300d second lens?
ReeferBen
Registered Users Posts: 50 Big grins
What would be a good lens to go with my "kit" lens? Whats the difference between ones that say USM and others?
I dont want to spend a ton around 300$, but am thinking of a 75-300?
What would you get?
I dont want to spend a ton around 300$, but am thinking of a 75-300?
What would you get?
0
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I got lucky and picked up a refurbished EF 80-200/4-5.6 II. I have been very content with it. It's a bit smaller than the 75-300 (I think).
One thing I am dying for is faster glass. I've finally come to understand what everyone talking about. So... My suggestion, look for fastest glass in your budget, then the focal length as a second search parameter.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
You didn't say what you wanted to use your lens for, so there are a number of possibilities in your price range, depending on what you want to do. Here are some selections:
- Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, an "all around" lens which is faster than the kit lens (although not quite wide enough)
- Canon 28mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4, a "normal" lens for available-light/low-light shooting
- A number of telephoto zoom lenses, including the aforementioned 75-300mm, for shooting distant objects
You mentioned the 75-300 specifically, so perhaps you were looking for a telephoto lens. There are two versions of this lens that fall into your price range--one with a USM ("Ultrasonic") motor and one with non-USM. In general, USM focuses faster and quieter than non-USM. Not all Canon lenses are offered in both versions, but in this case the price difference is ~$30, so the extra convenience of the USM version may be worth it.Be warned, though--depending on what you want to do, 300mm may not be enough. It sounds like a lot, especially with the 300D's 1.6x "crop factor" bringing it to an "effective" 480mm. This will get you very close to a lot of things, but if you want to, for example, shoot small birds in distant trees, it won't be enough. For shooting animals at the zoo, or birds that you can get relatively close to, though, it will be sufficient. So, again, whether it's the right lens for you depends a lot on what you want to be able to do.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Jeremy Rosenberger
Zeiss Ikon, Nokton 40mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.2, Nokton 50mm f/1.5, Canon Serenar 85mm f/2
Canon Digital Rebel XT, Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.4
http://ubergeek.smugmug.com/
So the USM is just the drive motor for the focus, what about the lens with image stabalizing, is that worth the extra money?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=169269&is=USA
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=12059&is=USA&si=acc#goto_itemInfo
IMHO, both of these are average performing lenses. Neither is head and shoulders above the other. Basically, nothing to write home about. But on the other hand, both are relatively inexpensive and will give you a decent 480mm's of reach when used with a 1.6X camera. If this is the price range you are working within, then either would be a good addition. Just from the point of view of trying to cover the most used focal lengths, I'd recommend the 75-300mm. Along with the kit lens, you will only have a 20mm gap (versus a 45mm gap with the 100-300mm), Plus, with the money you save, you can pick up a 50mm MK II prime (about $80). Which will give you one fast (and very sharp) lens for those low light situations
If you don't absolutely NEED the reach, the previously suggested Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR is a very nice "walkaround" lens. Fast and sharp and almost as light as the kit lens. But, it will run you about $50 more than your $300 budget.
Good luck,
Steve
I walk around with the kit or the 28-135 on my camera, but when I want the distance, I do throw on the 75-300. I think I use it the least, but when I want it, I want it. It is not as sharp right now as I would like. That makes no sense, but I swear that when I got it, it was sharper. Maybe I was less critical. I do know that I cannot focus all the way out, I have to pull it back to get it to infinity.....or whatever. Both of mine are IS, image stability, or something.
I will tell you why I am using the 28-135 more now. When we did that challenge that had to be wide, I put on the kit lens and did everything with it. It was great. Except the baptism shots were off and the candle looked like it was falling over. I finally decided it was the distortion of the 18mm, and I shot it at about 35-50 mm, but I still got the darn twisted candle.
The last two times I have had the 28-135 on, and the candle stood up proud and is straight. None of these lenses are perfect, lol.
I would have a very difficult time deciding on two, I really would. I mean two all together. Can't you get two more?
ginger (wish I could get the 20D camera)
Image Stabilization (IS) is especially useful for longer lenses, especially if you don't carry around a tripod. Basically, IS allows you to shoot handheld at slower shutter speeds than you would have to use without IS. However, Canon's 75-300 IS is $100 over your stated budget, so it's up to you whether it's worth the extra cost. Also, I believe that the IS version is generally regarded as being a bit softer than the non-IS version, but then again, if you don't have a tripod, IS can make the difference between getting the shot and not.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Jeremy Rosenberger
Zeiss Ikon, Nokton 40mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.2, Nokton 50mm f/1.5, Canon Serenar 85mm f/2
Canon Digital Rebel XT, Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.4
http://ubergeek.smugmug.com/
I may be able to swing a bit more to the lens though if I just don't buy the reef tank equiptment I want...
You realize that the housing and strobe ain't gonna help if you don't have good glass in front of the sensor.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
I have one. Have used it twice, not very successfully. I probably don't do the type of photography where it is useful. Also I like zoom lenses. Then I got a bunch of sand in the lens, so focusing it became a problem. That wouldn't have happened if I had used it, it just sat at the bottom of my case and got all the sand off of the lenses I did use. The sand is about gone now. Still don't see a reason to use it.
But it is cheap.......(inexpensive), am glad I didn't spring for the expensive one.
ginger
g (Do you all know how much glass costs?)
...I think it's a good choice. Mine is a little soft at the far end but quite good in the 100-200 range. Get the IS version.
Does Andy have glass? Does Howdy Doody have a wooden.......er head? Nothing but "L" glass touches his 20D. He won't even let my camera get too close to his when I have my Sigmas attached.....
You're right, good glass is expensive :cry I only have 4 lenses, besides the kit lens, and none of them are "L" glass. Still, they still set me back $2400:yikes Fortunately, I know a very nice guy who has lots of good lenses, that he lets me use, everytime he comes out for a visit
Steve
Steve