Canon EOS 350D - need advice on what lense to get

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by gingerdazza, Nov 22, 2005.

  1. gingerdazza

    gingerdazza Guest

    Hi. I have a new Canon EOS 350D with a 18mm-55mm Zoom lense. I want to
    get a more powerful zoom lense for landscapes, etc, and wanted some
    advice. AFter looking at Canon's range I came up with......

    Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - which I can get for around £170
    (which I thought was amazing value?!)

    Is this a good option?

    As I am a beginner I thought the L series wouldn't be wise (and would
    also be massively expensive!)

    In your opinion would I then need something to cover the 55mm-70mm
    range (in between current lense and the 70-300 above) or is it just not
    worth bothering? If it is worth bothering, which lense would you go for
    in this sort of range?

    Thanks
     
    gingerdazza, Nov 22, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. gingerdazza

    Eatmorepies Guest

    Hi. I have a new Canon EOS 350D with a 18mm-55mm Zoom lense.

    An excellent choice of body.

    I want to
    get a more powerful zoom lense for landscapes, etc, and wanted some
    advice. AFter looking at Canon's range I came up with......

    Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - which I can get for around £170
    (which I thought was amazing value?!)

    Is this a good option?

    No - it's slow and it's not very sharp.

    As I am a beginner I thought the L series wouldn't be wise (and would
    also be massively expensive!)

    As a beginner you may have a point. But to do justice to your 350D body L
    lenses are the way to go. You can recoup 90% of their cost on eBay if you
    find you bought one you don't use. They are timeless and will be with you
    when you upgrade your camera in 2 years.

    In your opinion would I then need something to cover the 55mm-70mm
    range (in between current lense and the 70-300 above) or is it just not
    worth bothering? If it is worth bothering, which lense would you go for
    in this sort of range?

    Get a 28 - 105 mm f3.5/4.5 USM at about £190. It's pretty sharp from f5.6
    and will focus quite quickly on the 350D. Take a 1000 pictures with it and
    then decide what focal lengths you need.

    Beyond this it depends on what type of pictures you want to take.

    BUT if you want to spend on L lenses tomorrow get a 70-200mm f4 at around
    £420 and a 17-40mm at around the same price. You won't look back.

    John
     
    Eatmorepies, Nov 22, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. gingerdazza

    Julian Tan Guest

    Hi there,

    Congrats on the purchase! Very good camera you've picked up there,
    even if it's not Nikon (**chortle chortle**). :D

    It would depend on your shooting habits... I've got a 55-200 in my bag
    which I don't pull out very often - say around less than 5% of the
    time. The other 95% I use my standard zoom. In my case, it would be
    nice to get say a 70-200mm f/2.8, but I don't think I can justify the
    cost based on my usage patterns. Plus, I don't see myself lugging
    around such a hefty lens too often...

    Sigma and Tamron make some cheap and good alternatives in the 70-300 or
    75-300 range - you could consider those too if budget is a factor.

    Jules
     
    Julian Tan, Nov 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Bad idea. Look at the 70-200mm f/4.0L instead.

    Review of what your are looking at:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=16&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

    only a 6.5 "USM stands for Ultra Slow Mechanism."

    While the 70-200mm f/4.0L is a 9.5.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

    Don't practice false economics when it comes to lenses. Better to have
    one great lens and explore it's possibilities than 6 mediocre ones
    which don't get it.


    *********************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Nov 23, 2005
    #4
  5. gingerdazza

    U-Know-Who Guest

    Are you sure? It's rated as close to L lenses in sharpness. It is a new
    lens, and is not the same as the old 75-300 USM IS. Not the same build
    quality, but does manage close to their perfomance is most aspects.

    http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

    Also, I think the price was a bit off, this link is more in line:

    http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/155727/art/canon/ef-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-is-us.html
     
    U-Know-Who, Nov 23, 2005
    #5
  6. gingerdazza

    U-Know-Who Guest

    U-Know-Who, Nov 23, 2005
    #6
  7. gingerdazza

    BD Guest

    only a 6.5 "USM stands for Ultra Slow Mechanism."

    If you look on FredMiranda.com, in the reviews for the _70-300_, as
    opposed to the _75-300_, it scored a 9.1; there were in fact several
    people who chose the 70-300 over their 70-200L because of the extra
    length and the IS. Yes, the L lens is sharper, but from a
    bang-for-the-buck perspective, it's really not as cut-and-dried as "The
    L lens is always the best choice."

    The 75-300 is relatively crappy, but that's not the one he was asking
    about...

    BD
     
    BD, Nov 23, 2005
    #7
  8. John A. Stovall, Nov 23, 2005
    #8
  9. gingerdazza

    Bill Guest

    If you can get the NEW 70-300 IS at that price, it's a really good
    bargain. In fact, I'd buy several and then resell them at 2x the price
    and make some money.
    Depends on your needs...
    Not all L-series lenses are that expensive.

    For instance, the 70-200 f/4 L is just a bit more than the consumer
    70-300 IS but it performs a LOT better in almost every way. Sure it
    lacks IS and isn't as long, but if good image quality is what you're
    after, the 70-200 f/4 is the way to go - it really is that good!

