Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Canon EOS dSLR (
-   -   Needs Lens Advise for a new Rebel purchase (

dcislander Dec 22, 2004 6:21 PM

Hey all,
Canon's current rebates have finally helped make up my mind to get the 300D vs. the 20D. Once all is said and done, the Rebel will only cost $500 or $600 depending on the lenses I buy with it. Too ceap to pass up. What I am torn over is the lens selection I am now freed up to buy. While I cannot afford the big $$ L lenses (in most cases) I can get something a bit better than the kit lens (if advised so), especially now that quite a few lenses qualify for an additional $100-$200 off the Rebel. Part of the reason for the camera/lenses is an upcoming trip which will include an African Safari, and a month in China. A tripod is not an option so I thought the 75-300 IS(see below) would be a good option. I really want to limit myself to toting 2 lenses across the world. Here's the rebate deal for anyone not familiar with it-- if you buy a 300D, you get $100 off. For each additional add on (up to 2) you get another $100 off (up to $300). Plus they either double or triple the rebate on the lenses as well. Here's the deal. I have no idea which lenses to get and need some advice.

These are the lenses in my running:
Rebel Kit Lens 18mm-55mm f/3.5-5.6
or, forgo the kit lens and get one of the following in its place:
EF17-40mm f/4 (eligible for rebate--an extra $100 off the Rebel and $25 or $50 off the lens) or
EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS (no rebates on lens or camera)
Plus I was planning on getting the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (eligible for rebate--an extra $100 off the Rebel and $25 or $50 off the lens)

Price breakdowns:
A. $800 total
Rebel with kit lens $900-$100 rebate=$800
B. $1220 total
Rebel with kit lens $900-$200 rebate=$700
75-300 IS $550-$30=$520
C. $1605 total
Rebel body only $800-$300 rebate=$500
75-300 IS $550-$45 rebate=$505
EF 17-40mmf/4 L USM $680-$75 rebate=$605
D. $1670
Rebel body only $800-$200 rebate+$600
75-300 IS $550-$30 rebate=$520
EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS=$550 (no rebate)

Lenses that qualify for the rebate (note many are out of my price range):
EF Zoom EF 16-35 2.8 LU $50 $100 $150
EF 17-404 LU $25 $50 $75
EF 24-70 2.8 LU $45 $90 $135
EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 ISU $15 $30 $45
EF 28-200 3.5-5.6 U $15 $30 $45
EF 70-200 2.8 L IS U $50 $100 $150
EF 70-200 2.8 LU $40 $80 $120
EF 70-200 4 LU $25 $50 $75
EF 75-300 4-5.6 ISU $15 $30 $45
EF 100-400 4.5-5.6L ISU $50 $100 $150

Any advise you have would be much appreciated. Thank. Happy holidays.

woodmeister Dec 22, 2004 8:44 PM

Well first thing I would say, get the best glass you can afford. There is no
substitute for good optics. My feeling is, camera bodies come and go,
but good glass is forever.

But for the record, I have a Digital Rebel and my lenses are 17-40L and
the 100-400L IS USM. I had had got the camera with the kit lens which
iI thought wasn't to bad until I got the 17-40L. All I can say about the difference
is WOW!!! The 17-40L is incredibly sharp. I originally had started with the
75-300 USM III, which is similar to the IS version your considering. Once
again, once I got the 100-400L IS USM, what a difference. Just my
personal experience. Take it for what it's worth.

BTW, most of my photos are nature photos usually insects, birds, animals,
wildflowers and just plain scenic photos.

jds Dec 23, 2004 9:15 AM

Here's what I did last week:

Rebel body only, $735 - $300 rebate = $435
Canon 17-40 f/4L, $635 - $75 rebate = $560
Canon 28-135 IS, $396 - $45 rebate = $351
Total = $1,346

I also added the 50mm f/1.8 for $70

Remember, the Rebel gives an equivelent of 210mm out of the 135. And the 75-300 has not been fondly reviewed by many.

This gave me an equivalent total range of 27mm to 215mm, plus a very nice portrait lens at about 80mm.

Actually, I got the Rebel kit, but put away the 18-55 lens because I think the body will be worth more when it comes time to sell with the kit lens.

dcislander Dec 23, 2004 10:56 AM

Thank you for your feedback. As far as the 17-40L is concerned, the one concern I have is low light situations. This is the one place where the reviews say the lens lacks. Have you had any bad experiences with it? Granted I am just an amature, and do not need the instant rapid response time that many of the rockstar reviewers require. Thanks again.

jds Dec 23, 2004 2:39 PM

I've only had the 17-40 for a short time. I'd love to have it be faster, but f/4 isn't horrible. I can say that it produces a beautiful image. I took it to a company Christmas party the other night and shot with the built-in flash. The comments I got back was that everybody looked better with my camera.

It takes very nice pictures.

As for low light situations, I'm counting on the 50mm f/1.8 to handle those without a flash (my wife's a blinker).

jds Dec 23, 2004 3:47 PM

Let me say just a little more. With the 17-40 f/4, I find that I need a flash to shoot indoors. There's just not enough light at f/4 to get a shutter speed high enough to just use the ambiant light.

I have found that my 50mm f/1.8 does capture enough light for an indoor shot without a flash.

Golfer Dec 29, 2004 5:15 PM

My 2 cents worth, the 17x40 may be a good lense, but the 17x85 is in my opinion a pretty good lense. Not L lense quality, but very good. I think it may have gotten a bad rap from some review as it is showing very good quality on my 20D.

Can't see you going wrong with either lense, but the 17x85 may be a little more versatile and it is also F4. Additionally it has IS which works real well.

Pick the one that works best for you.:idea:

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:23 AM.