proposed set of lenses for my new 300D

pmelsa · Sep 22, 2003

I think I have settled on the following lense choices for my 300D. I would be interested in your reactions.

28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light. ($400)

50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective for portrait type shots ($300)

75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work. Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close. 200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money ($400)

Why not 18-55mm that came w/ 300D? I would mainly use it indoors, where frankly it seems to be on the slow side and require the flash more often - or require slow shutter that has more tendency to slow blur due to subject movement. In the short term I may use it ocassionally outdoors for the very wide angle. Don't see a lot of need for this at present ... so kit lense can suffice in near-term. If I needed much of this I would consider another prime (say 20mm) or a wide-angle zoom.

brooke · Sep 22, 2003

pmelsa said:
28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and
activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light.
($400)

Some people have spoken poorly of this lens, but I don't remember the details. A search would turn up some info. Perhaps it was a value/$$ issue compared to the $150 2.8 version.

Also, 28mm isn't really very wide. I have and like the 24/2.8, but even that is just under an effective 40mm. The 24mm is $300.

pmelsa said:
50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have
more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I
also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air
using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective
for portrait type shots ($300)

The 1.8 will save you $200. See: http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifty_versus_fifty.html

pmelsa said:
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

FWIW, I hated this lens. Very clunky and basically not pleasant to use. I have to agree, though, on value for the money (that's what got me to try it!), and IS is great. Can't imagine I'd buy a 200+mm lens without it. 75-300 is a tough range. Unless you're going to drop the $$$ for the 100-400IS, it's probably a good choice.

Petteri Sulonen · Sep 22, 2003

pmelsa said:
I think I have settled on the following lense choices for my 300D.
I would be interested in your reactions.

28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and
activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light.
($400)

It's not an L, btw. In fact, it's among the least good Canon primes (although by no means a dog). It's also a bit tight for indoor photos: close to a "normal" lens.

I'd recommend a Sigma 20/1.8 instead. From what I've seen, it's optically excellent, and it's wider so it has better hand-holdability.

Another one worth considering is the 35/2 -- optically one of Canon's best lenses, compact, pretty bright, and affordable -- and it's close to the "normal" focal length with a 1.6x crop camera. Review: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html ]

pmelsa said:
50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have
more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I
also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air
using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective
for portrait type shots ($300)

Can't go wrong with this one, if you don't think it's overpriced. After getting hold of the 50/1.8 Mk 1, I put mine for sale, but changed my mind: that damned lens grows on you.

pmelsa said:
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

Yep, that's a worthy choice, if you can put up with the slow focusing and lack of FT-M. At that price, though, anything in that FL you buy will have some compromises, and the ones on the 75-300 IS aren't too bad.

I solved my tele needs with a used 200/2.8L ($440, review: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/dc_Canon_200_mm_f2.8/a_Canon_200_mm_f2.8L.html ]) and used 1.4x Tamron TC (few tens of dollars more). No zoom, but it's bright, optically impeccable, very fast-focusing, pretty compact, and built to withstand a war.

pmelsa said:
Why not 18-55mm that came w/ 300D? I would mainly use it indoors,
where frankly it seems to be on the slow side and require the flash
more often - or require slow shutter that has more tendency to slow
blur due to subject movement. In the short term I may use it
ocassionally outdoors for the very wide angle. Don't see a lot of
need for this at present ... so kit lense can suffice in near-term.
If I needed much of this I would consider another prime (say 20mm)
or a wide-angle zoom.

The kit lens is actually probably the best budget WA alternative currently available. To get something significantly better, you'd have to get something like the Tokina 17/3.5 (ca $400 and a bit hard to find, review [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html ]) or the 17-40/4L (ca $800). You might want it just in case.

Petteri
--

Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Oscar180360 · Sep 22, 2003

I think you can get just 50mm f/1.8 USM instead of the 1.4

The 1.8 is really a great lens, you wont get that much better with 1.4 as you will pay the $ for it. In fact many people who owns the prime 1.8 say this is their most used lens.
I use it for indoor portrait shots.

pmelsa said:
I think I have settled on the following lense choices for my 300D.
I would be interested in your reactions.

28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and
activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light.
($400)

50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have
more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I
also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air
using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective
for portrait type shots ($300)

75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

Why not 18-55mm that came w/ 300D? I would mainly use it indoors,
where frankly it seems to be on the slow side and require the flash
more often - or require slow shutter that has more tendency to slow
blur due to subject movement. In the short term I may use it
ocassionally outdoors for the very wide angle. Don't see a lot of
need for this at present ... so kit lense can suffice in near-term.
If I needed much of this I would consider another prime (say 20mm)
or a wide-angle zoom.

pmelsa · Sep 22, 2003

brooke said:
brooke said:

28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and
activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light.
($400)

Click to expand...

Some people have spoken poorly of this lens, but I don't remember
the details. A search would turn up some info. Perhaps it was a
value/$$ issue compared to the $150 2.8 version.
Also, 28mm isn't really very wide. I have and like the 24/2.8, but
even that is just under an effective 40mm. The 24mm is $300.

You are correct that 28mm isn't really very wide. What I was aiming for was something close to 50mm factoring in the 1.6x. 28mm gets you 45mm. For indoor shots of groups I really didn't want to go longer. I was concerned about going wider for the additional wide angle distortion that would introduce.

brooke said:
brooke said:

50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have
more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I
also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air
using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective
for portrait type shots ($300)

Click to expand...

