I used to know what I wanted, now I'm confused.

When I bought my XSi, there was no question that I would buy a superzoom with some kind of vibration control. Now that I've had the camera for a few months and played around with the kit lens (that I don't really care for much) and a 50 f8, I'm dying for a lens with some reach.

While the superzoom would still be a great lens to have on a hike or walking around, I'd like something a little more focused. I'm so confused as to what to get. Ultimately I'd like a 70-200 2.8 IS and don't care if it's heavy. But, it's WAY too much lens for me now. It will be a while before I could really take advantage of that one. Plus, it's a lot more money than I'm ready to spend just yet.

Buying used is great-I can get more lens for the money. Buying new is OK too, but the limit is $. I've been reading the lens review in this forum and have more questions now than I did when I started reading.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

If the 70-200 f/2.8 is what you really want I'd wait and save up for it and you'd be really happy in the long run.

I agree with LoganJ. Wait and save. I've "settled" before and it has always cost me more in the end...

If you're not happy with the kit lens because of

a) poor quality when shot wide open
or
b) too slow of a maximum aperture

you probably won't be any happier with a superzoom. There are always optical compromises when the zoom range is made to cover so much ground. The best zooms often have the shortest ranges (at least they are easier to design well and cheaper to build).

Im Sasquatch wrote in post #7339638
=I'm Sasquatch;7339638] Ultimately I'd like a 70-200 2.8 IS and don't care if it's heavy. But, it's WAY too much lens for me now. It will be a while before I could really take advantage of that one.

What does this mean? I can't tell exactly (sorry - I'm not being smart). When I read this sentence I figured you were talking funds, but then your next sentence is about funds.....

I ask because I think we mostly need to understand two things:
1. What kind of 'reach' do you need? Are we talking portrait reach or songbird reach? What will be the main use of the lens.
2. What kind of speed do you need along with this reach? Do you need f/2.8? Could you live with slower?

I'll chime in with another view here: photography is about getting out there and taking pictures, and if you can't afford to spend $1600 on a particular lens in the foreseeable future (and let's face it, many of us can't!!), you're better to get one you can afford and have the pleasure of using it in the meantime. There are some nice, less expensive lenses out there. When I'd had my camera a few months, I bought a Canon 55-250 and have had a blast with it. At under $300, with image stabilization, it's terrific value and produces good results. You can't really go wrong with it. I later bought a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (used - under $600) with the intention of selling my 55-250, but couldn't bring myself to do it, so I now have both. I use the Sigma for photographing sports and for portrait-type shots, and the 55-250 for trips to the zoo and the park with my kid, or for hiking, or on the beach, when I don't want to carry a heavy lens or expose my more expensive lens to sand and salt water.

I've had a lot of pleasure and some terrific photos from both these lenses, and depending on your budget, would recommend either one.

How about a 70-200F4L? It's the same focal length, perhaps even better image quality, and is nowhere near as expensive.

I don't say you should save up and wait with nothing. Sometimes that's a good idea - but if you are still starting out - you might not even like that FL, and all that time wasted saving up for it means you're not out shooting. In this situation, I'd say get something a bit cheaper so you can get to know what you want.

It doesn't have to be a 'waste' either, if you get a 70-200F4L, you get the FL and IQ you lust after, and it's still worthy of keeping if you want a 70-200f2.8IS. It just gives you something to use in the meantime.

(unless you earn a LOT more than me, and saving up for the 70-200f/2.8Is means waiting until next week).

+1 for the 70-200 f4. Get it, use it, have fun with it, then sell it and add more $$ when you're ready for the f2.8.

Good point JGR. I totally missed the f4. That could be the answer. Used or refurb could work well.

jgrussell wrote in post #7339974
+1 for the 70-200 f4. Get it, use it, have fun with it, then sell it and add more $$ when you're ready for the f2.8.

