an end. I've also used it to take portrait style photos for my daughter and others.

I am strongly considering the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, USM as my normal walking-around lens. It still covers the wide-angle shots that I currently get with my 18-55, but covers me up to 85. And, the IS is a plus in this lens. It is a reasonable price at about $600. Any thoughts or opinions on this lens or others?

For a second lens I am looking at several possibilities.
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO, IS
EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L, IS

My second lens would obviously be used for all those zoom shots I could never reach with my kit lens. Any thoughts or opinions here?

I appreciate the expertise of everyone on this board. It has been very informative so far. Thanks in advance for your help.

Steve

KevC
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 20:34
Two lenses would be ideal.

28-75mm f/2.8 XrDi and 70-200mm f/4L (or f/2.8L if you can afford it/need the speed ;))

tim
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 20:55
What Kev said. Throw in a 50mm F1.8 for $70 and you're set. Don't waste your time on cheap consumer lenses like the F4 - F5.6 ones, they'll just limit you.

MDJAK
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 20:57
Tim, surely you don't consider the 70-300 DO IS 4.5-5.6 to be a cheap consumer lens, not when it costs over a G and takes very good pictures.

KevC
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 20:59
Instead of the 70-300 I'd pick up the 100-400. Yes it costs a bit more, but it has much more reach ;)

I still need to reply my "What should I buy next"... which is a thread you might find interesting.

MDJAK
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 21:22
Already owning the 70-200 F2.8 IS, I was in the market for a lens with reach and small size. The 70-300 DO fit the bill perfectly. While I have no doubt that the 100-400 is a better lens, if one is seeking a walk-around lens, the 100-400 is out of the question, in my opinion.

avsfan
12th of March 2005 (Sat), 23:15
Let me make sure I understand. It seems you are ruling out the 75-300. The 70-200 f/4.0 is a good lens, especially for the money around $550-$600. Would you compare the 70-300 DO lens to the 70-200 f/4.0, and also to the two 2.8 models?


Thanks

snibbetsj
13th of March 2005 (Sun), 00:13
If I were you, I'd seriously consider the Tokina 17mm f3.5, the Canon 35 f2, Canon 50 f1.8, Canon 85 f1.8, and the Canon 70-200 f4 L. That setup wouldn't be too much more than the 70-200 f2.8 IS and would give you a lot of versatility and the 85 f1.8 is hard to beat for portraits.


Enjoy shooting!

tim
13th of March 2005 (Sun), 00:49
Tim, surely you don't consider the 70-300 DO IS 4.5-5.6 to be a cheap consumer lens, not when it costs over a G and takes very good pictures.

No, I don't consider that a cheap consumer lens, I consider it an expensive consumer lens. Well, somewhere between consumer and L quality really. The reviews and sample pictures i've seen say it's great for its size, but it doesn't stand up well to the 100-400L or 70-200L lenses.

I had an F4 - F5.6 lens once, a cheap Sigma one, and it was just too slow for me, so from now on i'm going to try and get F2.8 lenses if I can afford them, and they're not too large. I'm undecided on the 70-200 F4 or F2.8 IS - i'd love an IS lens - but $600 for the F4 or $1600 for the F2.8 is a hell of a difference.