Second lens recommendation for Canon Digital Rebel

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Take a look at the 75-300 IS lens. It makes a nice addition to the kit.

 

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

--
__________________________________
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
Canon 10D page:
http://www.toddwalker.net/canon10d
__________________________________

 

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

 

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
__________________________________

 

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.

 

Yes, it happens all the time.

--
__________________________________
Todd Walker
Canon 10D
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
__________________________________

 

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

 

In message <%[email protected]_s51>,

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.
--

 

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

 

In message <>,

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.
--

 

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!

 

In message <>, I,

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

 

<< 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

 

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.

 

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