+1 a perfectly solid plan - you can buy pretty much any L lens used and re-sell it for the same price if you keep it in decent shape. I have the 70-200 F4 and it is a great lens will i get a 2.8 IS? yeah some day, but i've never spent more than $875 on a lens as it is so... if i had waited until i could afford the "ultimate" version of the 70-200 i'd have missed out on a TON of great photos...

JeffreyG wrote in post #7339716
What does this mean? I can't tell exactly (sorry - I'm not being smart). When I read this sentence I figured you were talking funds, but then your next sentence is about funds.....

I ask because I think we mostly need to understand two things:
1. What kind of 'reach' do you need? Are we talking portrait reach or songbird reach? What will be the main use of the lens.
2. What kind of speed do you need along with this reach? Do you need f/2.8? Could you live with slower?

What I meant was that I'm just not that good of a photographer yet. My buying a 2 thousand dollar lens would be like giving a 16 year old a Ferrari for graduation. As much as I'd love to have it, I know I couldn't do the lens justice. I'm taking classes, reading books, shooting a lot and doing everything I can to improve. There is quite a bit of improvement that I notice from year to year.

I'm interested in a lot of subjects. Honestly, I can't say that there is anything that I don't want to shoot. I'm still figuring out what really floats my boat. What I find myself shooting most often are sports/motorsports at a recreational level. I'm not camped out with a press pass anywhere. I take the camera with me on motorcycle rides and like to shoot parts of the 'group'. I take the camera hiking, on a walk with my GF, family stuff, 4x4 trips... where ever. I don't see myself doing any studio work or shooting birds. I wouldn't turn either opportunity down but for now it's just not at the top of my list.

I just don't have any reach. My only 2 lenses are the kit 18-55 and the 50 1.8. The 50 I'm quite happy with. It sometimes hunts a bit in auto focus but I have no problem with that. The kit lens and I don't get along too well. I almost never need anything that wide and it seems like it doesn't do too well wide open or at either extreme. So long as I'm shooting around mid zoom and stepped down a few clicks, it's good. I just don't have a lot of use for it.

I really do like the IS though. My hands shake more than anyone's I've ever seen. The 70-200 f4 has crossed my mind a few times. I could get a non IS version of that one for $500 bucks all day long. So long as I'm not trying to shoot hand held at a slow speed, it should do the trick quite nicely.

The reason I liked the superzoom from the get go is because my dad has one on his old 35mm Rebel. When I first started shooting a few years ago, I thought having 1 lens instead of 5 (or whatever) was great. Ever since I graduated from the K1000 (remember those?), I find myself in a big new world and none of my old Pentax gear will work. I can hijack my dad's old Tamron superzoom whenever I want to go get it, but I don't think I've ever used it at less than 70mm, maybe even 100mm. I borrowed it yesterday and to be honest, I didn't like it much. It couldn't focus it's way out of a wet paper bag in questionable light and yesterday was when I realized how little I would ever use anything under 100mm or so. If I need that, I've got the 50 and the kit lens. I'm sure I'll buy something nicer to replace the kit one day.

Alright, alright... I give in. A 70-200 f4 will probably suit my needs best right now plus I can afford a used one. I never thought I'd have a white lens this soon in to the game.

When I get the new lens, is that when I post up some duck pictures?

I think the 70-200/4 is a perfect idea. I tend to forget that 200mm is pretty good reach on the XSi. The lens is very well regarded, and for all those outdoor shooting opportunities you should be able to handhold it just fine.

Im Sasquatch wrote in post #7340267
=I'm Sasquatch;7340267]When I get the new lens, is that when I post up some duck pictures?

Yup! And you will LOVE the 70-200 f/4. It's the sharpest lens I own.

mmmmmmmmm, 70-200 f/4, love that lens. Kit lens hasn't seen much time since getting it.

Rent first, see if 200MM is enough reach for you.

And, check here for a perspective:
http://www.tamron.com …cal-length-comparison.php

Enjoy!