Second lens recommendation for Canon Digital Rebel

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neal Matthis, Dec 3, 2003.

  1. Neal Matthis

    Neal Matthis Guest

    I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200 EF
    USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included 18-55mm
    EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is also
    mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.

    Neal
     
    Neal Matthis, Dec 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Neal Matthis

    Faiser Guest

    Sounds like you are answering your own question here.

    I bought my Rebel initially with the EF 75-300 but I returned to the store
    the same week. Image quality was lacking, pictures were way too soft and a
    focal length of 200+ is close to impossible to hold steady anyway without
    tripod. The 55-200 would give you a range of 88-320mm, for this kind of
    range you need better glass.
    Have you considered the 28-135 IS USM? A bit more expensive but you also get
    an effective range of 44-216mm for a stabilized image. You would not make
    it up to 320mm, however, cropping a 216mm picture shot with image stabilizer
    will likely give a sharper result than the softer one from the 320mm lens!
    If you really need the long focal length maybe the 75-300 IS would also be a
    valid option. There are many threads and comparisons about these lenses if
    you dig a little.

    "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200

    EF
    > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included

    18-55mm
    > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is

    also
    > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    >
    > Neal
    >
    >
     
    Faiser, Dec 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neal Matthis

    Lansbury Guest

    On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 01:34:38 -0500, "Neal Matthis" <>
    wrote:

    >I've read mostly that the included 18-55mm
    >EFS lens is pretty mediocre


    you have the lens, what do you consider of the results it produces. The
    55-200 EF-S is IMHO of a similar standard, but I am one who considers
    the kit lens is reasonable, but not as good as my 50mm or 28-135 IS USM
    lenses.

    --
    Lansbury
    www.uk-air.net
    FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup
     
    Lansbury, Dec 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Take a look at the 75-300 IS lens. It makes a nice addition to the kit.
     
    Charles Schuler, Dec 3, 2003
    #4
  5. Neal Matthis

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200 EF
    > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included 18-55mm
    > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is also
    > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    >
    > Neal


    70-200 f/4L. Around $570.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    Canon 10D page:
    http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 3, 2003
    #5
  6. Neal Matthis

    jriegle Guest

    I got the EF 80-200mm zoom. It gives you the equiv. field of view on the
    D-Rebel as a 128-320mm on a 35mm camera. You can get it for $150 and
    probably much less. It seems to do better at the long end than the EF
    75-300mm zoom does, although it doesn't have the reach. It is f/5.6 at the
    tele setting, but given the fact that you can crank the rebel up to ISO 400
    or even 800 with little penalty in noise it is not too bad.
    John

    "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200

    EF
    > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included

    18-55mm
    > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is

    also
    > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    >
    > Neal
    >
    >
     
    jriegle, Dec 3, 2003
    #6
  7. Neal Matthis

    ßowser Guest

    I guess I'll cast the lone vote for the 55-200. I've used a bit (I've only
    had it a couple of weeks) and the results aren't bad at all. Here's a sample
    (hand-held)(this is a full-size pic and a large download):

    http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/55-200.JPG

    It's not as sharp as some of Canon's better lenses, but it's light, handles
    good, and can provide nice results. Inexpensive, too.

    "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200

    EF
    > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included

    18-55mm
    > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is

    also
    > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    >
    > Neal
    >
    >
     
    ßowser, Dec 4, 2003
    #7
  8. Neal Matthis

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <8lwzb.297277$275.1022345@attbi_s53>, says...
    > I guess I'll cast the lone vote for the 55-200. I've used a bit (I've only
    > had it a couple of weeks) and the results aren't bad at all. Here's a sample
    > (hand-held)(this is a full-size pic and a large download):
    >
    > http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/55-200.JPG
    >
    > It's not as sharp as some of Canon's better lenses, but it's light, handles
    > good, and can provide nice results. Inexpensive, too.
    >


    Wow. That's much better than I would have expected from that lens...

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 4, 2003
    #8
  9. Neal Matthis

    ßowser Guest

    I was surprised, as well. I've yet to tripod mount it and test it properly,
    but for a lightweight travel lens, it's nice.

