Cheap Lenses ???

I was curious as to your opinion of the cheaper lenses. I was looking to buy a cheap 55-200 ef lense and because of price, was drawn to the cannon ef 55-200 f4.5-5.6 lense. I am new to this type of digital photography and cannot afford any lenses that cost too much. Is this lense worth buying?

not exactly the lens you're after but i have a 75-300usm and have found it particularly useful for my amatuer bird watching and mostorsport racing pics. a few of my most recent pics with the lens can be seen here

http://users.bigpond.n​et.au …pan%20net/Thumb​nails.html

heres a quick eg of it

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I have this lense and have had pretty good luck with it. Though I will say the lack of IS hinders it on the 200mm range.

That's too bad, because the most important thing for making good photographs are good lenses. Lenses are much more important than the camera itself.

I don't know about the 55-200, but the Canon EOS Beginners' FAQ lists it as a "cheapie". In general, with lenses, the more expensive, the better the lens is - there are exceptions, such as the EF 50 f/1.8.

So it seems the best thing to do is make do with the lense that came with the camera (18-55) and save up some cash for a decent lense. I know someone who mentioned I can borrow his lense to "test drive" a decent one. Sounds like a plan, thanks guys

Let's start from the beginning...
What camera do you have the 10D or 300D? The next question becomes what are you planning on taking pics of? (This will help me decide what to reccomend.) You could look at the Sigma EX line. They have some really good F4 lenses for a lot cheaper than Canon L lenses.

Advice, stay away from the 120-300 F2.8 EX and 500mm F4.5 EX lenses. They will cost into the thousands. It really to me seems pointless to get into this if you can't get decent lenses. I have a 10D and with a very cheap lens the pics sucked! I got the 120-300 and that rocks. Rememeber, you are only as good as the glass you stick in front of the camera.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

Well lets see, the camera is a digital rebel, a entry level camera. I want to take general pictures of family and friends as well as a bit of nature photo's. After seeing numerous deer and other wild life while out camping I think that will be something I like. Take into account that I'm a real beginner at this.

IMHO, I think maybe you shoulda gone for a high end p&s but that is my opinion...it woulda helped if you had 35mm SLR experience. I have seen decent pics come from the Canon A70. I would think the Canon S50 (5MP) woulda been perfect and you can throw it in ur coat pocket. Try that with the 300D and lens attached. It is nothing personal, but it is really getting on my nerves people getting this higher end camera kit and being clueless. The DSLR should be for those of us that 1) upgraded from the 35mm world, 2) feel that they have exceeded the capabilities of the p&s and can see themselves really taking off with it, 3) have ample funds to do said endeavour. This is far from the end of expenses in the camera world. Remember that Sigma 120-300 F2.8EX lens I mentioned? It goes for about $1900. The 16-35mm F2.8 L lens I have is about $1380. The 10D all set up w/ batteries and the like was about $2200. Add on filters and stuff another $500 and then the FlashTrax drive was $700 so you get the picture yet? This is NOT a cheap hobby, especially in the DSLR world. The Canon and Sigma lens are unreal for pic quality, but man do you pay for it.

Another bit is that when you shoot RAW, the pics will look not so hot. No worries...that is the way they should look. They leave it up to you to tweek them. Speaking of which, I have some pics to attend to.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

I say go ahead get a cheap lens to play around with. The limitations of cheap equipment can sometimes end up being a great learning tool. Once you figure out what you can and can't do with what you have, you'll be in a better position to assess what you really do no need to make the kind of photos you want.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with buying more camera than you can handle. It gives you room to grow and explore. Cameras and lenses are also easy to sell and trade, so if you do get more than you need, you can always trade down. The idea that a DSLR is for a select few "all-stars" is elitist nonsense. Get whatever you want and enjoy the hell out of it.

(squint)

What do you mean by "ample funds"?

I don't know if you're a trust fund baby or just managed to do well in some stock bubble or what, but I feel the need to tell you the vast majority of the world has to budget wisely to get damn near anything they want in life.

I've spent about $3K on my 10D and lenses et cetera in the last six weeks. I budgeted for MONTHS to get to that level and I'm budgeting still because there are other things that I want/need to do what I want/need.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone planning incremental purchases. Those who can go out and lay down even the modest amount I did in the last days of December 2003 are really few and far between.

- T, feeling a bit touchy today. Lack of sleep? Perhaps.

I bought the older 55-200 when I couldn't afford anything else and still use it when I don't need ultimate sharpness or the size/weight of the 70-200 f4 L.

The 55-200 is better than the low price would indicate.

Nice ranting!

Wow, guess you told him. Stay outta my club if ya can't afford to play with my toys. Feel better?
Chiii

I did my lens purchasing incrementally myself..

On the advice of many,. I did get the "thrifty fifty" soon,. but my first lens was a "Quantaray" 28-200mm

I understand this is the same as the original Sigma version.. not the newer updated ones...

I traded that one in for a 28-300mm....

Anyway,. I still have some images i like a lot from both of those "CrapO" lenses.

I have one of those cheap lenses that everyone is talking about (75-300 4-5.6 USM III), and I knew going into it that it wasn't that great. But since I am on a limited budget I figured spend $100 now and see if I really do need a lens at that range before purchasing the higher end ones. Then I figure if I really use this lens, I will then save for a much better lens within that range. And so far I am very happy with what I got, but I only wish I got the IS version for $300 more, and still thinking of doing that temp upgrade now.

anyway here is a sample of that lens indoors in an NHL arena.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5,6 DC

Has anyone got an opinion about the Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5,6 DC for the Digital Rebel?

/Steffen