Good overall lens for <= $300?

[chrishunt]

I've gotten tired of my P&S powershot a85 and have decided to finally replace my oldschool vintage minolta maxxum 7000i SLR with a new DSLR. After looking around at prices and features I've decided on the Canon 350d.

I decided to go with the 350d instead of the 20d because I figured I could use the extra money I save to buy a decent lens, rather than the kit lens.

What would be a good all around lens to buy for the 350d? I'm looking for something that I can use for general outdoor nature/landscape shots, possibly animals as well, so maybe a snappy lens. I need a lens that I will not want to replace soon, as I would the kit lens, and I'm trying to make it around $300 or less so I can get the whole package for roughly $1100.

Thanks for any help and please point me in the right direction!

-Chris

[prime80]

I'd think your best bet for a general purpose lens in that price range would be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. It's around $360, but it's supposedly quite worth it. It's next on my shopping list.

[benhasajeep]

Remember the 1.6x factor when choosing a new lens and comparing focal lengths to your old Minolta gear. I am a Nikon user and went with Canon for DSLR, so I needed new lenses for the Canon. I am a little different in thinking than you though. I went witht the kit lens and the elcheapo 70-300 III non USM/IS. $160. I figured I need to learn the camera first before spending $$$ on good glass (all my Nikon glass is f2.8 or faster $$$). While learning the camera I will get a better idea of what I will want in a better lens. So yes, the elcheapo lenses may not take the sharpest lenses. But to me it seems the cheapest way the learn what I should buy.

[MDJAK]

should have gotten the 50mm f1.4. They say the best way to learn is to compose and crop as you're taking pictures. (I don't have one, by the way.)

[Raj]

Without any doubt sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6 DC lens, covers 24-200 on 1.6x camra & has some very decent reveiews. I am very happy with mine :-)

[Hellashot]

Try the Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5 Can also be used on a film/full frame camera. That 18-125 cannot.

[Headcase650]

If he is on a budget and comming from a point and shoot, I doubt that a full frame digital or film SLR is in his near future.

Ill second the vote for the sigma 18-125 DC lense.

[chrishunt]

I'll take a look at the sigma 18-125 and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 later this afternoon. Thanks for your replies!

-Chris

[RichardtheSane]

Without any doubt sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6 DC lens, covers 24-200 on 1.6x camra & has some very decent reveiews. I am very happy with mine :-)

This lens has some great reviews

But actually covers 29-200 on 35mm... :)

[Raj]

This lens has some great reviews

But actually covers 29-200 on 35mm... :)

OK, my mistake :-)
From my experience its reasonable wide for a walk around lense.

[BrianEE93]

Third the Sigma 18-125DC. That was the lens I bought with my body and I get very sharp images with it. Great walk around lens.

[Sailare]

If you are not familiar with Tokina lens, don't be quick to dismiss them. Tokina is the same company that produces Hoya Filters. The Tokina 24-200, with rebate applied is only $ 269 at B & H. I spent a lot of time researching and actually trying lens and comparing shots as well as reading the reviews and tests. It's clearly a winner. Better than lens' that you pay 2 or 3 times that price. It's the only lens I have found that is significantly better than its price suggests. I found it hard to tell between it and a Canon 70-200 4.0L It has two Aspherical elements and 1 Low dispersion element, which seems to only show up in the expensive lens. A like new one just sold on E-bay for $ 200 - bargain of the year in my opinion. I got one for $ 240 including a 72mm UV filter and two lens hoods. it weighs 25oz, which is exactly the same as the Canon 70-200 4L and the build and feel is dramatically better than the Sigmas, Tamrons or Canon's for that matter.

Check out the review and sample shots -

http://www.fredmiranda.com (Read the user Review section)

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/tokina24200.htm

http://www.light-chasers.com/Content/ReviewsArchive/2003_02%20Tokina%2024-200.htm

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tokina/atx_242_af

[dkord]

If you are not familiar with Tokina lens, don't be quick to dismiss them. Tokina is the same company that produces Hoya Filters. The Tokina 24-200, with rebate applied is only $ 269 at B & H. I spent a lot of time researching and actually trying lens and comparing shots as well as reading the reviews and tests. It's clearly a winner. Better than lens' that you pay 2 or 3 times that price. It's the only lens I have found that is significantly better than its price suggests. I found it hard to tell between it and a Canon 70-200 4.0L It has two Aspherical elements and 1 Low dispersion element, which seems to only show up in the expensive lens. A like new one just sold on E-bay for $ 200 - bargain of the year in my opinion. I got one for $ 240 including a 72mm UV filter and two lens hoods. it weighs 25oz, which is exactly the same as the Canon 70-200 4L and the build and feel is dramatically better than the Sigmas, Tamrons or Canon's for that matter.