    I guess I'll add this to the "I don't get it" file. From time to time on
    this, and other forums, I read something that is completely contrary to what
    I see in practice. Sometimes I wonder if people comment without ever
    actually using the gear. I never offer comment without hands-on experience.

    "Todd Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <8lwzb.297277$275.1022345@attbi_s53>, says...
    > > I guess I'll cast the lone vote for the 55-200. I've used a bit (I've

    only
    > > had it a couple of weeks) and the results aren't bad at all. Here's a

    sample
    > > (hand-held)(this is a full-size pic and a large download):
    > >
    > > http://home.comcast.net/~xelbon/55-200.JPG
    > >
    > > It's not as sharp as some of Canon's better lenses, but it's light,

    handles
    > > good, and can provide nice results. Inexpensive, too.
    > >

    >
    > Wow. That's much better than I would have expected from that lens...
    >
    > --
    > __________________________________
    > Todd Walker
    > http://www.toddwalker.net
    > http://www.twphotography.net
    > __________________________________
     
    ßowser, Dec 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Neal Matthis

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <%kGzb.301966$ao4.1040878@attbi_s51>, says...
    > Sometimes I wonder if people comment without ever
    > actually using the gear.
    >


    Yes, it happens all the time.

    --
    __________________________________
    Todd Walker
    Canon 10D
    http://www.toddwalker.net
    http://www.twphotography.net
    __________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Dec 4, 2003
    #10
  11. "Neal Matthis" <> wrote:
    >I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    >to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range.


    I purchased the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 II APO Macro Super and have been very
    pleased with it. There have been some wonderful photos posted from it in the
    Canon 300D forum on dpreview, however there have also been plenty of discussion
    on issues about the build quality and focussing, but the ~US$200 and absence of
    chromatic abberation were the deal clinchers for me. Note that there are
    several Sigma 70-300 versions, and the APO and Mark II ( or late Mark I ) are
    needed for the 300D/Digital Rebel ( otherwise it has to go to Sigma for
    rechipping - often free ).

    The photos that convinced me to buy the lens were:-
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6310454

    but that person subsequently sold it and purchased a Canon 75-300 IS, and
    offers similar or better photos obtained with that:-
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6582960

    However, I'm more than happy with mine, and virtually all the issues relate to
    me, not the camera or the lenses. I haven't even started on learning the
    editing aspects necessary to get good pictures like his. I'm not planning on
    upgrading my camera or lenses anytime soon, but if you want to start on that
    journey, then some of the good quality Canon L glass might be worth the
    investment.

    There is a good FAQ for the 300D/Digital Rebel/Kiss at
    http://www.marius.org/cgi-bin/fom?_recurse=1&file=35
    and Bob Atkins has offered opinions of lenses at various price points at
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/EOS_300D_lenses.html

    I set the price of going from film to digital as to not exceed 2x the price of
    the camera, and I've pretty much reached that now ( 2 x 512MB CF, Canon
    50mm/f1.8, Sigma 70-300/f4-5.6 APO, 120GB hard disk, USB2 card and CF reader
    for PC, Canon i965 printer, filters, circular polarizer, etc. ). If I was
    looking to build up a lense collection, I would have foregone the quality of
    some of the other items and purchased better glass.

    I think you have to decide what quality lenses you require now and perhaps in
    the future, and that will help your decision about price, and then you can
    check out some of the opinions of the choices at popular forums.

    Bruce Hamilton
     
    Bruce Hamilton, Dec 5, 2003
    #11
  12. Neal Matthis

    Guest

    In message <%kGzb.301966$ao4.1040878@attbi_s51>,
    "ßowser" <> wrote:

    >I guess I'll add this to the "I don't get it" file. From time to time on
    >this, and other forums, I read something that is completely contrary to what
    >I see in practice. Sometimes I wonder if people comment without ever
    >actually using the gear. I never offer comment without hands-on experience.


