Lens Recommendation Please

I am now the proud owner of the EOS300D Kit which I got at a bargain price
due to the new 350D coming out and I am looking for recommendations for a
lens suitable for action shots for my cricket club website.

Bear in mind that this is the first digital SLR I have ever owned and I am a
complete beginner having only owned this fully automatic Fujifilm camera
before http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/a210/

The kit comes with a 18-55mm lens as I am sure you all know and I am looking for something with more oomph. I am on a budget so please could you help me find a value for money lens that will give me decent shots to put on the website.

Many Thanks,

Dave Buchholz
http://www.longitchingtoncricketclub.org.uk/

This question is asked a few times a day.

Search the forums. Or at least give people what your actual budget is total.

Read, read, and read... find out what lens is good for you. There are reviews here, on FredMiranda, Pbase has a Camera Database with samples from lenses, you can search Google, etc, etc. Don't let someone else tell you what to buy.

Dave Buchholz said:

I am now the proud owner of the EOS300D Kit which I got at a
bargain price
due to the new 350D coming out and I am looking for recommendations
for a
lens suitable for action shots for my cricket club website.

Bear in mind that this is the first digital SLR I have ever owned
and I am a
complete beginner having only owned this fully automatic Fujifilm
camera
before http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/a210/

The kit comes with a 18-55mm lens as I am sure you all know and I
am looking for something with more oomph. I am on a budget so
please could you help me find a value for money lens that will give
me decent shots to put on the website.

Many Thanks,

Dave Buchholz
http://www.longitchingtoncricketclub.org.uk/

Click to expand...

The one million dollar question, how much you are willing to spend? Camera lens market is a fair market, you pay for what you get, in general (with exception of Sigma 30mm/1.4, which i think it's way overpriced.)
--
Canon 300D + BG-E1
Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 50/1.8
Canon EF 55-200/4.5-5.6
Sigma 70-200/2.8
Sigma EF-500 DG Super

Finding a good, budget telephoto zoom lens is difficult. The consumer-grade lenses are all similar in that they are slow (most often F/5.6) and much softer than the higher-priced lenses.

I have a consumer-grade lens, and I don't like it at all. I know that I need to spend at least $600 to get a decent lens.

That being said, I do not have the money to do that. Until I have saved enough cash, I have found a decent alternative that works for my budget. I have bought some used, manual-focus M42-mount lenses. Using a manual focus lens on the Digital Rebel is fairly difficult because of the lack of a split-focusing screen, but since it's free to take pictures, I am getting better with each shot.

Read the various forums and review sites. You'll see that you really need to pony up some serious cash to get a decent long-range lens.

Now if you want a shorter lens, the Canon EOS 50mm F/1.8 is a steal. It's an excellent lens and it's almost free, at least in America, where it sells for $70.

Bob

This lens will get mentioned eventually, so I might as well suggest the Canon 70-200 f/4 L.

For the money, this is the best lens there is. It's more expensive than most consumer zooms, but the pictures you can take with it will be insanely sharp and high in contrast. Look into this lens - it really is worth the money.

A good lens for your money is the Sigma 70-300mm F4 - 5.6 II Macro super.
--
Former Kodak 280 user.
Current Olympus d-40 owner
Former Panasonic FZ10 user
Canon Rebel & Canon Rebel XT owner.

Dave Buchholz said:

The kit comes with a 18-55mm lens as I am sure you all know and I
am looking for something with more oomph.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "more oomph"? Do you mean a longer reach?

The kit lens is perfectly fine for a beginner as well as for more advanced photographers. No offense intended, but learning and practicing your photography skills are probably more important than spending more money on a lens -- especially for a cricket club website.

-- Sam Kanter, NYC

Thanks for the replies so far, I have a budget of approx £200 Sterling and I am looking for more reach than the standard lens.

