2 medium quality lenses or 1 good one???

[montreal]

Hello,

I'm quite new to this forum :o but from reading quite a lot in it, I trust I will receive wise advice. ;)

I have a 300D with the kit lens (18-55). I want to buy better lenses, but I'm not full of money. I'm a beginner with SLR, but I'm thinking long term with my purchase. The question is: should I go for quantity or quality...

I read good reviews on this forum for the 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM and the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM. They would cost 1130 CAD total. I would start by buying one... then the other a few months later.

But then I stumble on the 70-200 F4 L for 850 CAD.... I wouldn't get as many focal lenght options as with the other two, but it is an "L". And cheaper than the other two put together...

So should I go for medium quality / lots of versatility or premium quality / less versatility?

Any thoughts?

Daniel in Montréal

[cdhender]

It really depends on what you're shooting. Do you need something longer than the 70-200? Remember, on a 20D there is a 1.6 factor. So that 200mm = 320mm. Do you need more than that?

Have you considered going with the 28-135 and the 70-200 f/4? If I didn't need the length, I'd go with that combo. Me, personally, I don't shoot a lot of wildlife so I don't have a need for the long lenses. A 70-200 is more than enough.

[Tom W]

Also consider that with the 70-200L, you can use a 1.4X teleconverter to get a 98-280 mm f/5.6 lens - pretty much the same focal length range as the 100-300, but of higher quality, even with the teleconverter. The 100-300 isn't a bad lens, nor is the 28-135. But, the 70-200 is exceptionally good.

[montreal]

Thank you both for answering so quickly!

but of higher quality, even with the teleconverter

Really??? I didn't think teleconverters were a good idea. But I haven't looked into them either... Great, just what I needed... yet another option :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

70-200mm All the waaaaaaaaaaaaaay ;)
This lens does perform very well with the 1.4X T-con.. for more info on them,. check the "sticky" thread on T-cons :) Top of the page.

[DocFrankenstein]

Go for 70-200 all the way. You can't really use 20D's autofocus capabilities without a fast AF lens. And 70-200 f/4 is extremely fast.

Also, you can add the teleconverter. It will degrade the image slightly, but chances are that you won't notice.

But once you get to that 280 mm at f/5.6 you'll want to have a monopod/tripod too! :lol: So that's one more option.

Here's an old thread started by yours truly, who couldn't figure out whether to buy consumer or pro lenses:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36696&highlight=lens

Over there the trend is that people end up/upgrade to pro lenses sooner or later, once they find out how big the difference actually is. If you go get the pro lenses from the start you save money because you don't lose money getting consumer lenses and L lenses hold their value very well.

Hope this helps

[DocFrankenstein]

70-200mm All the waaaaaaaaaaaaaay ;)
This lens does perform very well with the 1.4X T-con.. for more info on them,. check the "sticky" thread on T-cons :) Top of the page.
Now people are gonna think I stole your phrase and my reputation will be ruined! :D;)

[montreal]

But once you get to that 280 mm at f/5.6 you'll want to have a monopod/tripod too! :lol:

Well I have a tripod already so that's not a problem :) Not an expensive one but it's okay for now.

Now I'm thinking I should get the 28-135 now (to get something better than the kit lens), then the 70-200 in a few months with a teleconverter.

I can't get over the fact that 70-200L w-teleonverter is better than 100-300. Didn't see that one coming.

Decisions decisions...

BTW I have 300D, not 20D

[Tom W]

Thank you both for answering so quickly!



Really??? I didn't think teleconverters were a good idea. But I haven't looked into them either... Great, just what I needed... yet another option :lol:

Well, there's teleconverters and then there's Teleconverters. The good ones, like the Sigma EX series or the Canon L are very good, and will have a minimal effect on your images (the 1.4X, that is - the 2X will have a noticeable negative effect on your images, plus it will block autofocus on the f/4 lens and the 300D).

[montreal]

the 2X will have a noticeable negative effect on your images, plus it will block autofocus on the f/4 lens and the 300D).

Only the 2X blocks the autofocus or the 1.4X also?

[DocFrankenstein]

Now I'm thinking I should get the 28-135 now (to get something better than the kit lens), then the 70-200 in a few months with a teleconverter.
28-135 is not that better than 18-55 on the overlapping focal lengths IMO

I can't get over the fact that 70-200L w-teleonverter is better than 100-300. Didn't see that one coming.

Decisions decisions...
70-200 f/4 is the sharpest zoom in that range, add a 1.4x conveter and it still it will outresolve the 300D's sensor.