    Having said that, the new 70-300 IS lense performs pretty good when
    stopped down to f/8 where sharpness increases a lot. It has IS which is
    great for hand-holding at the longer focal lengths, and it obviously has
    more reach than the 70-200.

    As it happens, I own the 70-200 f/4 and I can attest to its great
    performance, one of the best from Canon. I also considered getting the
    new 70-300 for more casual use. But after seeing its performance,
    considering its weight, rotating front element, and high price, I
    decided against it - my 70-200 is so much better, I couldn't justify
    spending $700 CDN to get a similar lense with IS.
    My two most used lenses are the 17-40 f/4 L and the 70-200 f/4 L. I can
    cover the 40-70 gap with my older 28-105, but I rarely feel the need to
    do so.

    If the 17-40 isn't close enough, I take a few steps forward. If the
    70-200 is too close, I take a few steps back. The good glass is worth
    the very slight effort of a few steps.

    :)
     
    Bill, Nov 23, 2005
    #9
  10. Hi. I have a new Canon EOS 350D with a 18mm-55mm Zoom lense. I want to
    get a more powerful zoom lense for landscapes, etc, and wanted some
    advice. AFter looking at Canon's range I came up with......

    Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - which I can get for around £170
    (which I thought was amazing value?!)

    Is this a good option?


    Here is a shot taken with the 75-300:
    http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg
     
    Charles Schuler, Nov 23, 2005
    #10
  11. gingerdazza

    Bruce Graham Guest

    1. so when will Canon produce a 70-200f4L with IS?
    2. why didn't they fix up the 100-300 consumer zoom instead of the 75-
    300? (The 100-300 has ring USM and non-rotating front element, but poor
    glass and no IS)
     
    Bruce Graham, Nov 23, 2005
    #11
  12. gingerdazza

    Skip M Guest

    You may be confusing this with the older 75-300 IS, which is as you
    describe. The newer 70-300 is reputed to be an excellent lens, and an
    excellent bargain.
     
    Skip M, Nov 23, 2005
    #12
  13. gingerdazza

    Pete D Guest

    Yes the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO is very good and moderately priced.
     
    Pete D, Nov 23, 2005
    #13
  14. Why should they when they produce the 70-200 f/2.8 IS? If you wan IS
    you can get it.
    *********************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Nov 23, 2005
    #14
  15. What no one has pointed out is that for landscapes you don't need a
    powerful zoom lens. You need the exact opposite: wide angle. Please
    clarify what you're actually after here, otherwise you're getting a
    whole load of good, but useless advice.

    If you want to do sporting events, wildlife, candid portraits and so on,
    you need decent zoom and the advice in previous posts is good. If you
    really want to do landscapes you need a decent wide lens. I have a
    17-40mm L which is quite superb, but others can offer opinions on other,
    less expensive wide angle lenses.
     
    Derek Fountain, Nov 23, 2005
    #15
  16. Wrong. Many landscape photographers use a telephoto to get
    compression their shots of distant objects or eliminate unwanted
    objects. Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape is one landscape
    photographer who uses telephotos as much if not more than he uses WA.


    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Nov 23, 2005
    #16
  17. gingerdazza

    dmc Guest

    Yep, me being one of them. The 70-300 IS is a great lens. The price the
    original poster suggested I can't believe is the correct lens. 170 quid
    must be the older _75_-300 which is a pretty crappy lens. Certainly no
    where near the new one.

    Yes, the L lens is sharper,

    Not by a lot.

    Basically, the new 70-300 IS is a great lens and if you can find someone with
    it in stock can be picked up for under 400 quid in the UK at the moment.
    The older 75-300 IS is nothing like as good. Very old IS that is not that
    great and poor optics.

    Cheers,

    Darren
     
    dmc, Nov 23, 2005
    #17
  18. gingerdazza

    U-Know-Who Guest

    Ordered one and got it. Preliminary shots look very good.
     
    U-Know-Who, Nov 23, 2005
    #18
  19. gingerdazza

    Bill Guest

    Not everyone uses a wideangle lense for landscapes.

    I've used both wide and telephoto lenses for landscape shots. In some
    cases the landscape may be miles away, and a wide angle might not be
    practical. In other cases, a telephoto can be used on a nearby subject
    to give the illusion of compression.

    It all depends on what you're trying to capture.
     
    Bill, Nov 23, 2005
    #19
  20. gingerdazza

    Bill Guest

    Actually when used wide open, the 70-200 f/4 L is a lot sharper,
    especially at the long end.

    And while the 70-300 can be stopped down to improve sharpness, it still
    has noticeable CA and lower contrast. Not to mention the rotating front
    element, and motor that lacks a ring USM with full time manual focus.
    Also the background blur is lacking since you have to stop down to f/8
    to get good sharpness out of it.
    I agree there...the new 70-300 IS lense is a marked improvement. In
    fact, I was considering one for some time until I finally had a chance
    to take it for a test drive from my local shop. I wasn't impressed with
    the sharpness, CA, or contrast. I liked the IS with the longer reach,
    but it just didn't perform as good as I had hoped for the price.

    If the 70-300 IS was a couple of hundred less, I might get one. But
    since it costs almost the same as the much better 70-200 L, I simply
    can't justify the purchase knowing it would sit in the bag most of the
    time.
     
    Bill, Nov 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.