Canon Lens Your ideas please

[ryyback]

Hey all,

As you can see I am a noobie-D'OH.
I have a Canon XTi and would like to addCanon EF 75-300mm and Canon EF-S 17-55 to my collection. I see the price difference in these too but I have heard they are pretty good lenses?
I have read that some people keep the 75-300 for doing a lot of things including weddings etc.
What are your thoughts? I have read so much today that my head hurts real bad-LOL
Thanks all, and glad I found this forum-

 

[IrishCameraGirl]

I have read so much today that my head hurts real bad-LOL

I'm new to all of this too, so I can't help you, but I totally agree with the above statement.

 

[Big Mike]

I have read that some people keep the 75-300 for doing a lot of things including weddings etc.

I think you may have mis-read that. This would be a poor choice for shooting weddings. The reason is that the maximum aperture of this lens is rather small, especially at the long end of the zoom. The max aperture is listed in the name of the lens; in this case it's F4-5.6. (the larger the F number, the smaller the aperture).

The other lens, is actually one of the best lenses for shooting weddings. Firstly, it has a maximum aperture of F2.8 (which is big for a zoom lens)...and it keeps that maximum aperture even at the long end of the zoom. 2nd, that lens has Image Stabilization (IS), and thirdly, that is a high quality lens, which means it produces sharp, contrasty images. Of course, it's many times more expensive than the first lens.

I use wedding photography as an example because it can be one of the most challenging and demanding types of photography. If you are shooting in favorable conditions (lots of light), the 75-300 is actually a decent lens, especially for the price.

 

[ryyback]

Thanks Mike. I told you my brain was getting sore. I believe I did read that wrong. I seen the prices on the Canon EF-S 17-55 and I'll start saving now-lol.
I look forward though to getting these 2 at some point.

 

[WDodd]

The 17-55 is on my list of things to buy. I am hoping to replace my kit lens with that.

I have the 75-300 and it is just OK. A lot of people don't like it from what I read. But I have seen a couple of those either in the buy section on this forum or the buy/sell section at photography on the net forums. I can't remember which.

 

[ryyback]

I'm looking at this one also-Canon EF 100-400mm
I do have to say, these are not cheap-lol

 

[lifeafter2am]

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L? That is my dream lens at this point!

 

[ryyback]

The cheapest one I have found so far is $1700, and I would expect the wife to boot me out just after I bought it-lolol

 

[Big Mike]

You seem to be looking at lenses that are fairly different.

What are you planning on shooting, for the most part? Different lenses are better suited to different things.

The EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS, is a great lens...probably the best one in that range. Although the EF 16-35 F2.8 L, is a great lens...as is the EF 17-40 F4L (although it's slower).

You can look outside of Canon as well. I have the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. The large maximum aperture of F2.8 makes it great for weddings etc. and the image quality is quite high. The price is less than half of the 17-55. Sigma also makes an 18-50 F2.8 lens.

As for a telephoto...what do you plan to shoot with it? The 100-400 L, is a great lens (especially the IS version)...however, it's got a small maximum aperture, just like the 75-300. The 100-400 L, is a high quality lens though...with great image quality.

If you want a telephoto that is more suited to weddings or sports, then you will want to look at the 70-200 F2.8 IS. There are actually 4 versions of the 70-200....[F4 L] [F4 L IS] [F2.8 L] [F2.8 L IS]. Each one is a very high quality lens.

Going back to weddings, as an example...the ultimate kit (these days) seems to be the 17-55 F2.8 IS & the 70-200 F2.8 L IS. Then mix in a very fast (big aperture) prime lens like the 50mm F1.4 or the 80mm F1.2 L...and maybe the EF-S 10-22 for wide angle. This is for 1.6 crop cameras like yours. If we were talking about a camera with a bigger sensor (1Ds II), then we couldn't use the 17-55 and would put in the 24-70 F2.8 L, instead.

 

[DSLR noob]

I suggest the Canon 70-200 F/4 L or 70-200 F/2.8 L

The f/4 model is a lot of lens for relatively not a lot of money.

-L series glass
-metal barrel construction and mount
-USM motor supporting FTM (full time manual)
-constant zoom range
-$570-ish USD for the f/4 or roughly $1,100-ish for the f2.8

 

[ryyback]

Thanks Mike and everyone-:hugs:

I plan on using the camera for just about everything. Hopefully in the future for weddings maybe, a big maybe.

Here is the short list-
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS or
Tamron 17-50 F2.8

70-200 F2.8 L IS
75-300.
Now for these 2 lenses, I just looked at the prices. $2000+ for the 70-200 as opposed to $200 for the 75-300-
One is newer I would take it?

How's that Mike?
The Tamron on eBay anyway is a whole cheaper. Is the Tamron compatible with Canon, or do we need an adapter?

 

[ryyback]

Canon Mount Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM - $900 or so from some guy at Red Flag deals.
That's not to bad?

 

[DSLR noob]

70-200 F2.8 L IS or
75-300.
Now for these 2 lenses, I just looked at the prices. $2000+ for the 70-200 as opposed to $200 for the 75-300-
One is newer I would take it?

No, they are just completely different pieces of equipment. Canon would'nt charge that much more because somehting is newer than another. You can't just shop for lenses by the focal length and apertures alone. The 75-300 is a cheap piece of glass designed for the everyday snapshooter who just wants to make memories(who where when what period), not art(amazing color, balance, crisp lines, contrast, emotions of the scene, etc.). It is built badly, has bad image quality (pincusion effect, barrel distortion, light falloff on the corners, chromatic aberration, lens flare), doesn't let in a lot of light, no image stabilization (with a max aperture of 5.6 @300mm with no IS will have a slow autofocus and a TON of blurry photos. The 70-200 F2.8 L IS is L (luxury) series glass that is used by professional photographers. It comes packed with flourite lens elements spectra coatings on the glass, low distortion glass elements, weather tight sealing(no dust or moisture buildup in the lens) smoother focus and zoom rings, metal construction, fast autofocus, image stabilization, really crisp image quality, a large aperture for low light photography and better hand-holding (2.8 for a zoom is REALLY good, lower numbers are better). It is an all around MUCH better lens. If you can't dish over $2,000 then go for the non-IS model (70-200 F/2.8 L for about $1,100-1,300) as I'd still take it over the 75-300 IS USM ($400 or so).

 

[ryyback]

Ahh, I get it.
I was thinking something like that earlier while we went up to the Mac. boat race. My buddy has one of the 75-300's for his Canon, we just haven't talked much about photography. He did say that the 75-300 is a half decent zoom on it though, if I remember correctly.
There is so much information to process in my little pea brain
More reading and photoshooting is a good thing.
While down at the boat race I tried some new shooting with a UV filter on. Some settings worked good, and others didn't.
A good couple of lenses, some reading and lots of shooting will go along way I feel?

Thanks everyone for all your help, I really do appreciate it.

 

[DSLR noob]

A 300 mm lens will have farther reach than 200mm lens. But the f/2.8 aperture is wide enough that even with a 1.4x televonverter(you lose one stop or let in half as much light), it has a max aperture of f/4 and would reach to 320mm, giving you 20mm more (zoomed in closer) and STILL be better for low light versus the 75-300s f/5.6 aperture. I say the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is the best for you for a long reach lens, and the Tamron 17-50 is a great lens too! Both of those would give you great optics with good performance and saves you a little money over the Canon stuff.


go to www.the-digital-picture.com scroll to the bottom and click any canon lens you want to read a review of, that should help quite a bit.