[yakmasterjack]

So I just got my Rebel last week and totally love it. I've got the 18-55mm kit lens that is suiting me fine while I'm learning but I'm looking for a telephoto lens in addition. Does anyone have experience with the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Zoom Lens? I know its not top of the line, but I played around with one for a day and liked it and want some input from owners. Any other suggestions for a moderatly priced telephoto lens under $300-350?

[Parker]

that lens will do just fine, especially if you consider the kit lens to be suiting your needs. to be honest, i'd ditch both of those and look at getting the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for your "wide/zoom" lens and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for the telephoto end.

[762x51]

The 75-300 III is generally considered not a terribly great lens. Slow focusing and soft images.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

Honestly, save for a bit longer and get either a 70-200 f/4L, or a 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. Both are worlds better in image quality. I own the f/4 L and the image quality, focusing accuracy/speed, and build quality are phenominal.

[DARKSTI]

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 APO DG FTW!!

[ghibli99]

Originally Posted by DARKSTI

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 APO DG FTW!!

Far from moderately priced, but a good lens.

I have an EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM... not long, but it's a great lens to walk around with, and it takes very good pictures.

-Mike

[zedman86]

i love my 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 sigma. crazy versatile. i rarely change my lens. and if i do i switch to my sigma 10-20

[jollib]

will all these lenses work with the rebel's micro censor instead of the full frame these lenses are usually made for? debating on whether to get a tamron 55 200 di II because they are made especially for the smaller sensors. or am i mistaken on my reasoning.

[mxpop]

tamron 18-200 3.5-6.3 is the best all around lens and is about $400


its not in league with any white cannons but price/function/range, its unbeatable.


i just wish cannon would step up and offer something in that zoom range but at their quality. i would pay a lot for it.





check out this paralel thread,

70-300mm "budget" lenses; Worth it or waste of money?

[Ben]

Originally Posted by yakmasterjack

So I just got my Rebel last week and totally love it. I've got the 18-55mm kit lens that is suiting me fine while I'm learning but I'm looking for a telephoto lens in addition. Does anyone have experience with the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Zoom Lens? I know its not top of the line, but I played around with one for a day and liked it and want some input from owners. Any other suggestions for a moderatly priced telephoto lens under $300-350?

This is tough. Spending less than $350 AND getting a high quality telephoto is pretty much impossible.

If you can afford an extra $200 you could always get the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L. It's an amazing bang for your buck and one of the best lenses in terms of quality / performance. You could probably pick one up used for $400, or new for $550.

If you absolutely have to stay below $350, there's always the Canon 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6. It's CHEAP ($200) but the build quality is pretty bad and it's a bit soft. It's an awesome value, but not a great performer.

My advice is always going to be to save for a good Canon lens, but that might not be an option. It just sucks when people go out and spend $300 ish on a crappy lens, have mixed results, and at the end of the day try to resell it for $200 so they can just go back, save some money, and buy the lens they should have gotten from the begining.

Just my $0.02

[mxpop]

^^ is all true but, a zoom that starts at 55, much less 70, is not very versatile as an all around lens. thats why im a fan of the 18-200 tamron to do it all.

it would seem like common sense to add a lens that starts where your current lens ends but i hate lugging extra lenses around and you are often stuck in the middle of the 2 lenses any way.

[Ben]

I know, but he said he wanted a telephoto "in addition" to his kit lens (17-55mm). If there are two focal lengths that go together, it's 17-55 and 70-200. I don't really think he's going to miss the 56-69mm range (take 1 step up or 1 step back...) .

18-200 is definitely the way to go if you want the luxury of just putting one lens on and going out for the day. It's really nice. If you don't mind carying two lenses, or you know what you'll be shooting, the performance of a good 70-200L and something like a 17-55 2.8 or 24-70 2.8L is unbeatable.

[mxpop]

We are both correct, it just depends on whether the op (or who-ever) wants to pack 2+ lenses or not.


op, try this: use your 18-55 lens while carrying a pint size beer glass with you all day (empty, sorry... ). if it doesnt bother you and you didnt break it, then you are a good 2 lens cadidate.


i do have several lenses that i take in my car. however, i rarely carry extra lenses while shooting so i try to predict my lens needs ahead of time as much as poss. usually i choose well but other times i wish i had picked another lens that day. oh well........