Which Canon lens should I get?
Discussion
I currently own an EOS 300
I wanted better but this was my budget limits for my first SLR.
I have owned it 3 years now and the 28-90 Canon lens(non USM) it came with isnt that good and has been repaired once already.
I was thinking of getting a 28-300Zoom lens for it. The Tamron is a little overpriced for me at £300 but if its a good lens then I'll consider it. (Opinions please)
Or should I be looking at getting a 90-300 lens and a seperate wide angle?
What I really want is a range of 28mm (or wider), 300mm and quality optics and tough reliability. Also a better focusing ring (ie, not at the front) is preffered.
I broke my Canon lens in the Outback but did take 3000 photos out there!
Thanks.
I wanted better but this was my budget limits for my first SLR.
I have owned it 3 years now and the 28-90 Canon lens(non USM) it came with isnt that good and has been repaired once already.
I was thinking of getting a 28-300Zoom lens for it. The Tamron is a little overpriced for me at £300 but if its a good lens then I'll consider it. (Opinions please)
Or should I be looking at getting a 90-300 lens and a seperate wide angle?
What I really want is a range of 28mm (or wider), 300mm and quality optics and tough reliability. Also a better focusing ring (ie, not at the front) is preffered.
I broke my Canon lens in the Outback but did take 3000 photos out there!
Thanks.
do you need the full range between 28-300? That'll be difficult to cover well with one lens for that money.
A couple of prime (non-zoom) lenses might do, and they'd be much better quality, both in sharpness and maximum aperture. Because the pixel density on the 300D sensor is pretty high, it'll benefit a lot from a sharper lens.
A couple of prime (non-zoom) lenses might do, and they'd be much better quality, both in sharpness and maximum aperture. Because the pixel density on the 300D sensor is pretty high, it'll benefit a lot from a sharper lens.
DustyC said:
Sorry, its not a 300D just yet. Only a 300.
Im hoping to one day be able to transfer the lenses to a 300D body when they drop in price a bit more.
To summarise: Mines not digital...yet!
I know that Tamron do a 28-300 lens but not sure of the quality.
Apparently, the Tamron is pretty good for a superzoom.
www.warehouseexpress.com
They're mainly an internet based company I think, however you can call and speak to real people who seem to know their stuff. I buy pretty much all my camera gear there, and recommend them very highly (ordered a new lens and some printer paper on Dec 23rd, and it arrived the following morning!). Prices are very competitive as well.
I'd definitely recommend them.
They're mainly an internet based company I think, however you can call and speak to real people who seem to know their stuff. I buy pretty much all my camera gear there, and recommend them very highly (ordered a new lens and some printer paper on Dec 23rd, and it arrived the following morning!). Prices are very competitive as well.
I'd definitely recommend them.
blimey!
Im all excited now have seen both sites!
I'll take a look when I get home tonight so I can call them up. I cant wait and am gonna order one ASAP.
Think I might order the Sigma/Tamron (forgotten which already!) 28-300mm and then buy a second hand very wide angle or fish eye lense just to play with and see how I get on with it.
Any experience with secondhand lenses? good idea or not?
Im all excited now have seen both sites!
I'll take a look when I get home tonight so I can call them up. I cant wait and am gonna order one ASAP.
Think I might order the Sigma/Tamron (forgotten which already!) 28-300mm and then buy a second hand very wide angle or fish eye lense just to play with and see how I get on with it.
Any experience with secondhand lenses? good idea or not?
Actually I really like this one (FIRST ONE ON PAGE)
www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenses/sigmalens.html
but not sure if it will be any good for macro use.
So may have to go for this one instead (4TH ON ONE PAGE)
www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenses/tamron.html
Id rather not though as its another £100 dearer.
What do you reckon people? I dont know enough about lenses to make an intelligent decision.
www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenses/sigmalens.html
but not sure if it will be any good for macro use.
So may have to go for this one instead (4TH ON ONE PAGE)
www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenses/tamron.html
Id rather not though as its another £100 dearer.
What do you reckon people? I dont know enough about lenses to make an intelligent decision.
I'm assuming you mean this one? "28-300mm f3.5-6.3 MACRO - £199.99"
The Sigma states that it focuses at a minimum distance of 50 cm, so it should be fine for macro photography.