    Lots of lenses have reputations based on 35mm film cameras, where the
    outer edges of the image may be inferior to the middle. Cameras that
    only use the middle of the image can do much better with these lenses.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 5, 2003
    #12
  13. Neal Matthis

    Neal Matthis Guest

    Hmm, now I've been considering the Canon EF 70-300mm USM and the Canon EF
    70-300mm IS for my Digital Rebel. Trying to decide if I should spend $450
    for the IS or only $170. I like the idea of being able to do more hand-held
    zoom photography with the IS, especially since it will be a 480mm at full
    zoom on the Digital Rebel.

    Neal

    "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200

    EF
    > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included

    18-55mm
    > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is

    also
    > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    >
    > Neal
    >
    >
     
    Neal Matthis, Dec 7, 2003
    #13
  14. Neal Matthis

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "Neal Matthis" <> wrote:

    >Hmm, now I've been considering the Canon EF 70-300mm USM and the Canon EF
    >70-300mm IS for my Digital Rebel. Trying to decide if I should spend $450
    >for the IS or only $170. I like the idea of being able to do more hand-held
    >zoom photography with the IS, especially since it will be a 480mm at full
    >zoom on the Digital Rebel.


    The IS works very well on the 75-300mm IS lens, but be warned that the
    lens has many issues. It is not especially sharp at 300mm at its f5.6
    max aperture. The lens zoom can change just from moving the camera.
    The front of the lens, where filters screw on, rotates with the focus.
    There is no focusing distance scale on the camera. Auto-focus is very
    slow or fails to focus in moderately low light. Manual focus has lots
    of play in it. My camera often crashed when I used this lens with my
    550EX flash.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 7, 2003
    #14
  15. Neal Matthis

    Nick Guest

    "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hmm, now I've been considering the Canon EF 70-300mm USM and the Canon EF
    > 70-300mm IS for my Digital Rebel. Trying to decide if I should spend $450
    > for the IS or only $170. I like the idea of being able to do more

    hand-held
    > zoom photography with the IS, especially since it will be a 480mm at full
    > zoom on the Digital Rebel.


    FWIW, about five years ago I bought a long telezoom, the EF 100-300
    f/4.5-5.6. But it was so slow, I found it useless most of the time. Without
    a tripod, almost all pictures became fuzzy. It is really very, very hard (if
    not impossible) to get sharp handheld pictures at 200mm or higher with f/5.6
    (and you should stop down a bit to have even a chance to get sharp
    pictures). I finally sold it and bought a used 200mm f/2.8L.

    With the 75-300 (non-IS), you will probably find yourself having to use ISO
    800 and 1600 a lot. In other words, I'd recommend that you get the IS or
    find a used 200mm f/2.8, like I did. Or limit yourself to tripod shots.

    Good luck!
     
    Nick, Dec 7, 2003
    #15
  16. Neal Matthis

    Guest

    In message <>, I,
    wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >"Neal Matthis" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hmm, now I've been considering the Canon EF 70-300mm USM and the Canon EF
    >>70-300mm IS for my Digital Rebel. Trying to decide if I should spend $450
    >>for the IS or only $170. I like the idea of being able to do more hand-held
    >>zoom photography with the IS, especially since it will be a 480mm at full
    >>zoom on the Digital Rebel.

    >
    >The IS works very well on the 75-300mm IS lens, but be warned that the
    >lens has many issues. It is not especially sharp at 300mm at its f5.6
    >max aperture. The lens zoom can change just from moving the camera.
    >The front of the lens, where filters screw on, rotates with the focus.
    >There is no focusing distance scale on the camera. Auto-focus is very
    >slow or fails to focus in moderately low light. Manual focus has lots
    >of play in it. My camera often crashed when I used this lens with my
    >550EX flash.


    Oh, I forgot to mention that there is no manual focusing override in
    autofocus mode.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Dec 7, 2003
    #16
  17. << Hmm, now I've been considering the Canon EF 70-300mm USM and the Canon EF
    70-300mm IS for my Digital Rebel. Trying to decide if I should spend $450
    for the IS or only $170. >>

    Neal-

    Its only money! Do you expect to use this combination for a long time? If you
    knew it would only be used for two years, would you still invest in the extra
    lenses?

