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

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

 

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

 

Hi there,

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

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

 

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/

 

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

 

Again, wrong lens.

Try this link:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294

 

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

 

Thanks, not as bad as I thought but I would still go with the 70-200
f/4.0L which I did.


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

"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/

 

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.

 

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

 

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)

 

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.

 

Yes the Sigma 70-300mm DG APO is very good and moderately priced.

 

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/

 

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.

 

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/

 

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

 

Ordered one and got it. Preliminary shots look very good.

 

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.

 

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.