Is this a decent lens for my 20D?

[BadRotation]

Anyone have any eperience with this lens?

I have a VERY small budget right now, and while I know I should save up to get a decent lens down the road, I really need a somewhat decent lens for this summer.

Here is the lens

http://www.adorama.com/CA80200AF2U.html


Right now I only have the 18-55 kit lens for my 20D, and need something with more zoom. (I feel severely limitied by the 18-55's lack of a longer zoom, since I usually cant get too close to my subjects, which are usually small animals).

I dont need some super-telephoto lens right now, just something better than the 18-55.


Are the optics on this lens decent? I am pretty new to photography, so I am not going to go nuts over having the absolute best picture quality right now.


I plan on getting a better lens down the road, but I need something cheap to just get me through the summer.

 

[Big Mike]

I don't own that lens & I haven't heard from anyone that has it either. I'm guessing from the price that it's not a great lens though.

There are a few decent lenses that are 75-300, and fairly inexpensive. However, typically you get what you pay for.

Look at Sigma & Tamron. They have lenses that are similar to Canon's consumer lenses but a little more affordable.

 

[walter23]

That lens is no good, make sure you buy this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=234444&is=GREY

Just kidding. The lens you're asking about is probably about equivalent (in quality) to your 18-55, so if you're happy with that one you should be okay. Here are some other options that are probably a bit better (but cost a bit more):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12059&is=GREY
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=169269&is=GREY

If you can afford it, the 100-300 USM is probably the nicest of the bunch.

And finally, used is a really good option:

Use 100-300 USM for $172

This place (keh.com) is very reputable and doesn't sell anything that's in junk condition.

Anyone have any eperience with this lens?

I have a VERY small budget right now, and while I know I should save up to get a decent lens down the road, I really need a somewhat decent lens for this summer.

Here is the lens

http://www.adorama.com/CA80200AF2U.html


Right now I only have the 18-55 kit lens for my 20D, and need something with more zoom. (I feel severely limitied by the 18-55's lack of a longer zoom, since I usually cant get too close to my subjects, which are usually small animals).

I dont need some super-telephoto lens right now, just something better than the 18-55.


Are the optics on this lens decent? I am pretty new to photography, so I am not going to go nuts over having the absolute best picture quality right now.


I plan on getting a better lens down the road, but I need something cheap to just get me through the summer.

 

[tempra]

I have that lens, and it's not too bad - the only problem with it is that the focus is the whole end of it, so if you have a filter on there that needs to be a certain way - CPL etc. - then it can become very difficult to keep focus and get the right filter effect.

The photos in this thread were taken with it.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19130

 

[BadRotation]

I have that lens, and it's not too bad - the only problem with it is that the focus is the whole end of it, so if you have a filter on there that needs to be a certain way - CPL etc. - then it can become very difficult to keep focus and get the right filter effect.

The photos in this thread were taken with it.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19130

Yeah, my 18-55 is the same way.

Personally, I am pretty happy with the photo quality of the 18-55. I know there are ones that are so much better its rediculous, but like said, I am on an extremely tight budget right now, and a relative noob to photography. Plus I need a lens SOON (I go on ALOT of camping trips during the summer, and need a decent lens).


I am still gonna save up for a much nicer lens, but I just need something to use until I can dump a ton of money on a good lens.


Im gonna look at the other lens posted above, but I will prolly end up springing for this one.

 

[BadRotation]

That lens is no good, make sure you buy this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=234444&is=GREY

Just kidding. The lens you're asking about is probably about equivalent (in quality) to your 18-55, so if you're happy with that one you should be okay. Here are some other options that are probably a bit better (but cost a bit more):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12059&is=GREY
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=169269&is=GREY

If you can afford it, the 100-300 USM is probably the nicest of the bunch.

And finally, used is a really good option:

Use 100-300 USM for $172

This place (keh.com) is very reputable and doesn't sell anything that's in junk condition.

I think im gonna go with that used one for $172.


That is a pretty good lens for the price, right? Hopefully I wont get one with scratches or other problems.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I think im gonna go with that used one for $172.


That is a pretty good lens for the price, right?

Depends on your requirements.

If you take performance, this lens will perform as 2 out of 10 for 172 dollars

If you take a lens for 500 dollars, it will perform as 9 out of 10.

You decide.

 

[walter23]

Depends on your requirements.

If you take performance, this lens will perform as 2 out of 10 for 172 dollars

If you take a lens for 500 dollars, it will perform as 9 out of 10.

You decide.

I disagree completely, I'd rate that lens (the 100-300 USM) an 8 out of 10. I don't think you could possibly do better in your price range, and that's a very nice lens . It's probably the next best thing to some expensive professional "L" glass.

Oh, and there won't be any scratches on the lens with keh's "excellent" rating on it.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Ask N people, get N opinions.

With my luck, it's very probable that I owned a bad copy of that lens. Hell, I even had to send a new lens back(different one), because it had a fingerprint on the inner element. :er:

photodo rates 100-300 as 3.3
70-200 f/4 L is 4.1
So, optically the different between the lens is huge. Also, consider build and autofocus speed...

Their ratings are extemely consistent with my experience.

The guy paid extra 700 bucks to have excellent AI servo in his camera and extra 2 megapixels. He paid those extra 700 bucks, so that his cam is gonna focus fast and produce extra crisp shots.

Now, he's going to get a mediocre lens to save 300 bucks. Thus doing, he'll effectively cripple his 20D to perform worse than Drebel. Why would you suggest him doing that?

You want the best bang for the buck.
300D and 70-200 costs 1300
20D and 100-300 costs 1600

The funny part is that you'll get better quality pictures, even of moving objects with the first combo.