Which Canon EF Lens to buy for 350D?

[dwarfer16]

Hi everyone, I have recently brought a Canon 350D DSLR camera (as advised from my earlier post by most people!). I was also advised that it would be good to buy a new lens. However, I decided to use the standard lens for a while so I could get used to the camera (18-55mm) but now with Christmas coming up I am thinking of asking for a new lens. I am still pretty new to DSLR and lens. As the standard lens is quite a wide-angled one, I would like to get a lens that has more zoom. I don't have a very big budget, ideally no more than £200 but I may be able to extend it a little. I have seen a few at http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?pho...canonlens.html but some of them seem too cheap, for example the 28-105mm for only £179, however, it could be because it has a crap focal length (I just don't know enough yet!). Any suggestions? Thanks.

Craig

[Fabula]

Decent lenses cost proper money. You can get some better value by going with non-canon lenses.
Tokina, Sigma and Tamron all make good lenses that may cost less than their canon equivalents.
Check out reviews here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

As you already have a wide-angle type lens, go would probably want a decent zoom. Sigma do a 70-300mm at a decent price. For the money, you won't get a zoom that is great at 300mm, but the sigma will be good to 200 so you can treat the performance at 300mm as a free bonus.

With the 18-55 lens you have a nice general lens for panoramas and portraits, and with something like a 70-200/300 you have something for telephoto work. You should be able to get reasonable wildlife pics without having to get too close, as the 300mm will equate to about 480mm due to your camera sensor.


The more expensive lenses (L series) cost more due to having better glass (won't make much difference for normal users), better construction (just be careful with the lens), and better maximum apertures. Don't worry about the aperture too much, as the apertures available on normal lenses will be fine for normal stuff. And the difference between a f2.8 and a f1.8 can be a lot of money!

[bsodmike]

Also do not forget that most 'L' lenses are sealed, which is always a plus. After getting my 'L' lens, I don't think I'll ever go back tbh.

...but considering the body you currently have, an L lens might be a waste, unless you plan on shifting up to something better (20D/30D/5D+). Something Tamron might work well considering your price range.

My fav. shooting range atm is 24-70 but I am hoping to pick up a 70-200 at some point as well (all with f/2.8)

[Hans Voralberg]

A L lens is bloody expensive but worth every penny you invest in it, it's guaranteed quality. F2.8 could be godsend in a lot of situation. I own the 70-200 2.8L and it's just great It does make a difference regardless of your camera, I used it on the 350D and now an 30D, the lens made significant improvement. Though tbh if ur not seriously into photography u either wont need or wont care. Canon has the 70-300 IS USM which is good, no idea how much it cost though

[bsodmike]

Oh nice one Hans. Is that with or without IS? Might pick up the non-IS one at somepoint. Cheaper, lighter and I'm not a fan of IS and rather use a tripod in those situations anyways.

[5lab]

i got a tamron 70-300mm lens with my 400d body.. seems good to me - but was pretty cheap (£100) for a bit more you could get something better - 100mm isnt very much focal length, and why get the lengths you've already got again? i would suggest you'll get much better results with something with a bit of length, and a separate prime lens (50mm, f1.8), or something

incidentally, you shouldn't *really* use a lens fully stopped out.. a couple of stops in (so, f2.7 on an f1.8 lens) will give much better results.. if you're shooting with lots of light, i would suggest that f4 or so is good enough if you've a long focal length (as that multiplies the depth of field effect)..

[Hans Voralberg]

Oh nice one Hans. Is that with or without IS? Might pick up the non-IS one at somepoint. Cheaper, lighter and I'm not a fan of IS and rather use a tripod in those situations anyways.

Mine is the non-IS version, when I pick it up the shop ran out of the IS one and I just cant wait for back-order. So far it's very good but I tried the IS, if you have the money, it's worth it. Even though it's a tiny bit lighter the non-IS is heavy enuf to screw your hand-holding in some circumstance. But then those are kinda situation you hardly come by so, well it's all down to what you shoot, when and how you shoot it

[Fabula]

I've got the 70-300 IS. It is very sharp, and the IS really helps in some situations. e.g. when I can't be bothered to carry around and set up my nice heavy tripod. It is not quite as nice as an L-series, but a lot cheaper. Extension tubes also let it take some interesting macros.
I was thinking of getting a 300mm Prime L instead. But the cost was too great!


I did have to splash out on a 17-40L. Very nice, and good when I eventually want to go to full-frame.


And if you want to learn how to use the camera, get a 50mm prime lens. They are very cheap, great quality, and will force you to think about things like your positioning and appropriate settings.

[declanh]

And if you want to learn how to use the camera, get a 50mm prime lens. They are very cheap, great quality, and will force you to think about things like your positioning and appropriate settings.

agreed 50mm EF f1.8 mark II should set you back less than 80 quid - alot less on ebay.....

its a cracking lens and yes it will help you to think about composition and DOF more - esp when open wide...

a cracking lens for the money

[AndyO]

Another vote for the Tamron 70-300 LD Xi digital (or whatever sequence the letters are in... ) here. For 100 quid you'll not find a better zoom. It's SOOOOO light you can carry it around all day (good glass weights a bl**dy ton) and if, in 6-12 months time, you really find you're loving the extra reach of 300mm at your disposal, trade up to some better quality glass and flog the old one on ebay!

I got my 350D then for my second lens a Sigma 28-70mm F2.8EX. The cheapo-Tamron telephoto was third and a holiday buy in Italy. The Sigma is pin sharp and a great lens especially as the light starts to go because of the speed, but at the end of the day I wish I'd got my budget Tamron second instead as it's just a much more useful addition to the kit lens!

Don't get me wrong - its the Sigma that lives on my camera most, but I learned loads more from the Tamron and for the money its a stonking buy. Whereas the Sigma was a case of 'aperture fever' to replace most of a range I already had!

My advice is don't throw money at good glass until you're sure you know what sort of shots you're taking most of - and then put your money where it'll make the most difference. In the interim get the best value possible. With the kit lens and a cheap 70-300 you'll have your bases sufficiently covered to make a much better choice next time (there will be a next time!!).

I spent a long time agonising over whether to go for the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and an extender before I went for the cheap Tamron, and I'm SO happy I made the cheap decision. Bottom line is that its softer, slower, and rubbish as the light fades, but it gets me the shots I want in good light and makes me think about how to compose for telephoto and use depth of field and compressed perspective and all the other good stuff!

Have a look at www.FredMiranda.com for some very good user reviews of most lenses to get a geuine feel for what people think outside of an official review!

[5lab]

is europe generally a cheaper place to get glass then? i ask cos i'm over there in a few weeks, might be worth picking something up?

[SteveCliff]

Quick note on the Sigma lenses btw - the EX ones are very good (I've owned 2 now) but the warranty is only 12 months. Bit of a problem when my 15-30mm broke after 2 years .... :-(

[SteveCliff]

If you still want a Canon lens btw, I've used the 28-135mm IS based lens and it's very nice. The IS on it works very well too!