    It may be today's "darling" camera, but I bought the Digital Rebel with the
    full understanding that it would be obsolete in about two years. The extra
    Canon stuff may not be compatible with my next camera.

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Dec 7, 2003
    #17
  18. Neal Matthis

    Rich Guest

    I would second a recommendation on the 28-135 IS. That is absolutely
    one of my favorite lenses. It is very, very sharp, and has a good
    versatile range. A great "walking around" lens, the one I would choose
    if I can only take one with me.

    Rich.

    "Faiser" <> wrote in message news:<Qdjzb.2175697$>...
    > Sounds like you are answering your own question here.
    >
    > I bought my Rebel initially with the EF 75-300 but I returned to the store
    > the same week. Image quality was lacking, pictures were way too soft and a
    > focal length of 200+ is close to impossible to hold steady anyway without
    > tripod. The 55-200 would give you a range of 88-320mm, for this kind of
    > range you need better glass.
    > Have you considered the 28-135 IS USM? A bit more expensive but you also get
    > an effective range of 44-216mm for a stabilized image. You would not make
    > it up to 320mm, however, cropping a 216mm picture shot with image stabilizer
    > will likely give a sharper result than the softer one from the 320mm lens!
    > If you really need the long focal length maybe the 75-300 IS would also be a
    > valid option. There are many threads and comparisons about these lenses if
    > you dig a little.
    >
    > "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd like
    > > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon 55-200

    > EF
    > > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included

    > 18-55mm
    > > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is

    > also
    > > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    > >
    > > Neal
    > >
    > >
     
    Rich, Dec 7, 2003
    #18
  19. Neal Matthis

    Neal Matthis Guest

    So at extreme focal lengths, like 320 and 480mm, you get a reduction in
    image quality? You say it's softer, which I guess means that you can't
    achieve a really sharp focus, right? So are these lenses at their extreme
    focal length not very useful? If so, that would lead me more toward the
    28-135mm IS, or the EF 55-200mm.

    Neal

    "Faiser" <> wrote in message
    news:Qdjzb.2175697$...
    > Sounds like you are answering your own question here.
    >
    > I bought my Rebel initially with the EF 75-300 but I returned to the store
    > the same week. Image quality was lacking, pictures were way too soft and a
    > focal length of 200+ is close to impossible to hold steady anyway without
    > tripod. The 55-200 would give you a range of 88-320mm, for this kind of
    > range you need better glass.
    > Have you considered the 28-135 IS USM? A bit more expensive but you also

    get
    > an effective range of 44-216mm for a stabilized image. You would not make
    > it up to 320mm, however, cropping a 216mm picture shot with image

    stabilizer
    > will likely give a sharper result than the softer one from the 320mm lens!
    > If you really need the long focal length maybe the 75-300 IS would also be

    a
    > valid option. There are many threads and comparisons about these lenses

    if
    > you dig a little.
    >
    > "Neal Matthis" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I just bought the Canon Digital Rebel with the 18-55mm kit lens. I'd

    like
    > > to get a lens in the 200 to 300mm range. Was looking at the Canon

    55-200
    > EF
    > > USM II lens, since it appears to be designed specifically for the Rebel,
    > > having a longer throw for DSLRs. I've read mostly that the included

    > 18-55mm
    > > EFS lens is pretty mediocre and was wondering if the 55-200 EF lens is

    > also
    > > mediocre considering the price is around $200. Thanks.
    > >
    > > Neal
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Neal Matthis, Dec 11, 2003
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. at

    Digital Rebel - alternate lens recommendation?

    at, Nov 3, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    491
    Pierre Bellavance
    Nov 8, 2003
  2. BPO
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    6,277
  3. Joe Martella

    Need Recommendation on lenses for Canon Digital Rebel

    Joe Martella, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    454
    Digital Puer
    Jan 13, 2004
  4. Rick Geyerman

    Digital Rebel lens to Film Rebel?

    Rick Geyerman, Sep 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    662
    Rick Geyerman
    Sep 23, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,260
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page