Canon Lens Help

**Cheesestoff** · 11-06-2007, 11:32 AM

Bought myself a Canon Rebel XT on closeout with a 10-22mm wideangle, but now would like to get a telephoto lens for scenery and skiing shots.

New to all this, so don't exactly know where to start, would like IS, but don't really want to drop a huge amount of dough. I know IS hurts sports shots, but I don't really want to carry around a tripod either.

The Canon 55-250mm IS lens they sell in Europe for 199euros sounds perfect, unfortunately they don't sell these in North america. any other lens suggestions?

thanks

**LeeLau** · 11-06-2007, 11:40 AM

chris - buy a throwaway light cheapie you can use in our wet conditions where you won't get too upset if it gets condensation. You can hand-hold for sharpness without IS - it wont be perfect but its good enough for web stuff. If I want a bit of support I prop my hand up against a ski pole

I got myself a tamron 28 - 200 - small and light and $ 100 on ebay. Its definitely not the sharpest and pretty slow but like I said, good enough for what i need. A lot of my long distance shots are taken with that. Hey check your email

**bcboy** · 11-06-2007, 12:35 PM

^^ Agreed on the cheapie, last thing you want to do is get destroy your $1000+ L-series lens. I picked up a 100-300 F4.5-5.6 for $140 shipped and paypaled from fredmiranda.com a few months ago. Check out the website, its a photography forum with a buy and sell. Lots of good deals there.

**contender** · 11-07-2007, 12:21 AM

Or you can try to take care of year gear on the hill

Im using a 70-200/2.8 together with a wideangle lens to shoot skiing. Works great and no problem with condensation.

**Jim S** · 11-27-2007, 09:04 PM

Thinking of getting a lens for my g/f for Xmas. She too has a Rebel XTi.
Bumping along.

**Shaggy** · 11-27-2007, 09:11 PM

Funny this thread pops up since I am right now surfing the web for deals on the xti. If you don't mind me asking how much did you pay and where did you get it from?

**Jim S** · 11-27-2007, 09:12 PM

Me? I don't remember. I got it last year. I shopped around and most places were pretty similar in price....+/- $50 as I recall.

.

**Shaggy** · 11-27-2007, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Jim S

Me? I don't remember. I got it last year. I shopped around and most place were pretty similar in price....+/- $50 as I recall.

.

I was actually asking cheesetoff and the "closeout" he mentioned, but yeah I'm generally finding it's +/- $50 as well.

**summit** · 11-27-2007, 09:46 PM

Used Canon or Sigma 70-200 2.8
or
Sigma 50-150 2.8 EX HSM
or
Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM

Shitty glass is for pictures you don't care about. That's why I have a point and shoot.

If you have to go cheap, find an old 100-300 5.6 L

**Cheesestoff** · 11-27-2007, 11:33 PM

shaggy
i bought the XT not the XTi. Try cameracanada.com, no pst because they ship out of ontario. I called them up to change my order and out of the blue he started cutting the prices of things, i didn't even have to bargain.

**Jim S** · 11-27-2007, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

Used Canon or Sigma 70-200 2.8
or
Sigma 50-150 2.8 EX HSM
or
Canon 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM

Thanks. For skiing actions pics and wildlife, any recommendation of which of these for noobs?

**summit** · 11-28-2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Jim S

Thanks. For skiing actions pics and wildlife, any recommendation of which of these for noobs?

It's just a matter of how much cost, weight, and size you can tolerate.

The 70-200s and the 70-300 have the advantage of being able to work on a 1.3 or fullframe body should you ever buy one.

The Canon 70-200 2.8 L USM is redonkulously sharp with redonkulously fast AF.

The 50-150 offers a little less reach than the 70-200 and is for crop bodies, but it offers a little lower price/weight/size. Crop bodies only.

The 70-300 offers IS in a slower compact consumer lens that still performs reasonably well optically especially for the price. Hope that your AF targets are contrasty and that the action is in the sun.

**HitMe** · 11-28-2007, 03:14 AM

The "cheap and throw around" approach and the "good glass is always better" approach both have their merits. It's perfectly possible to take good shoots with cheap glass, especially if you don't intend to print big (and are willing to do a bit of post processing work). So, the route to go depends on what kind of person you are, sort of. Some never get satisfied unless they have the best...

Since I am one of those people, I know most about the high end stuff.
The 70-200/2.8 IS is the king of versatility (and weight) in this range.
The 4 IS version is the best image quality (it actually beats its older brother) and more portable. But not very cheap.
The 70-200/4L (non-IS) is also excellent image quality and very light and portable. This lens much be the king when it comes to image q for money, especially since it is rather easy to find them used for a good price. If you can afford a EF1.4x telekonverter the 4L handles it very gracefully.

**LeeLau** · 11-28-2007, 03:13 PM

I just wanted to say thanks for all the advice.

My cheapie Tamron 28 - 200 is definitely soft. It's about as soft as soft can get. Compared it to a Tamron 24-135 and even that relatively inexpensive lens blew away my cheapie.