Which lenses ?

[FJDBart]

Here is my dilema...

Like photography a lot, its becoming more than a hobby, but like many of us, I don't have a pocket full of money.
So last november I bought the Rebel 300D w/ the kit lens, lovely camera, and I'm still learning how to use it, however I already notice the need of a new lens. I want to have more zoom ! Even though I like to take a lot of landscape shots.
My pics are mainly landscapes, candid & portraits, and night shots is the one I really enjoy.
Off course I intend to buy more lenses in the future, but maybe in one years time.

So I have been checking a few lenses to my fit the kinds of shots that I like to take:

canon

EF28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II (58mm) £189
EF28-105mm USM f4-5.6 'A' range £139
EF55-200mm f4.5-5.6 II USM (52mm) £149

Please feel confortable to suggests any others !

It is worth to say that, as a begginer, I chose those lenses only using theory, Mroe zoom more zoom! Off course I understand that a greter range of zoom cant be that good, after all no soccer player can play all positions in the field...

Every photographer that I run into, suggests that I should wait and save a bit more money and go for a canon lens, but the thing is I've been reading some reviews on the net and I've seen a lot of people v. disappointed with canon lenses.

If possible I would like to spend no more than £200.

Thanks very much for your help, sorry for the big text...
Fernando.

[DaveG]

Most beginning photographers - me included - wanted lenses with more reach when we began, and I think that it's just the way that it happens.

When you have no money, my opinion is to look around for something used. A pawn shop or a buy and sell place is a good start. A lot of these places have no idea what they are selling so you need to do all the research before you buy a lens. Many of these lenses will come in slightly different versions with one being worth a lot more than another. Read through the Canon literature so you know that there's a 75-300, 75-300 USM and a 75-300 IS USM and what their relative value is. Ebay will help with assigning high used prices so you will get a feel for what a competitive used price is likely to be. In a non competitive setting like the quiet of a pawnshop the same lens should be less.

You can also put the word out. Go into a camera store, talk to a friendly clerk and tell them that you are interested in a used lens of roughly XXX mm. Maybe someone has a pefectly nice lens of the type you are looking for but they finally got their L series lens of the same focal length and want to turn their old lens into money. I'm always surprised at how effective this spreading the word is.

A friend of mine has just picked up a used 28-105 and I assume that it's the USM II version - only now I've got to go ask! He's very happy with this lens and it compares well with my 24-85.

Although this is just my viewpoint I don't think that I'd like a lens that tries to do too much. A mythical 20mm to 200mm zoom for example. There are trade offs that have to be made by the manuafacturers. Usually it's speed. An f2 lens will probably not be as sharp as an f2.8 lens of the same focal length, but use the 2.8 at 2, right? A macro trades off speed in order to get sharpness and close focusing. How could they sell a 50mm f2.8 otherwise? With a 20-200 (yes it's the same fictional lens, so don't write in please) they trade off speed AND sharpness for that zoom range. Maybe that's important to some people in order to have a lens that does it all. But if it's not sharp and/or fast it won't be in my camera bag.

[thomasrhee]

My recommendation in general would be to stay away from lower priced zooms that try to cover too much range. Usually, the image quality suffers greatly.

Try to buy lenses that are going to be "keepers" instead of a stepping stone until you can afford to buy better glass. You just end up wasting more hard earned money this way.

I would look into something like the Tamron 28-75/2.8 which is a great all purpose mid-zoom lens that has excellent image quality. In the US, it sells for about $370 but with the current rebate offer, it's $330 after rebate. If you get a good sample of this lens, it's insanely sharp for a zoom lens with great contrast. IMO, a definite step up in image quality vs. the lenses you mention although with considerably less range. Going this route though, leaves you open in the future to pick up a 70-200 telelphoto as well as an ultra wide angle without much overlap in coverage.

[eosster]

I've heard good stories about Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8. I would stay away from low grade Canon lens. You will be upgrading as soon as you buy this.

[Big Hands]

Lenses I currently own:

Tamron 28-75
Canon 50 f/1.8
Canon 18-55
Canon 17-85IS
Canon 35-80
Canon 70-200 f/4
Canon 75-300 f/4.0 - 5.6
Promaster (rebadged Sigma) 28-105

Some others I have tried:

Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
Canon 17-40L
Canon 50 f/1.0L
Canon 10-22
Canon 85 f/1.2L
Canon24-70 f/2.8L
Canon 24-85
Canon 28-135 IS
Tamron 17-35
Sigma 12-24
Sigma 20 f/1.8

Instead of looking for bad examples from a particular lense, try seeking out examples that are the best of what a lense is capable of. Anyone can take a bad shot from the most highly regarded lense and it doesn't prove a thing.

In your case I recommend you check into (I said "check into" because I think you should spend some shop time with any lense before you buy because it can spare you some disappointment, not to mention $$$.) the Tamron 28-75. It should be in your price range and is capable of recording excellent images.

I have taken thousands of pictures with the Canon 75-300 and the Promaster 28-105 with my Canon EOS film cameras and enough with my 20D to give them a fair shake. I would stay away from anything in the over 100mm zoom range until you could save for something like the Canon 70-200 f/4.

This is a crop and a crop of the crop (and reduced to #2 quality in photoshop due to size restrictions) from one of those crummy non-L Canon lenses I own. The originals look much better and are fit for making nice prints: