Dig Rebel lens combination - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/01/2005 03:55:18 PM · #1

Shopping for a new camera & think I've decided on the 300D. Considering the 18-55 kit + 75-300 F 4.5-5.6 IS USM. I know I can save money by going with one of the non-IS 75-300s. Anybody care to share their opinion whether it's worth paying the extra $...

soup

Canon EOS-30D

01/01/2005 04:30:30 PM · #2

the optics on the canon 75-300mm f:4-5.6 III are nothing to brag about.
it's good for close range work where you want to keep your distance.
the sigma 105mm f: 2.8 EX DG macro lense is far more valuable IMO

Message edited by author 2005-01-01 16:30:45.

brianlh

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/01/2005 05:03:52 PM · #3

i've never used either (although the IS USM will be arriving on my doorstep on monday). from what i understood, it seems like the 75-300 is essentially a "cheapie" lens, but the IS USM brings it up a bit in usability (not necessarily in maximum quality, though).. i figure it can't be ALLL bad: link w/ samples

sorry that i can't directly comment on either. but i think most people seem to agree that, if you can afford the price difference, the IS feature improves the lens' usability substantially. don't just take my word for it though ;)

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

01/01/2005 05:41:28 PM · #4

I have the 'cheapie' 75-300mm and to be honest its not that good. I dont know what the 75-300mm IS Usm glass is like, if you have the cash I would go for the IS version

Mike

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

01/01/2005 05:44:13 PM · #5

Originally posted by MikeOwens:

I have the 'cheapie' 75-300mm and to be honest its not that good. I dont know what the 75-300mm IS Usm glass is like, if you have the cash I would go for the IS version

Mike

I have it too, and for a month when I first had my 300D it was the only lens I had! I still think its great for what I need it for, and the zoom is really useful in the situations I'm in. I usually only use my camera for web use so the finer points of optical quality don't bother me as much as they might you.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/01/2005 06:20:11 PM · #6

I was just at Ritz picking up a new camera bag (which I like a lot btw and has plenty of extra room for a new lens in the 300mm range) -- so I was playing around with the 70-300 they had there. I can't speak for its image quality, but it seemed to focus pretty fast. It was the quantaray 70-300 4.0-5.6

I think it was only like $160 so I'll probably be getting that one when I get the cash.

[quote]
Quantaray - 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High Speed Auto Focus Zoom for EOS Canon

The outstanding magnification range on this lightweight, compact lens will add impact and intimacy to close-ups, portraits and everything in between. Quantaray's 70-300mm F4-5.6 LDO MACRO SUPER is one of several new telephoto zoom lenses. It is a compact Apochromatic telephoto zoom lens incorporating two Special Low Dispersion (LDO) glass elements in the front lens group, plus one Special Low Dispersion glass element in the rear lens group, to minimize chromatic aberration. It is a Tele-Macro Zoom lens, capable of focusing down to 1:2 (half life-size) reproduction ratio at 300mm focal length with superb optical quality. The lens materials used in this new product are lead and arsenic free ecological glass. 5 year warranty!
[/quote]

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

01/01/2005 06:25:16 PM · #7

Originally posted by Konador:

Originally posted by MikeOwens:
I have the 'cheapie' 75-300mm and to be honest its not that good. I dont know what the 75-300mm IS Usm glass is like, if you have the cash I would go for the IS version

Mike

I have it too, and for a month when I first had my 300D it was the only lens I had! I still think its great for what I need it for, and the zoom is really useful in the situations I'm in. I usually only use my camera for web use so the finer points of optical quality don't bother me as much as they might you.

Might be old age and shakey hands then!

krazyivan

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

01/01/2005 07:22:17 PM · #8

I would reccomend the Tamron f/3.5-6.3 XR Di 28-300mm. I just recently got this lens and it is excellent. The pictures come out sharp, fast autofocus and it's specifically made for digital cameras. I believe there about the same price, you lose the IS feature the Canon has, but this lens is alot better overall.

Tamron Lens

01/01/2005 11:41:53 PM · #9

Alright then! The choice is clear as mud. Thanks to all for the input. I may just go with something cheaper without the IS option & see how it works out before buying something more upscale.

xtabintun

Fujifilm FinePix 2800Z

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

01/01/2005 11:53:12 PM · #10

I'm a Nikon person, but I have a similar lense: The Nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6

Personally, I've never used a big telephoto zoom lens or anything of the sort, but I love the 70-300. It's small enough to fit in the camera bag but it zooms in long enough to do things that I'm not able to do with the kit lens. I don't really mind the resounding 4-5.6 f stop, because I'll always have a tripod with me. Just my insights on the matter.

elsapo

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

01/01/2005 11:55:32 PM · #11

the tamron 70-300mm is an excelent lens too

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

01/01/2005 11:59:41 PM · #12

Originally posted by krazyivan:

I'll second this. I have this lens for a Nikon D70. Low light is obviously a problem but will be with any lower price lens. Other than that compromise I'm very happy with it. Seems that I have it on my camera most of the time. Gives tremendous range for a walk around lens.

cdn1

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/02/2005 12:01:51 AM · #13

I just purchased the Sigma 70-300 APO...nice lens..just have to use fast shutter speeds to make up for the lack of IS...

Prof_Fate

01/02/2005 12:23:57 AM · #14

Let me sling some mud...
My 300D is on order...and my next lens will be...
Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Super II macro, for about $209 (NOT the cheaper $149 non-APO lens) And macro too..
First, is uses the more common 58mm lens - an issue if you don't want to spend a small fortune on circ polarizer lenses, etc.
the sample shots i have seem look excellent.

Depends on what you want or need - what type of shooting do you do? a 300mm on a Rebel has the long end equivalent of 480mm!! Yowsa!
A more useful is a 28-135 or even a 28-200 (eq of 216 and 320 respectively). Less overall zoom should improve quality, in theory.
if fast focusing is an issued, then the canon USM lenses usually are best.
The IS feature is really cool. I hear Sigma and Tamron have or will have this spring IS lenses of their own.

There, that didn't help much, did it?

I ordered a Canon 50mm 1.8 - EVERYONE says it is THE lens to have, $70 gray market.
And a tamron 28-80, $60. Oooh, big money there. I skipped the kit lens. It is about $90 with the body, $149 at adorama et al, but can be had used for $50-60. It is not that great from what i have heard, and except for hte 18mm end of things, i am losing nothing. It is also 58mm (as is the kit lens).

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/02/2005 12:35:55 AM · #15

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

I like the kit lens -- I really like the 18mm side of it (I think it converts to be 27mm when looked at in 35mm terms, but I feel it serves me great for what I want it for -- just the right amount of wide angle 'distortion' or whatever).

On another note, what do people say about the 70-300 quantaray? Is that a bad lens or is it pretty good? It seemed to focus pretty quick to me and has a macro feature too.

EDIT: here's one taken at 18mm

//www.pbase.com/dpaull/image/38137256

Message edited by author 2005-01-02 00:36:39.

01/02/2005 12:47:09 AM · #16

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Let me sling some mud...

You weren't kidding. Good points, though.

First of all, I'm stepping up from a point & shoot 4 mpxl camera, so what I can currently shoot with any amount of quality is limited. Also, I would consider myself a slightly advanced beginner - I think I have a good eye, but I have tons to learn (that's the reason for asking questions here).

I've had some good luck with macros, which I really like. Also, when we travel, I seem to take a fair amount of shots at full zoom, so a tele lens would come in handy, and the image stabilization option is attractive there, since it's not always convenient to carry a tripod.

Prof_Fate

01/02/2005 01:01:07 AM · #17

My 602 runs 35-210mm. I want more reach, so a 28-200 is all i really need.
I want more...my first thought was the 28-300 tamron - it has it's purpose - ONE lens, great if flying far, etc. as it is one item. One comment was 'Great way to turn your $1000 slr into a $400 point n shoot'! It leaves something to be desired in quality. So i began searching..

For macro, canon et al make prime 100 or so (90, 105, depends on brand) that does macro. This is the way to go.

The IS bit will give you 2 additional stops. So insted of needing 1/300 sec you can do 1/75 without a tripod. I assume the reciprocal on the lens length and shutter speed is the same as the 35mm =, or else you'll get not the 1/500 sec but 1/125.

A bigger aperture is the other solution, but costs mo money. The 50m 1.8 is cheap for the quality. the 85 1.8 is great too, but much more money., Don't ask the price of the 50mm 1.4

What i have yet to find is an affordable wide angle lens. Affordable is like under $300.

On the long side, i looked at:
tamron 80-210 F4.5-5.6 $100, 52mm filters - no reviews found...got one?
tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 LD1:2 Macro $150 62mm - lookig for reviews of this one too
canon 80-200 4.5-5.6 II, $120, 52mm. Not that great.
canon 28-135 IS USM $389. I want this one....$390. 58mm filter. I bought a cheap starter lens and will get the lens (or maybe the new Tamron IS) and sell off the cheapier for $40. $20 in rent is not bad!
Tamron 75-300 4-5.6, LD AF, $125, 62mm
Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 DL macro $149, 58mm
Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Super II macro, $210, 58mm
Canon 75-300 F4-5.6 III, $160
canon 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM $189 (probably worth the extra $30)
canon 75-300 IS lens is $409. You can find them a bit less on ebay or with rebate or rebel and rebate etc.

And you have quantarray and phoenix and tokina to condier too...

So you have to ask yourself ONE question, is it worth it to upgrade to a dSLR?

Message edited by author 2005-01-02 01:03:08.