Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 5, 2006, 11:26 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 22
Default

First post, so be gentle. LOL

Just recently purchased a Rebel XT kit that comes withthe EF-S 18-55mm lens. We would like somemore zoom but don't really want to spend awhole lotright now. How well will the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens work with the Rebel XT? We can pick one up locally for $300 Canadian. This will mainly be for action shots & stills of our dogs & up coming child at more distance than the kit lens is capable of. We are kind of hoping it could do well outside & could also be used for some wildlife/scenery stuff as well. All advice will be greatly appreciated!

We havea S1 IS, but this is our first SLR.We use the zoom on the S1 quite a bit. I picked up the Rebel XT mainly for it's speed over the S1, I don't want to miss any shots ofthe up coming baby because of the S1's sluggishness. Sorry for the post being a bit long.

Thanks in advance!
Bulldogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 6, 2006, 6:32 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Just my theoretical opinion, but I think most of your baby shots will take place indoors. In that case, I think the 18-55 is fine.... BUT...

The kit lens isn't marvelous indoors (without a flash). And I guess that you'll want to avoid firing off a bunch of high intensity flashes at your baby.

Unfortunately, most large aperture lenses are expensive. The only one that seems to be, "affordable" is the EF 50 f/1.8 at ~120 cad.. but you're stuck with one focal length and it may sometimes be a little long indoors (sometimes I find my sigma 30 f/1.4 a little long indoors). But I think it might be better than nothing... I still remember those scary cartoons on my bed cribe when i was small... imagine if your child remembers a bunch of white flashes...

The only real experience I've had is taking pictures of my uncle's 1-yr old baby. It's usually easy, because he doesn't move around a lot (using a prime isn't so bad in that case) - but that's because he still prefers crawling. Most of the time, you'll want to be safe with a fast shutter speed (+ 1/80) because the baby will like to shake their toys, giggle, etc., so you want to minimize the chances of blurring.

I've tried the kit lens once, but it was during the day in a room with a lot of glass (so a lot of outdoor light can illuminate the room). I was still having a hard time using the lens, especially at the 55mm end (since the max aperture is 5.6 ). I tried using the built-in flash but the picture becomes really unflattering.

The last time i went (i think it was about 3 weeks ago), I recently got the speedlite 580EX (a really nice piece of equipment, btw ), but I still avoided using a flash most of the time. In reality, the bounce flash can really make a picture look naturally lit... it's amazing... And it's not directly facing the baby... so I'm a little less worried about blinding him. I only use the flash in badly lit situations (either there's way too much shadow or there's simply not enough light).

But a flash can be expensive...

Anyway, my point is that most of your baby shots will (probably) take place indoors... and a 75-300 is usually too long indoors... So unfortunately, you might need to consider something else for indoors. Or be prepared for a lot of built-in flash photography.

BUT for outdoor purposes, and as long as it's nice and sunny, I think the lens would do fine... However, a lot of people will suggest that you consider the sigma 70-300 APO . It's around ~380 cad. The optics are suppose to be better and there's the 1:2 macro feature.

And you thought your post was long :blah:
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 6, 2006, 8:09 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i think you would be better served with the sigma 70-300 APO DG as well.. its much better optically..

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;j...300F4ADCA%3D29
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2006, 11:01 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Bulldogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 22
Default

Thanks for the input, but I already went out and purchased the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM.

I haven't even auditioned it yet due to a broken elbow, but I will have my wife try it out asap. It can still be returned.

Anyone out there have this combo?.....
Bulldogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2006, 8:11 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Hi,

I'm so happy finding this site, as I'm new to SLR photography.

I have this combo and to be honest I'm not real happy. The double rebate is what got me to purchase the lense, as I didn't have enough left in the budget to get a better lense on the list, but I also wanted a zoom lense to play with.

I shoot firefighting incidents for my website and I'm having terrible camera shake issues. So far everything I've shot has been low light or in the dark, which doesn't help things. I'm still learning with the camera, so hopefully I can help things out by using the right settings.

Everything I researched says to save up and get one with Image Stabilization, but I've also seen reviews where people are happy with it too.




FF184 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2006, 8:32 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

If your pictures include moving subjects (firefighter running around, or maybe an actual fire) then image stabilization is pointless.

the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is the low-cost-and-large-aperture tele lens. But even then, it's still a lot of money to some people.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2006, 9:34 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Thanks for the tip. After reading the boards and talking to some folks in person, everyone seems to be recommending that lense forwhat I want, so it looks like its on my wish list.

Wouldn't the IS improve my camera shake, or is it just the fact that there is not enough light which in turn compounds the blurriness problem? Again, be easy on me as I'm from the point and shoot world.

Guess I'll have to start saving up . . .
FF184 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2006, 11:30 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

You're right in respect that IS compensates for camera shake. This camera shake is caused by slight movements when you hold the camera. However, a firefighter running across your viewfinder is not considered as camera shake.

how IS works:

there are a couple of sensors to detect slight movements as you're holding the camera. From that point, the lens is smart enough to counter you're movements.

The sensors will NOT see that firefighter running around. Therefore it will not compensate for that aspect.

Keep a shutter open long enough and you'll see a blur of the firefighter as he's moving from point A to B. The only way to try and increase a shutter speed is to increase the rate that light can enter a lens and onto the sensor (better known as aperture).

BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2006, 3:09 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Sometimes the effect is quite fun in an artistic sense.
But if you want sharp pictures of the moving firefighters then you will probably need a fast prime.

Those conditions also sound like a bit of a nightmare for getting the correct exposure.

Here's an example of the sharp background & blurry moving figure effect - this was taken with the 70-300 DO.
Attached Images
 
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 21, 2006, 10:02 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 36
Default

Could someone post a picture or two from the lens in question? (Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM



I'm also looking at this lens for sporting and action shots... I would love to know how it works and how it's results are... This lens will be used mainly for outdoor sporting events, so low light isn't an issue... I just want to know how the lens works under normal conditions.



Thanks alot for your help!!!
Boog is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:01 PM.