Time for a new Lens

[cloud88]

Hello!

I have been into digital photography for quite a long time now. But in August 09 I finally made the expensive but worthwhile jump from compact to DSLR! (Hurrah!) A Canon EOS 450D to be precise! But at the time I could only afford the kit lens.

I use this camera most weekends taking pictures of wildlife, landscapes and forestry pictures. But after several afternoons of moaning "Man, if I could just zoom more than the 18-55 will let me, I could've got a fantastic picture of that Pheasant" etc. So I am now looking to purchase a new lens!

I am most definitely looking for a zoom lens as quite often (and I think nearly everyone here would agree) the Kit 18-55 has a paltry zoom and I can't get some of the shots that I need!!

I had been looking at christmas for a new zoom lens but an unexpected bill came along and wiped my entire savings account! ..Now that I've boosted it back up I can afford it again, and I was wondering if anyone would be able to offer some Advice?

I have a budget of £250 MAX (450USD?). My main priorities are Zoom/Zoom Quality/Speed. I would Ideally want to spend a lot less than the £250 limit, but obviously it makes sense spending a little more for a reasonable gain.

I had my own ideas of two lenses:
1-- Canon EF - Telephoto zoom lens - 70 mm - 300 mm - f/4.0-5.6 IS USM - Canon EF
2-- Canon EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS

But as there are so many lenses I have got confused and now I don't know what to do.

Please can someone help?

Thanks!!

[inkista]

The Canon 70-300 IS is about £400, so I think that's out of the running (you may have confused it with similarly-named EF 75-300 III). Ditto the Canon 18-200 IS. The Sigma and Tamron 70-300 and 18-200s are probably in your price range, though, but the image quality isn't going to be the best.

I think in the price range you're considering, a Sigma 70-300, or the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS (~£230) are your best choices for a telephoto zoom.

The only reason to go for an 18-200ish superzoom is if you really don't want to change lenses at all. Image-quality wise, you're not going to be doing much better than the kit lens, and you're going to pay about twice as much as you would for an optically better, longer, consumer telephoto zoom.

And while the 18-55 may not "have much zoom", if you zoom out instead of in and stop down to f/11 while you're shooting landscapes, you'll find out what's nice about that lens. It's the lowest-cost wide angle lens you're going to find for a crop body.

[BCampbell]

Those lenses will certainly give you the telephoto reach you're looking for (especially on the cropped sensor Rebels), but the 70-300mm is optically not a great lense. The 18-200mm is a better bet if you're dead set on getting one of the two, but it doesn't seem to fit in your price range.

Look, eventually you will want to upgrade your camera body. It's simply the march of time in this industry. What you don't want to have to do is upgrade your lenses; you should buy quality lenses that you can hold onto as you upgrade to better and more capable bodies.

I know what it's like to work within a budget (trust me, I know), but my advice is to save up a little more, suck it up with the kit lens for a while, and wait until you can at least spring for the Canon 70-200mm f/4L -- especially if you think you can afford the 18-200, as it's not that much more. It's an absolutely excellent lens for the price and is a good companion to the kit lens (you won't miss the 55-70mm {actually 88-112mm} range too much right now). It's a bit above your current budget but not so much so that it's entirely out of reach.

I would also caution against investing in EF-S lenses -- especially cheap ones -- in the event that you upgrade to a full frame body later. Buy lenses that will stick with you.

Anyway, if you want more info on those lenses, you can find good reviews at The Digital Picture:
75-300mm. "If you care about great image quality and sharp photos, the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Lens is not for you."
18-200mm.

edit: I didn't notice you were mentioning the 70-300mm IS; as inkista points out above it's also out of your range, and I would again suggest going with the 70-200mm f/4L if you think you can spend in that price range.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

... the 70-300mm is optically not a great lense. ...

Think maybe you confused the 70-300 IS USM with the 75-300 III, too.

Look, I get the "buy the best you can afford" philosophy, I do. I own three L lenses. But, just as the camera that's in your bag or your hands is ALWAYS going to take better pictures for you than the one you left on the store shelf, having a lens means you can shoot with it. Saving up to get a better one means you can't. And while the cheaper lens is not going to be as strong optically, it will, conversely, force you to learn good technique.

Not having IS means you have to rely on your handholding skillz, and "safe" shutter speeds.
Not having USM means you have to thoroughly learn how to get the best performance out of your AF system.
Not having L glass means you have to learn about stopping down and post-processing techniques like CA and distortion correction and curves adjustments.

These are still skills you're going to need even with the L glass, and especially with telephotos. Equipping with an 18-55, 55-250, 50/1.8 (if you get the 18-55 kitted with the body), costs you a grand total of about $400. Which is less than one "good" lens. I think it's a worthwhile price to pay for even a year's worth of coverage from 18-300mm and f/1.8 and the amount of technique and lens know-how you'll acquire. But that's just my opinion.

To me the "get the best you can afford" works if you know exactly what you want. As a new SLR owner, you may be in a chicken-and-the-egg kind of dilemma, because you won't know what you want from a telephoto lens until you've shot with one. You may not realize the difference between getting an IS lens and a non-IS lens, until you shoot with one that doesn't have IS. You won't realize the practical differences between f/4 and f/2.8 as a max. aperture until you have a lens that can be set to those apertures. It's all find and well to splash out on a 70-200 f/4L USM if that's what you ultimately want. But if what you really needed was a 100-400L, or the 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, then it's just another stepping-stone lens. And you could've gotten to your eventual goal sooner with a "crappy" cheap 75-300 III. That's what I did. I went from the 70-300 III to the EF 400mm f/5.6L USM, because I was (and am) obsessed with getting bird in flight shots. For me, the 70-200Ls are simply too damn short.

Getting the right lens is about best fit. For what and how you shoot and how much money you've got to toss at glass purchases. "Best you can afford" may not always make for the best fit.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by inkista

Think maybe you confused the 70-300 IS USM with the 75-300 III, too.

Hah, yep, see edit.

I have an older verison of that lens and while it's like having a telescope on the Rebel bodies, the image quality really suffers. I'm glad I have it, but if it hadn't have come with the camera, I wouldn't have bought it.

I would still even steer people away from the 55-250. I really can't recommend EF-S lenses (though this is a personal thing; I can't stand the sensor crop and assume that other people will want to upgrade to full frame as badly as I do, which may not necessarily be true), and it's still not a great quality lens. The non-IS 70-200 f/4L does not carry a huge price premium over any of these lenses, and will hold a place in anyone's collection as a strong lens in several applications for a long, long time.

[cloud88]

Thank you for the honest feedback guys, you've helped me out a lot! (both sides).

I think I'm going to have to pop on google again and start reading thoroughly what I need.

Thanks again guys!