I have searched the forum but as a beginner I am looking for a starting point to begin my investigation as there is too much info here and I am having trouble dissembling it all

Thanks

Dave Buchholz

Dave,

£200 will buy you, fingers crossed, a good copy of the EF 100-300 f5.6L which is a very good tele but not very easy to find. Do not be afraid to buy second-hand Canon lenses, even the consumer-grade ones are well crafted and as you know, here in the UK we don't enjoy the benefit of low priced glass. The £200 could also buy you, with a bit of luck, a good copy of the 28-135 USM IS or the EF 100 f2. If you want to buy new I would suggest that you save a little and go for a lens that is going to keep you happy for some time. In this respect I think the 70-200 f4L fits the bill perfectly. I haven't got the lens but I have played with it, it has fast autofocus and if you look at sample photos the results speak for themselves. And keep the kit lens, it is very good for macros. I also use it with an infrared filter and it delivers. Good luck with your search and happy shooting. Cheers. Theo

Forgot to mention that the authority on Canon lenses on this and other Canon fora is Adam-T. I hope he chimes in with a suggestion or two, he also lives in the UK and might be able to provide the best advice.

Cheers Leo,

When you day copy do you have any particular brands in mind ?

Thanks,

Dave Buchholz

Hi Dave,

just been through a similar learning curve (Fuji 2800z for over 3 years) and suggest that you don't spend too much on lenses until you know what sort of photography you are going to do, what focal lengths you use mostly, and just how fast the lens needs to be. Take shots and learn. And also consider getting an external flash, I just picked up a second hand 420ex and find it gives much better results than the on board flash. One thing that might be a concern is weight, the camera plus lens will be a lot heavier that the Fuji. I didn't mind that but my wife finds anything more than 400 grams too heavy.

The kit lens is actually quite qood. I'd look first at 3 options to get a some extra range, the Canon EF55-200, the Sigma 55-200, the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super 2. Try these out if you can and see what works best for you. Oh and has already been mentioned, the Canon EF50mm f1.8 is a great and inexpensive way to get low light capability and learn about primes.
Good luck,
Mark

Dave Buchholz said:

Thanks for the replies so far, I have a budget of approx £200
Sterling and I am looking for more reach than the standard lens.

Click to expand...

The Sigma 28-300mm has just been dropped in price from £300 and the RRP is now £215 - so you may be able to negotiate it a little lower than this. This will cover you from almost wide angle and yet get you pretty close to the action as well - it's a good range for a single modestly sized lens. I don't have one, but do have the slightly wider 18-200mm and like it very much (RRP £300) - I only got it at the weekend and am already besotted. See my initial shots at http://imageevent.com/boophotos/sigma18200 If I hadn't wanted the 18-28mm portion, I would ahve got one and still might - I have a 100-300mm that can't focus closer than 7 feet, so might change it if I can sell it.

I'm sorry that some respondents have been rude in their replies - I know this question gets asked daily - several times - but the array of lenses out there is totally bewildering and it's not unreasonable to ask for some guidance.

The key points are your budget (£200 is very modest, so look at second hand too, it will broaden your options further) and what kind of shots you want too. Lens choice is also very personal and the feel of a lens in your hand - and the aesthetics too - are very important and it needs to meet your needs - not what someone else recommends. get some ideas here, then do extensive research - which should include handling the ones that interest you.

Others to look at are the various newer Sigma and Tamrons (probably both less expensive than Canon equivalents), several to choose from in the £200 - 300 region - 18-200mm, 18-125mm, 28-300mm etc.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.

You might want to look at getting a telephoto lens rather than a telephoto/zoom lens. There not as convenient to use, but you get a fast, sharp, & lightweight lens for less money. The 85mm1.8 and the 100mm2.0 are both excellent lenses. Heres a link rating Canon lenses.
http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml
--
Rebel XT, 100mm 2.0, 28-105 3.5, 440ex
http://www.rango.smugmug.com

Hi

I have followed this thread with great interest.

As a rebel newbie that only have the kit lens to play with, I also think about adding a tele lens to the collection (is a camera and a cheap lens a collection?).

Boo and Mark. you recommended the Sigma 28-300mm and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super 2 respectively.

How would you compare the two. I can see that the 28-300 has higher f-values, but I am not sure about the consequences of this difference.

Boo, I really like your shots with the 18-200 lens, to bad I am on a begginners budget

Dave, sorry for interrupting. Have a nice hunt!

It's the defacto medium tele action lens with it's crisp renderings and very fast USM focusing. Around US$600, it's a bargain. Do not consider a Sigma 70-300APO or Canon 75-300IS or a Tamron 18-200 etc etc. They will likely frustrate you with their lack of responsiveness. You likely wont' need an f/2.8 since cricket will be well lit and the 2.8 imposes stiff price and weight penalties...which of course I foolishly impose on myself!

