EOS-300D Lenses - HELP ??

[agiaccio]

I have set some hard earned money aside for the EOS-300D. My budget was based on getting the EOS-300D kit (including 18-55 EF-S lens), the new 55-200 EF lens, 420EX speedlight, UV filters for both lenses and the remote switch. I did lots of reading (various forums) and it looks like the EF-S 18-55 lens is an issue. Lots of people are indicating that this is a very poor lens. Should I simply get the EOS-300D body and put the extra $100 on better lenses? What would you suggest in terms of lenses? I would like to be able to cover from 28-200 (taking into consideration the 1.6x factor). ADVISE PLEASE!! :?: :?: :?:

[[email protected]]

I think the EF_S 18-55mm will work well for the average users, for less than $100, it still a great buy if you do consider the 1.6x lens effect, it will probably come in handy when you need to shoot in some situation that you need to cover wide angle of view (down to 28mm in 35mm photography). Learning to know and use your lens is the key, you can achieve great results great results with cheap lens if you know how. To me, I don’t really care for it because I already owned some of the high-end Canon L lenses, such as the EF 16-35mm F/2.8 USM. So, it’s up to your budget, you can save $100 if you buy the body only, but you will at least have to buy two quality lenses (may be three) to start your system, something like EF 20-35mmF/3.5-4.5, EF 28-105mm F/3.5- 4.5 and of the telephoto zoom lens from 70-200mm range ( or any other combination that cover from 28mm to 200mm in 35mm photography). Good luck.

[Mathilde uP]

The bundle lense has certain advantages; Most likely it is lightweight and because it is cheap you might feel more comfortable to use it in lense unfriendly situations (beach, rain or even shady neighboorhoods) Actually I once bought a chaep lense just for hollidays.

At that point of adding an inexpensive 'travel lense' to your camera, the 18mm-55mm might be a bit limited in focallenght possibilities. However because of lack of zoom, quality will be far better than a cheap 35mm-200mm zoom lenses.

Anyhow lenses that go all the way from 28mm upto 200mm are more subject to physical limitations of glass than 'shorter' zoom lenses.

[Tomsch]

I just went and reread the review on the rebel 300D paying particular attention to the sample photos. There is an action shot at a volley ball court. The stop action was good and a plane towing a banner over the beach has a readable tele number. I am sure it would look better thru some exotic glass but it will never look any better for a hundred bucks. It looks like the package deal is the way to go unless you own a bag full of glass and just don't need it. If it were my choice I would buy it if I never used it just to have a lens to sell the body with when I upgraded.

[Mathilde uP]

Tomsch, you are right, a real good lense doesn't come for just a $100 extra in the shop. My employer provided me recently with camera with lense and I was on bended knees when I heard the prices of possible lenses not to mention the weight while holding these 'glass gems' in my hand. Cheapest the shop had in store (specialistic shop) was 'just' a 28-135 mm IS lense. Let me say, a Polish family can live a month on same budget ;-)

I have compared the output of this 28-135mm lense with other lenses (real low budget Canon EF lenses I already had) and yes it is quite some difference, but it only wil matter as soon as you are planning on art and or proffesional prints. If you come up later with a need for more crispness; The 50mm f1.8 prime lense is known to be quite good and secondhand is should be around $100.
(there was a time without zoom lenses, at that era even consumer cameras could be razor sharp)

Another tip is do check what UV filter is best before spending money on such. It can also make quite difference in lens performance.

[digimex]

do somebody know if thetokina 28-80 f/2.8 perform good with the rebel digital?,...... and what about the sigma 24-70 f/2.8?
they are more chiper, and whit that lenses is no need for the IS

[eric s]

Originally Posted by Mathilde uP

The 50mm f1.8 prime lense is known to be quite good and secondhand is should be around $100.

Maybe that is 100 Canadian dollars? I got it for less than that new! I paid... around $60-70USD. And yes, that quite a sharp lens.

Not the best reason to pick a lens, but some have large filters sizes which are fairly expensive. Adding 80-100 bucks to the lens.

I wouldn't have said "art and or professional prints" but instead just "large" prints. The larger the print (ignoring subject matter) the sharper the picture has to be.

Eric

[NHL]

Originally Posted by digimex

do somebody know if the Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 perform good with the rebel digital?,...... and what about the sigma 24-70 f/2.8?
they are more chiper, and whit that lenses is no need for the IS

The 24-28mm is no wide angle in any dSLRs with a 1.6x factor, that's why they are not a popular buy as in film cameras... Beside IS is only critical @ long and 70-80mm barely made it!

A cheaper alternative is to get the standard EF-S 18-55mm that come with the camera for the wide angle and try to get a good 70-200 f/2.8 for a good fast tele with shallow DOF.

The other choices are 15-30mm, 16-40mm or a 17-35mm zoom for the WA's

[The Photo Tuell]

Originally Posted by agiaccio

I did lots of reading (various forums) and it looks like the EF-S 18-55 lens is an issue. Lots of people are indicating that this is a very poor lens.

Not sure where you read that (I read various forums too), but for the price the EF-S 18-55 lens is a very good deal. If you aren't going to get the kit lens then you might as well get a 10D. The 18-55 is much smaller, lighter and cheaper than equivalent range lenses yet the quality of the pictures is fine. Check my Digital Rebel gallery for examples.

Since I already had a G2/G3 kit a lot of it is being used with the Digital Rebel, allowing me to focus on lenses. I got the kit lens, 50 F/1.8, and 70-200 F/4L as my lenses and love it (until I dropped camera and 70-200 lens, had to send lens to Canon for repair, but that's another story).

If you are worried about the 18-55s quality then I think you should worry about the 55-200 also. It might be even worse than the 18-55. Haven't seen any examples with it I don't think. Anyone have the 55-200 yet?

[Mathilde uP]

Eric S, I don't know the current second hand price of the 50mm prime but in Europe a secondhand should be possible for $100.-

Secondly, ofcourse large prints benefit from better lense quality ;-)
However it will only matter with certain publications. Ever seen a billboard up close? What I meant to say is the criteria for quality we can live with and what is expected for glossy print or art are a bit different. I have shot with film camera many photos with a lousy zoom lense and the only thing I regret is not having a slide scanner ;-)