Canon Lens Q

I have searched through most pages on here reading about what the "best" lens is and whatnot but and still confused! My parents sprung for a Canon Rebel XT and I have been playing with it for a little bit now but feel I need a different lens then the one that came with the camera.

My main interests in shooting are sports and scenic nature shots. I play rugby, lacrosse and water ski so I dont want to wait forever to focus. I also spend a lot of my summer weekend on a lake with mating bald eagles and would love to be able to get some good close-up pics of them so a good zoom is a must!

My budget isn't that big and $500 is about the limit, but if the lens is supposed to be super awesome I could stretch to about $650. I am also willing to buy used.



I am thinking either a canon 70-300mm EF F/4-5.6 IS USM lens or Canon 28-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 USM EF Lens is what would suit my needs best.


-- agree? disagree? other suggestions?

Absolutely disagree.
If you want fast focus and action shooting you want f/2.8 and you want USM/HSM. You have $500-650 to spend on a telezoom. Find a used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM.

Get this one: http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Produ...BCL=&GBC=&GCC=

I assume your stock lens is a 18-55 4-5.6 or a 28-90.... that lens blows goats for quarters. Save up to replace it too.

I own the 70-300 USM and while I've been very happy with it, it may not be ideal for any low-light, high speed, sports. At 300mm it's f/5.6 which is on the slow end of things if it's dark, no doubt. I'm hoping to shoot some surfing in the summer with it, so I'll see how that goes. If you're planning on using it a lot in lower light, maybe pick up one of the 70-200s with a teleconverter?

btw, summit the kit is most likely the 18-55, the 17-55 2.8 is really nice and 1k haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Microcosm

btw, summit the kit is most likely the 18-55, the 17-55 2.8 is really nice and 1k haha.

---

hah, typo... i have the 17-55... it's friggin awesome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Absolutely disagree.
If you want fast focus and action shooting you want f/2.8 and you want USM/HSM. You have $500-650 to spend on a telezoom. Find a used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM.

---

I agree 100%

How much did this lens retail for new? Just trying to see if the $650 price is a good deal, or if I should wait and see if I can find it a little cheaper.

I think it's $800 new. $645 may not beat an ebay price, but KEH is highly reputable used dealer and the products are almost always better than described.

I was definitely not going to go the ebay route, but was thinking about just watching the few good sites to see if something shows up a little cheaper. But if their gear is usually better condition than advertised then I may have to just pull the trigger on the one you suggested.

I got a 70-200 F4L lens from one of the reputable sites used. (I think BH, but don't hold me to that). While its good, I do wish that I'd listened to the advice given here, budgeted a bit better and gotten the F 2.8. Some of those sports shots require incredibly fast, accurate focus, and while I can get most of them, that 1/10th of a second is typically the difference between an alright shot and an AMAZING shot.

A different perspective:

I got back into SLR photography with a 20D body, plus my decade-old Canon glass (the nifty fifty and an older Sigma ??-200 zoom that didn't work with the new body). My first next step was the 70-300mm EF F/4-5.6 IS USM -- I wanted it for sports and wildlife. Shortly after that, I got the 18-55 kit lens to cover the wider angles. With that setup, I could cover 18mm to 300mm -- not very sharply but I could at least take pictures throughout that focal range.

I think the 18-55 kit lens is trash. It's fine for snapshots, but not much more (possible exception for wide landscapes f/8 and better). Image quality is really a downer. Looking at your sample shots you recently posted, I'd say the lens is not helping you get sharp images. (Insert standard disclaimers about "it's the photographer, not the camera, that makes art" &c.)

The 70-300 satisfied me for what it was -- getting a bit more reach for those twitchy birds in the brush. At up to 200, it's decently sharp, though at 300mm image quality definitely falls off. I still own it, although I haven't used it since I upgraded to the 100-400 IS f/4-5.6 L, which is definitely in a different category of glass.

The 70-300 should be well below your budget, and could give you satisfactory results for what you're seeking. Take, for example, your geese picture -- the subject (birds) has a high potential for good images, although the composition (dictated in part by your short focal lengths) and sharpness and contrast are a bit lacking. (No offense -- I'm a critical reviewer, even more so of my own work.) If you had put the birds more tight in your shot, the composition would (to me) have been better, and by eliminating some of the water and background, maybe you could have used the sensor's limited dynamic range to show the birds better. The 70-300 would deliver you a tighter shot, although you still wouldn't have the money shot of the mama goose's head and neck nuzzling her chicks. It also wouldn't have that much higher IQ, although it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the $1000+ required to get that money shot.

I assume you aren't selling your images, but like taking pictures for fun. So for your purposes, don't be afraid to try out the 70-300. You've nothing to lose by looking.

My perspective -

I wanted more reach when I got my XTi, my first foray into dSLR photography. I got the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. Like Yeti said about the Canon, it does the trick to get birds and action a bit closer to the sensor, but overall I've been really disappointed with the IQ. The only range in which it looks sharp is when used as a macro (which it can do quite nicely - see below).

The Canon 70-300 IS is what, about $550? By all accounts, the new Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX II is as sharp or sharper than the Canon 70-200/2.8. On egay, new, for $750. I would recommend looking for this lens, or the older version, and sacrificing the extra reach of the 70-300. Anyway, I would bet that an image from the 70-200 at 200mm cropped to the zoom of the same image from the 70-300 at 300mm would be much sharper.

Also, as everyone else said, the 18-55 is crap. However, I spend $180 to upgrade to the 18-55 IS, which I feel is a much sharper and more versatile lens (see below).


Sigma 70-300 @ 200mm Macro
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/...aa15d9.jpg?v=0

Canon 18-55IS @ 18mm, f/22, 1/60s
http://goneskiing.smugmug.com/photos...2_G7yHj-XL.jpg

Trigger = pulled on Summits suggestion Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM. Thanks for the help. Now I cant blame the lens on bad shots! haha.

Good to hear, enjoy the new lens! I still wish I had picked up the Canon 70-200 I saw on Facebook for $400 when I first purchased my camera. Too bad I decided to wait before buying new lenses. Still though, the 70-300 is pretty sharp, though maybe not at 300. The Sigma looks solid, and you won't be disappointed with 2.8, it can make a hell of a difference.

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is a solid lens; I can't spot any image quality or focus speed difference between it and my friend's Canon 70-200/2.8L (and I've used both of them on the same body). Having attempted to shoot sports with a 70-300/slow lens, I ended up wishing I had bought a 70-200/2.8 first instead of getting a 70-300 and selling it for a significant loss.

If you start wishing for a normal/walkaround zoom type lens, I'd look hard at the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It doesn't have IS, but it's a lot cheaper than the 17-55/2.8 IS.

Thanks anotherVT -- I will prob be looking to get another lens in a few months when the pain from buying this one wears off!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anotherVTskibum

If you start wishing for a normal/walkaround zoom type lens, I'd look hard at the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It doesn't have IS, but it's a lot cheaper than the 17-55/2.8 IS.

---

Agreed

although the 17-55 2.8 IS is sweet if you got the $