Whatever you choose, it's not extremely important. artistic vision and such are the main qualities of the photog ;)

[montreal]

28-135 is not that better than 18-55 on the overlapping focal lengths IMO

What would you suggest then?

Whatever you choose, it's not extremely important. artistic vision and such are the main qualities of the photog ;)

Of course. But I still need lenses. Just gotta have my precioussss lensesssss:evil: :p

Seriously, I just want to have a little selection to complement my artistic vision. And not regretting my purchase would be nice.

[Tom W]

Only the 2X blocks the autofocus or the 1.4X also?

Only the 2X - anything that makes your maximum aperture (minimum f/stop) smaller than f/5.6 (smaller aperture is a larger number) will prevent the 300D from focusing automatically. Plus, the 2X does take a little edge off the image.

[condyk]

Have you considered second hand items? You don't say how much cash you have now, but maybe you can get both by taking your time and buying carefully from good sellers.

I have bought and sold several lenses on this forum while building slowly towards my broad overall 'system plan' and so far am just about in profit on upgrading. You only lose money building a system if you buy daft stuff no one wants, at higher prices, or buy new every time. There is a risk, of course, in SH items so who you buy from is important.

I have just bought 28-135mm IS as my general travel/walkaround/always on lens and had the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di as an equal option for the same range/usage. The former is readily available SH and is very popular, but the latter is available much less often.

As to the Canon 70-200mm F4 this is a lovely lenses and you won't regret buying it and, if you want to, adding a 1.4x Canon, or cheaper but excellent Kenko Pro, extender in future (forget the 2.0x). Again the F4 is often(ish) available second hand and resale excellent (I sold mine for the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 which was better suited my needs at the time and would still be my own preference). Won't be much use for wildlife as still too short ... unless you class the local zoo as wildlife ;-)

You need to guess/decide your primary interest right now and get a first lens that fits best. An extra option is the Canon 50mm f1.8 II new, which costs around £65, and produces excellent sharp people/street style images. This can be a long term keeper, but is also cheap and with the quality to get your juices running. It fits in your pocket and is super lightweight. With the 70-200 F4 it's a nice basis to any system and covers part of the range otherwise missed by the 70-200mm.

But you can't lose on the 28-135 IS either, other than a bit of image quality. If you don't like it longer term then you can always sell it on at minimal loss. Very popular lens. Oh, and always keep your boxes as adds to resale value.

Essentially, my advice is to read a lot and come up with a plan for what you need longer term for the kind of shooting you want to do. Then start buying SH to shift you along towards meeting the plan as quickly as funds allow.

Slowly, slowly catchee Monkey :lol: :lol:

[london]

When I bought my 20D last fall, my first lens was the 28-135mm USM IS. It came highly recommended. This, I was told, was the lens that would never come off the camera. Well, here we are, a few months on, and I've already soured on it. The images taken with it are just so, well, ordinary, unspecial, even flat and outright uninteresting. Also, while the zoom range makes it a versatile lens in good light (or with a flash), it's just about useless in low light situations (despite the image stabilizer which is way overrated, in my view). So I'm taking it down to the local store and upgrading it to a 70-200mm f/4L. The difference is about $200. At this stage, that's a small price to pay for getting a truly remarkable lens and finally joining the "L" family, as it were.

Scott.

[ToddMorris]

Hi Montreal,

I hate to throw another choice into the mix, but have you considered the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 ? They go for between $300-$350 US, and get pretty good user feedback. This is the lens that's on my 20D in most situations ... especially "walking around".

I do agree with everybody else, about the 70-200 F4L ... I just got this lens about a month ago, and absolutely love it. It's great for everything from portraits, to wildlife, to flowers and scenery.

Keep your kit lens (which really isn't all that bad of a lens), and you'll have a nice 3 lens set that will allow you to get good quality pictures from 18-200mm. Then you can really start saving for the bigger or faster zooms, and/or a super wide angle.

Hope this helps,
Todd

[tim]

If you buy medium quality lenses you'll eventualy replace them with high quality ones, and it'll cost more in the long run. Go with good quality lenses to start with.

[montreal]

Gee, thank you all for your answers :) :) :) . I didn't expect that many, given that my question was, let's face it, not that original. I've owned my 300d for a bit less than a year, and I've discovered this forum just a week or so ago... but I'm sure going to become a regular.