The main disadvantage of these two lenses though is that at 300mm, you're limited to a max aperture of 6.3, which means that your shutter speeds will be one stop slower than on a lens with an aperture of 5.6, however faster lenses are more expensive (compare the prices of these lenses with similar focal length but an aperture size of f2.8!).
Personally, I'd go for the combination of two Sigma lenses that I mentioned earlier, as you get a wider angle lens at the low end (24mm compared to 28mm), and it is one step faster at the high end (5.6 compared to 6.3).
One other thing to consider is that when you upgrade to the 300D, a 28mm lens will become 44.8mm and a 24mm lens will become 38.4 due to the 1.6x magnification factor.
The Sigma states that it focuses at a minimum distance of 50 cm, so it should be fine for macro photography.
The main disadvantage of these two lenses though is that at 300mm, you're limited to a max aperture of 6.3, which means that your shutter speeds will be one stop slower than on a lens with an aperture of 5.6, however faster lenses are more expensive (compare the prices of these lenses with similar focal length but an aperture size of f2.8!).
Personally, I'd go for the combination of two Sigma lenses that I mentioned earlier, as you get a wider angle lens at the low end (24mm compared to 28mm), and it is one step faster at the high end (5.6 compared to 6.3).
One other thing to consider is that when you upgrade to the 300D, a 28mm lens will become 44.8mm and a 24mm lens will become 38.4 due to the 1.6x magnification factor.
I'm assuming you mean this one? "28-300mm f3.5-6.3 MACRO - £199.99"
The Sigma states that it focuses at a minimum distance of 50 cm, so it should be fine for macro photography.
The main disadvantage of these two lenses though is that at 300mm, you're limited to a max aperture of 6.3, which means that your shutter speeds will be one stop slower than on a lens with an aperture of 5.6, however faster lenses are more expensive (compare the prices of these lenses with similar focal length but an aperture size of f2.8!).
Personally, I'd go for the combination of two Sigma lenses that I mentioned earlier, as you get a wider angle lens at the low end (24mm compared to 28mm), and it is one step faster at the high end (5.6 compared to 6.3).
One other thing to consider is that when you upgrade to the 300D, a 28mm lens will become 44.8mm and a 24mm lens will become 38.4 due to the 1.6x magnification factor.
The Sigma states that it focuses at a minimum distance of 50 cm, so it should be fine for macro photography.
The main disadvantage of these two lenses though is that at 300mm, you're limited to a max aperture of 6.3, which means that your shutter speeds will be one stop slower than on a lens with an aperture of 5.6, however faster lenses are more expensive (compare the prices of these lenses with similar focal length but an aperture size of f2.8!).
Personally, I'd go for the combination of two Sigma lenses that I mentioned earlier, as you get a wider angle lens at the low end (24mm compared to 28mm), and it is one step faster at the high end (5.6 compared to 6.3).
One other thing to consider is that when you upgrade to the 300D, a 28mm lens will become 44.8mm and a 24mm lens will become 38.4 due to the 1.6x magnification factor.
I've just bought the Canon 28-200 f3.5-5.3 USM lens, plus a 2x converter.
The lens is great because it is nice and compact, and therefore can be used as a main lens on it's own - mind you I use it on a 300D which therefore gives it a 1.6x magnification factor - so I've effectively got a 50-320 lens (roughly), plus the OE 28-70 that came with the camera. With the convertor (despite losing autofocus) I can cover 28-640mm focal lengths with two lenses.
If you got a 1.6x convertor, I think you can still get autofocus - correct me if I'm wrong, experts!
The lens is great because it is nice and compact, and therefore can be used as a main lens on it's own - mind you I use it on a 300D which therefore gives it a 1.6x magnification factor - so I've effectively got a 50-320 lens (roughly), plus the OE 28-70 that came with the camera. With the convertor (despite losing autofocus) I can cover 28-640mm focal lengths with two lenses.
If you got a 1.6x convertor, I think you can still get autofocus - correct me if I'm wrong, experts!
With regard to the tape trick have a look here www.fredmiranda.com/TipsPage/index.html is that what you're looking for?
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff