[Disease+1] Looking for an EF/S zoom lens.

jsedlak

I am just a few days into owning the camera and am already thinking about my next lense purchase. I think I caught the lens disease... :rofl Anyways, the 18-55 kit won't cut it for walking around, nor will the 50 f/1.8 as I need something with a bit more zoom to it. I also do not want a super nice lens, or even one with IS. My reasoning is I want to learn how to take photos first and develop a steady hand. Plus I do not have that kind of money to throw at a lens right now.

Anyways, I think my options are the 90-300 f4.5-5.6 or the 75-300 f4-5.6 and am leaning towards the 75-300 since it will give me a bit more range and has the lower fstop, plus it is only ~$170.

Thoughts?

erich6

If you're looking for OK (not excellent) quality and a large zoom range you may be interested in this new one from Sigma:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093013sigma18-200dcos.asp

Wait 'till you get the "L-lens" disease. You can kiss your finances goodbye!

NHBubba

I think the EF 55-200 is a nice compliment to the kit lens. In fact, it is pretty well designed to be exactly that. Compact, lightweight, affordable (just a tick over $200), and yeilds pretty decent results. Not a bad starter lens. Particularly if you don't know if you are going to want to do some serious tele work or not.

claudermilk

Here's a different angle. Stick with the two lenses you have & really explore their capabilities. That's the two I had for nearly a year before adding any more. Yep, it was tough sometimes, but I sure know when a simple 50mm prime will work for me now. Then, while you're doing that you can save your pennies for a decent lens; there is a reason those long telephotos are so cheap. I can't find hardly anything on the 90-300 and what I can find (photodo) on the 75-300 isn't thrilling. Oh, btw, I'll bet by the time you get that 75-300 zoomed to 90mm it's at f4.5 anyway.

jsedlak

claudermilk wrote:

Here's a different angle. Stick with the two lenses you have & really explore their capabilities. That's the two I had for nearly a year before adding any more. Yep, it was tough sometimes, but I sure know when a simple 50mm prime will work for me now. Then, while you're doing that you can save your pennies for a decent lens; there is a reason those long telephotos are so cheap. I can't find hardly anything on the 90-300 and what I can find (photodo) on the 75-300 isn't thrilling. Oh, btw, I'll bet by the time you get that 75-300 zoomed to 90mm it's at f4.5 anyway.

I think that is actually a great idea!

I am going to do a little of both... since Christmas is coming I am going to wait and see if I get a lens. That will give me lots of time to get experience with the two that I have. If I do not get a lens by January I will get one by myself and will be able to throw some extra cash at it by then.

btw, can someone explain the difference between a macro zoom and a zoom lens?

mmroden

macro zooms can focus closer than a normal zoom lens, and a zoom lens is a zoom lens like you're used to.

I second the 'stick with what you have' idea. I had a 24-120 vr (I shoot Nikon, not Canon) for a while with a 60mm macro prime. I then grabbed a 50mm 1.4 used from a guy switching to Canon for the 5d. Those were my lenses for a good long while, and I noticed the patterns of my shooting. When walking around and I didn't know what to expect, I used the 24-120 vr. When I was at a party, I used the 50. When I was taking shot specifically of flowers or anything small, the macro lens. I then noticed that I really didn't like the quality of the 24-120, but that I also needed a wide lens, so I could set my sights on the 17-55.

You, on the other hand, may find that you're always walking closer to get the shot, or cropping your shots to get that one guy's head out of the crowd, or just generally wishing you had a decent zoom lens. If that's the case, and you really do believe that you have a good use for it, save up. Don't go halfway, and get a crappy zoom. I did, I got a 70-210 4-5.6, and it now gathers dust because I just have no need for it. Instead, rent a zoom, like a 70-200 2.8 or a 75-300 IS or whatever. I rented the 17-55 for $40 for a weekend, just to see what it was like, and was convinced it was what I wanted. You may walk around with the 70-200 and realize that you're always at the 70mm mark and wishing it went wider, or you may wish it was always longer. Either way, you'd get a good idea of what you'll want in a lens.