Steve'sDigicams

MortenJensen · Feb 25, 2004, 4:41 PM

Hi all

I am about to buy a 300D. Could someone advice me on what lense to buy? I have read the threads allready on this subject but I have some specific questions:

- Would the Sigma 28-200 Hyperzoom F3.5-5.6 be a good bet? Is 3.5-5.6 relative good on light for a lense in the cheaper end?

- A Canon 28-200 EF costs almost twice as much in Denmark. It also features 3.5-5.6. Is it worth the money?

- Or should I go for a Canon 28-105 II USM 3.5-4.5 lense. It should be professional. How does it differ from the two others. In terms of price it is not that much more expensive than the Sigma - but then some of the zoom has to go.

- OR should I go for the cheapest solution and buy the EF-F 28-55 lense that Steve seems to like. Then a lot of the zoom has truly gone and I don't think I would like to carry around two lenses. Just one. But is this new lense a lot better for this specific camera, or will e.g. the Sigma lense do just as fine a job?

Well, it would be very nice to have some pro-comments on this...

Thanks all

Morten

Gandalf065 · Feb 26, 2004, 12:17 AM

I dont have much comparison between those lenses for you, but I have used the Sigma 28-200, and was very impressed with the lens overall. My only complaint would be slow AF.

ccomley · Feb 26, 2004, 4:24 PM

It *really* depends what you're going to be doing with it.

I have a 35-135mm USM as my "main" lens now - the 18-55 just doesn't go long enough, and isn't sharp enough by comparison. The 35-135 covers most everyday uses.

Are you often going to need a longer lens? Rememer per the other discussion at 135mm on a 300D that's equivalent of over 210mm in 35mm film terms.

Also rememner that with over 6 million pixels on the sensor, you can also crop the final image to get extra zoom if you can sacrifice some of the pixels!

fporch · Feb 26, 2004, 6:12 PM

As noted, I use a Tamron 28-300 ($369 w/$40 rebate at B&H) with my DRebel. Very compact lens, I hike & walk around a lot with my gear. I'm pleased, you can take a look at my last two albums at the link below.

http://community.webshots.com/user/johnwmitchell100

fporch · Feb 26, 2004, 9:37 PM

Here's another Syteve link that may help......

http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...ic.php?t=20989

Feb 25, 2004, 4:41 PM	#1
MortenJensen Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 10	Sigma or Canon lense for 300D Hi all I am about to buy a 300D. Could someone advice me on what lense to buy? I have read the threads allready on this subject but I have some specific questions: - Would the Sigma 28-200 Hyperzoom F3.5-5.6 be a good bet? Is 3.5-5.6 relative good on light for a lense in the cheaper end? - A Canon 28-200 EF costs almost twice as much in Denmark. It also features 3.5-5.6. Is it worth the money? - Or should I go for a Canon 28-105 II USM 3.5-4.5 lense. It should be professional. How does it differ from the two others. In terms of price it is not that much more expensive than the Sigma - but then some of the zoom has to go. - OR should I go for the cheapest solution and buy the EF-F 28-55 lense that Steve seems to like. Then a lot of the zoom has truly gone and I don't think I would like to carry around two lenses. Just one. But is this new lense a lot better for this specific camera, or will e.g. the Sigma lense do just as fine a job? Well, it would be very nice to have some pro-comments on this... Thanks all Morten

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Feb 26, 2004, 12:17 AM	#2
Gandalf065 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 575	I dont have much comparison between those lenses for you, but I have used the Sigma 28-200, and was very impressed with the lens overall. My only complaint would be slow AF.

Feb 26, 2004, 4:24 PM	#3
ccomley Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 89	It really depends what you're going to be doing with it. I have a 35-135mm USM as my "main" lens now - the 18-55 just doesn't go long enough, and isn't sharp enough by comparison. The 35-135 covers most everyday uses. Are you often going to need a longer lens? Rememer per the other discussion at 135mm on a 300D that's equivalent of over 210mm in 35mm film terms. Also rememner that with over 6 million pixels on the sensor, you can also crop the final image to get extra zoom if you can sacrifice some of the pixels!

Feb 26, 2004, 6:12 PM	#4
fporch Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 332	As noted, I use a Tamron 28-300 ($369 w/$40 rebate at B&H) with my DRebel. Very compact lens, I hike & walk around a lot with my gear. I'm pleased, you can take a look at my last two albums at the link below. http://community.webshots.com/user/johnwmitchell100

Feb 26, 2004, 9:37 PM	#5
fporch Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 332	Here's another Syteve link that may help...... http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...ic.php?t=20989