Check out the review and sample shots -

http://www.fredmiranda.com (Read the user Review section)

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/tokina24200.htm

http://www.light-chasers.com/Content/ReviewsArchive/2003_02%20Tokina%2024-200.htm

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tokina/atx_242_af

So, are you trying to tell us that this Tokina is on par if not better then the Canon EF 70-20 f/4 L?

[Raj]

If you are not familiar with Tokina lens, don't be quick to dismiss them. Tokina is the same company that produces Hoya Filters. The Tokina 24-200, with rebate applied is only $ 269 at B & H. I spent a lot of time researching and actually trying lens and comparing shots as well as reading the reviews and tests. It's clearly a winner. Better than lens' that you pay 2 or 3 times that price. It's the only lens I have found that is significantly better than its price suggests. I found it hard to tell between it and a Canon 70-200 4.0L It has two Aspherical elements and 1 Low dispersion element, which seems to only show up in the expensive lens. A like new one just sold on E-bay for $ 200 - bargain of the year in my opinion. I got one for $ 240 including a 72mm UV filter and two lens hoods. it weighs 25oz, which is exactly the same as the Canon 70-200 4L and the build and feel is dramatically better than the Sigmas, Tamrons or Canon's for that matter.

Check out the review and sample shots -

http://www.fredmiranda.com (http://www.fredmiranda.com/) (Read the user Review section)

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/tokina24200.htm

http://www.light-chasers.com/Content/ReviewsArchive/2003_02%20Tokina%2024-200.htm

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tokina/atx_242_af

May be you correct. However 24 mm to begin with on a 1.6x crop camera is not really wide enough, atleast for me, I feel the need to use 18 mm end of my sigma very often. Infact now I have a 10 mm lense :-) cant imagine starting at 24*1.6 :-)

[Sailare]

the question was "whats a good (or "the best today") all around lens for under $ 300 bucks and my answer is still the Tokina 24-200.

Am I saying it's better than the 70-200 4l? Well yes and no..... I can not distinguish shots between the two unless I zoom in on the computer. From 70-150 or so they look the same. from 150 to 200 the nod goes to the canon but the Tokina still quite sharp and not by as much difference as you see with similar range Tamaron or Sigmas.
The 70-200 is a tele-zoom and not a wide range zoom lens. The tokina is excellent in the 24-70 range. The Canon 70-200 by itself is also more than twice the price of the Tokina. it doesn't winner every comparison but when you add them all up it wins this catagory quite easily.

You get the range of a Canon 24-70L and a 70-200 4l all in one lens, with very sharp images all for $ 269 bucks. The Canon pair is sharper overall, but not 6X better as the price suggests.

[Fooboy]

I haven't got a lens suggestion for you, but given your looking for a landscape lens I would definately choose something that starts at 18mm rather than 24mm on a 1.6x crop camera.

When travelling I find that 24mm on a 300D does not give you enough width to fit a lot of things in. 6mm does not sound like a lot, but it makes a big difference!

[Little Fish]

Regarding the Tokina 24-200 lens, I recently bought a 20D and this was the first lens that I bought. I don't know how it compares to other lenses but I've been satisfied with the results and the range of the lens. My best photos are excellent and my worst photos are usually the result of the learning curve on my camera and using an automatic focus lens.

Like most people, I like to see photos rather than just read the technical data. The following link gets to some of my photos. Just about every photo was taken at f5.6. The "Jubilee Jam Photos 2005" and photos 34 thru 92 in the "Madison Central BB" were shot with the Tokina. The baseball photos were taken at games that started at 5pm with the sun setting behind the batters. The Jubilee Jam photos were the first shots taken with my camera and I made a mess of some of the settings. And, the actual full files do look better than these files that have been reduced in size. The link to the photos is:

http://photobucket.com/albums/a38/F_L_E/