Lens for new Canon Camera

OK, so I've been using the Canon PowerShot SX1IS that I originally bought back in 2009 to take pictures of various subjects for web design, but now I'm having more opportunity to do other types of photography where I was wanting to upgrade without spending a whole lot of cash.

So, I bought a kit online that contained the Canon EOS Rebel T3i 18mp CMOS Digital SLR Camera and the kit came with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Zoom Lens, and the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens

I'm hearing that the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Zoom Lens is OK for entry level photos that are not that far away, but I'm hearing the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens isn't all that hot since it is not an IS model.

So, I'm thinking of ditching that one (sell it on eBay) and replacing it with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM with Diffractive Optics... I'm hearing this is a good general purpose lens.

I'm obviously not on the level of a pro, but I'm learning more and more about photography in general and I'd like some equipment that is somewhat decent and as I understand it, having decent lenses helps alot.

So, my main question right now is... what is the closest distance and what is the farthest distance does the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM with Diffractive Optics work good with?

Can it effective replace the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Zoom Lens altogether?

Rockrz wrote in post #16496352
I'm hearing that the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Zoom Lens is OK for entry level photos that are not that far away,...

It's a decent lens and it may be a while before you outgrow it.

It's not the lack of IS; it's just a crappy lens.

No need for you to pay a premium for the DO version, and probably no need even to look at the 70-300s. How about the 55-250 IS STM? A lot of lens for the money there.

Anything from 1.4 m to infinity.

No. You'd have no coverage from 18 mm to 70 mm, the most commonly used range in general photography using an APS-C body like yours.

OK, thanks for the insight..

Is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Zoom Lens a good lens for general photography? OR, is the something in 18-55mm that is a little better without breaking the bank?

It definitely won't be able to replace the 18-55. If I could only have one lens on a crop it would be something in the 17-50 range (17-55 2.8). As for something "better" than your 18-55, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or the Sigma 2.8 OS would be a nice choice.

Honestly, I would just stick with what you have for now and see what you like/don't like about it. Then you'll have more information on what you'd be looking to change with purchasing a new lens.

Rockrz wrote in post #16496400
OK, thanks for the insight..

Is the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II Zoom Lens a good lens for general photography? OR, is the something in 18-55mm that is a little better without breaking the bank?

It is definitely a good starter lens, with an ideal range for general work on APS-C. It's a little well, flimsy may be overstating it, it doesn't have full-time manual focus so you have to be sure not to turn the focus ring when it is set to AF, the AF ribbon sometimes just up and breaks, it isn't a fast lens (that is, it doesn't let in a lot of light compared to some), and its maximum aperture does change with focal length. These are all relatively small points in reality; it's a very good lens for the money.

There are better, but the question is better in what way, and that depends on what you find limiting withe the 18-55 IS, and you won't know that until you try it.

Some options could be:
f/2.8 zooms in the range of 18-70 or thereabouts from Sigma or Tamron
EF-S 18-135 STM
EF-S 15-85 IS
EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS

OK, thanks. Glad to have found this forum to ask folks that know all about this stuff.

Today my "Canon EOS Rebel T3i for Dummies" book to help me get started learning my new camera. I know, nothing like a dummies book!

I do seem to have a knack for getting some good pics, so this is the next step for me is to get a little better camera and study it so I can learn what all it can do.

I'll be back for more advice as time goes on, and thank you for all the input!

No problem.
Best way to get onto the learning curve is NOT to use the fully automatic "green box" mode. Learn about Av, and Tv. You'll use those most.
Many people recommend a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Peterson.
http://www.amazon.com …Photographs/dp/​0817439390

I'd recommend one of the Tamron 17-50s but the one without VC, higher image quality. It'll get you started with a good lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture.

Later on move up to one of the Canon 70-200 L lens for zoom....

ejhc11 wrote in post #16498992
...but the one without VC

So, what is VC ?

Sorry, I looked it up and it looks like VC is what Tamron calls Vibration Compensation.

I did not know this feature made images more soft...

How does the one you mentioned compare with the Tamron AF28-75mm F/2.8 zoom lens ?

Rockrz wrote in post #16499011
Sorry, I looked it up and it looks like VC is what Tamron calls Vibration Compensation.

I did not know this feature made images more soft...

What makes you think that?
Ah - sorry - I get it. It's not that the addition of VC to the earlier lens makes images softer, it's due to a change in the optics of the lens I believe. The difference is very minor however.

I was just wondering why a lens with Vibration Compensation would not be as good of an image as with a lens without Vibration Compensation.

Sorry... I guess I'm just picking the brains of those that know photography which is a good way to start learning.

The reports I've read do suggest that the non-VC lens is just a little sharper, but there is not that much in it. I did a quick search and couldn't quickly find the optical configurations for each to see what had changed, but contrary to what I wrote above, the difference could just be in the incorporation of the moving optical element needed to implement VC. If you want a stabilised lens, don't be put off by the very minor loss of image quality; if you want the sharper lens, and don't care about stabilisation, go with the non-VC.

I figure a little stabilizing might help since holding the camera perfectly still to prevent blurriness is hard to do sometimes.

I can only imagine that some of the professionals get a good laugh at the questions us newbies ask sometimes

There's no need to replace your 18-55 right now. Best thing you can do is use it and see whether it's enough for you, or if not, what you want in a replacement lens that the 18-55 isn't providing. Until you can answer that question, there's no point spending the money.

The 75-300 isn't a highly regarded lens, and in any case, for a lens in that focal range, stabilization is very useful. Your 75-300 doesn't have stabilization. To get sharp images from it, you'll need to use it in bright light and keep your shutter speed above 1/600. If you want to replace it, the Canon 55-250 would be a good candidate: inexpensive, really good image quality, and has stabilization. The 70-300 DO is fairly expensive and you probably shouldn't be spending that amount on a lens at this stage, until you know exactly what you want and why you want it. For many people, the 55-250 is all they will ever want or need in that range. For others, they eventually need more reach, less reach, faster focusing, better build, or whatever. But the important thing is to know what you need and why you need it, and to buy accordingly.

Best of luck with your photography!