I'm just reading a little close. You might try a used Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 - a lightning fast lens that works wonders in daylight. The Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 is also oft overlooked if you need more reach. Both have very quick USM and reasonable optical performance.

M Irwin said:

It's the defacto medium tele action lens with it's crisp renderings
and very fast USM focusing. Around US$600, it's a bargain. Do not
consider a Sigma 70-300APO or Canon 75-300IS or a Tamron 18-200 etc
etc. They will likely frustrate you with their lack of
responsiveness. You likely wont' need an f/2.8 since cricket will
be well lit and the 2.8 imposes stiff price and weight
penalties...which of course I foolishly impose on myself!

Click to expand...

Boo I have bookmarked your site for later some nice stuff there, I have found the Sigma lens under £200 on the web so that could be a possibility

Mark thanks I will have a look at those

M Irwin thanks I will have a look at those two lenses as well

and thanks to the rest of you who offered advice as well

Dave Buchholz

dresen said:

As a rebel newbie that only have the kit lens to play with, I also think about adding a tele lens to the collection (is a camera and a cheap lens a collection?).

Click to expand...

I think that the Canon or Sigma 55-200 along with the EF 50mm f1.8 would be a fairly inexpensive way to expand your range and try some different types of photography. Both will balance out the kit lens well.

dresen said:

Boo and Mark. you recommended the Sigma 28-300mm and the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super 2 respectively.

Click to expand...

Sorry I can't directly compare the Sigma 28-300 and the 70-300 as I've only got the 70-300.

dresen said:

How would you compare the two. I can see that the 28-300 has higher f-values, but I am not sure about the consequences of this difference.

Click to expand...

Higher f-values essentially mean that you need brighter light or higher ISO to use the same shutter speed. This comes into play when you're capturing action shots, you need a high shutter speed to freeze the motion. Also a higher shutter speed helps reduce camera shake. Higher f-values also restrict your depth of field (dof) choices - you won't be able to get those really nice blurred background shots.

dresen said:

Boo, I really like your shots with the 18-200 lens, to bad I am on a begginners budget

Click to expand...

Me too, great shots Boo and thanks for posting!

I'm considering the 18-200 and the the Sigma 18-125 to replace the kit as a lightweight, general purpose walkaround. The important balance for me is quality vs range vs weight - my wife wants something as light as possible with 400grams as the upper limit
Good luck with your choices!
Cheers,
Mark

dresen said:

Boo and Mark. you recommended the Sigma 28-300mm and the Sigma
70-300 APO Macro Super 2 respectively.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have either, so I can't compare I'm afraid, same as Mark.

dresen said:

How would you compare the two. I can see that the 28-300 has higher
f-values, but I am not sure about the consequences of this
difference.

Click to expand...

It's all about light, the higher the f stop minimum, the more light you need. It's often a consequence of cheaper long range zooms, to make a lens with a wide range of focal lengths and to make the lens fast - i.e. capable of wide apertures - is expensive. So cheaper 'consumer' lenses tend to have tighter minimum apertures to keep price down. If you're working in good light, it's not an issue - the sweet spot of the lens is in the middle range anyway (f8-f16), but as soon as light levels drop, the slower lens is less versatile for you - you then need to up the ISO etc. - which if you're working at 300mm and might need 1/500 shutter speed to hand hold, starts making the lens unusable in low light.

dresen said:

Boo, I really like your shots with the 18-200 lens, to bad I am on
a begginners budget

Click to expand...

Thank you - that lens would actually be considered a budget lens. The RRP is 300 GB pounds, I paid just over 250 pounds - I'm afraid if you're looking at glass, those are not expensive lenses by any means, which is why my lens choices get sniffed at around here periodically. ;-) There's a lot of snobbery about how much you spend on glass and some of those that spend a lot justify it to themselves by demeaning the work of cheaper models.

I keep saying it, if you're a lousy photographer, buying expensive lenses won't make you any better, you'll just be a lousy photographer with a big credit card bill. I highly recommend getting used the camera and using it, get proficient and confident using it, understand the theories and get to know how the equipment you already have is preventing you fulfil your ideas - and then decide what you need for the type of work you like to do, your budget and ability.

--
So many photos, so little time . . .
http://www.peekaboo.me.uk - general portfolio & tutorials
http://www.boo-photos.co.uk - live music portfolio
http://imageevent.com/boophotos/ - most recent images

Please do not amend and re-post my images unless specifically requested or given permission to do so.