Based on all of your answers, I'm sort of leaning towards the 70-200L now. I would replace my 18-55 later. I could still change my mind though. I do want my lenses to be still good if I upgrade the body to something with a better resolution, so that sure gives the 70-200 a few extra points.

[condyk]

If you buy medium quality lenses you'll eventualy replace them with high quality ones, and it'll cost more in the long run.

I was told this by a few people when I bought my 300D and I knew it didn't have to be that way. For some it has been true and so the assumption is that it must be the same for everyone. It's not ...

After three months or so, through research and careful buying and selling, I have lost ABSOLUTELY nothing on my upgrades from cheap to very decent. It simply hasn't cost me more! In fact, if I added it all up I think I have made a small profit on my various transactions! Moreover, the higher value items I have now, body and lenses, are all currently worth more than I paid for them should I decide to sell.

All I am saying is upgrading doesn't have to cost more. Beginners don't have to feel daunted by the potential expense involved and it can be OK to buy medium quality items without worrying about throwing money down the drain. However, as I have mentioned so many times before, they would be wise to take their time, buy carefully, consider second hand, think about lenses as assets, and always shop around.

[cfcRebel]

I can't get over the fact that 70-200L w-teleonverter is better than 100-300. Didn't see that one coming.

Hi Montreal,
I'm a noob. I was in desperate need of a telephoto lens but have limited fund. So I went for the EF 100-300m. It doesn't delivery the results i expected. So now i am saving to get the 70-200 f/4L.
My advice to u is, if u plan to get the 100-300, wait a little longer, save enough money and go all the way for the 70-200 f4L. Good luck.

[Hellashot]

Hello,

But then I stumble on the 70-200 F4 L for 850 CAD.... I wouldn't get as many focal lenght options as with the other two, but it is an "L". And cheaper than the other two put together...
Daniel in Montréal

Don't get an expensive lens just because it's an expensive lens. Get the lens or lenses that will fit your need.

I consider L lenses to be like a rolex watch. If you have the money to buy them, great. If you don't a less expensive lens will take great images the same as a cheaper watch will keep accurate time.

[montreal]

I consider L lenses to be like a rolex watch. If you have the money to buy them, great. If you don't a less expensive lens will take great images the same as a cheaper watch will keep accurate time.

...and yet you have the 50mm f1.4, not the f1.8 ;)

I know what you mean. I've taken images that I'm really satisfied of with my 18-55. But the analogy with the Rolex watch is a bit stretched in my case. I'm comparing a 500$ 100-300 lens to a 850$ 70-200L (canadian). That's not a huge price difference. And I'm not considering any of the 2000$ 5000$ etc etc. "L" series ones (for which the Rolex analogy would be more appropriate, I think).

[condyk]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/216288

Seems genuine item and worth a fair honest offer if you have the money now :)

I'd try and check with previous owner if they still have the serial number to ensure the one your getting is the same one he sold, tho' the guy seems genuine. Why have two tho?

You may even have change to get a Tamron or 50mm II as well ;)

Of course, on your own head be it :)

[montreal]

Apparently I don't have permission to see that page... That's what it tells me. What is it about??

[condyk]

It's the Miranda forum ... very good forum for camera stuff and sales/wants. Maybe you need to be a member first :confused:

Join up here

http://www.fredmiranda.com and go to the forum part. There is also a great review section based on real user opinions.

A guy is selling a 70-200 F4 l for around $500 US which seems a bargain to me, boxed and as new, tho' stuff is relatively more expensive in the Uk.

[Medic1]

70-200 is a great lens...if you decide you need more reach in the future, pick up a 1.4X TC, and it puts you out to 280mm (then add the 1.6X factor).......after that you can decide if you need more, but the 70-200 f4L will get you alot of good pictures and keep you happy for a while.

Have fun!!

[raylks]

The 70-200 f4 is probably the best for you. If you need a longer reach, get the 1.4x teleconverter. Unless you shoot wildlfe, the 442mm long is sufficient for most situations.

[montreal]

Well, you guys made me do it. I went to the camera store today "just to look" and I came back with the 70-200 lens. I even got the salesman to throw in a CP filter for free.

Happy but broke :D

[mdaddyrabbit]

I want the 70-200mm f4 but I want to shoot some wildlife, and that would not be long enough from what i am reading, so in everybodys opinion what would be a good choice for 500.00 or less?

[condyk]

Sigma 50-500mm 'Bigma' is excellent for proper wildlife shooting ... not in the Zoo or back yard! Capable of very sharp, dynamic results and perfectly usable. Depends on your budget. I think this offers the best bang per buck.