The 1.8 will save you $200. See:

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifty_versus_fifty.html

brooke said:

75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

Click to expand...

FWIW, I hated this lens. Very clunky and basically not pleasant
to use. I have to agree, though, on value for the money (that's
what got me to try it!), and IS is great. Can't imagine I'd buy a
200+mm lens without it. 75-300 is a tough range. Unless you're
going to drop the $$$ for the 100-400IS, it's probably a good
choice.

pmelsa · Sep 22, 2003

Petteri Sulonen said:
pmelsa said:

I think I have settled on the following lense choices for my 300D.
I would be interested in your reactions.

28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and
activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light.
($400)

Click to expand...

It's not an L, btw. In fact, it's among the least good Canon primes
(although by no means a dog). It's also a bit tight for indoor
photos: close to a "normal" lens.

Yes, that was a typo on the "L"

Petteri Sulonen said:
I'd recommend a Sigma 20/1.8 instead. From what I've seen, it's
optically excellent, and it's wider so it has better
hand-holdability.

20mm seems to wide as it only gets to 32mm after 1.6x.

Petteri Sulonen said:
Another one worth considering is the 35/2 -- optically one of
Canon's best lenses, compact, pretty bright, and affordable -- and
it's close to the "normal" focal length with a 1.6x crop camera.
Review: [

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html ]

Was concerned that 35x1.6=56mm might get to be a little too longer. Seemed like a better compromise at 28x1.6=45mm. It is not clear to me wether it is better to go long or short. Probably comes down to a personal rather than objective decision.

Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:

50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have
more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I
also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air
using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective
for portrait type shots ($300)

Click to expand...

Can't go wrong with this one, if you don't think it's overpriced.
After getting hold of the 50/1.8 Mk 1, I put mine for sale, but
changed my mind: that damned lens grows on you.

Petteri Sulonen said:

75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

Click to expand...

Yep, that's a worthy choice, if you can put up with the slow
focusing and lack of FT-M. At that price, though, anything in that
FL you buy will have some compromises, and the ones on the 75-300
IS aren't too bad.

I solved my tele needs with a used 200/2.8L ($440, review: [

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/dc_Canon_200_mm_f2.8/a_Canon_200_mm_f2.8L.html ]) and used 1.4x Tamron TC (few tens of dollars more). No zoom, but it's bright, optically impeccable, very fast-focusing, pretty compact, and built to withstand a war.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Why not 18-55mm that came w/ 300D? I would mainly use it indoors,
where frankly it seems to be on the slow side and require the flash
more often - or require slow shutter that has more tendency to slow
blur due to subject movement. In the short term I may use it
ocassionally outdoors for the very wide angle. Don't see a lot of
need for this at present ... so kit lense can suffice in near-term.
If I needed much of this I would consider another prime (say 20mm)
or a wide-angle zoom.

Click to expand...

The kit lens is actually probably the best budget WA alternative
currently available. To get something significantly better, you'd
have to get something like the Tokina 17/3.5 (ca $400 and a bit
hard to find, review [

http://www.seittipaja.fi/data/Pontification/b_Photography/d_Tokina_AT-X_17mm/a_Tokina_AT-X_17_mm.html ]) or the 17-40/4L (ca $800). You might want it just in case.

Petteri
--

Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

iMac therefore iAm · Sep 22, 2003

For the extra $100, get the 18-55. Use it for awhile to get a feel for what you need, instead of investing heavily in what you think you will need. Personally I think you'll find yourself second guessing yourself if you go with the lineup you specify.

iMac therefore iAm · Sep 22, 2003

I would also consider getting a 420EX flash unit. I know you seemed to have an aversion to using flash, but when you learn to bounce it and otherwise control it, it can produce some very natural looking shots.

Ed Halley · Sep 22, 2003

pmelsa said:
I think I have settled on the following lense choices for my 300D.
Why not 18-55mm that came w/ 300D?

Any money spent on EF-S lenses would be for your 300D only-- whereas any other EF mount lens would carry over in 9mo when you decide to go with any other EOS body. Lenses are meant to be shared.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

pmelsa · Sep 22, 2003

Should have indicated that I already have the EF-S 18-55mm lense. At present I will only use it for the 18mm end. Probably eventually replace it ... in which case it will have been a wasted $100.

Peter

pmelsa said:
I think I have settled on the following lense choices for my 300D.
I would be interested in your reactions.

28mm f/1.8L USM - for low light indoor photos of people and
activities. Want this fast so I can rely mainly on ambient light.
($400)

50mm f/1.4 USM - for pictures of individuals or cat where I have
more interest in not having to get so close to get a smaller FOV. I
also want a very fast lense for capturing our kitten in mid-air
using ambient indoor light. It has a slight more normal perspective
for portrait type shots ($300)

75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

Why not 18-55mm that came w/ 300D? I would mainly use it indoors,
where frankly it seems to be on the slow side and require the flash
more often - or require slow shutter that has more tendency to slow
blur due to subject movement. In the short term I may use it
ocassionally outdoors for the very wide angle. Don't see a lot of
need for this at present ... so kit lense can suffice in near-term.
If I needed much of this I would consider another prime (say 20mm)
or a wide-angle zoom.

Petteri Sulonen · Sep 22, 2003

pmelsa wrote:
[snip]

pmelsa said:
pmelsa said:

I'd recommend a Sigma 20/1.8 instead. From what I've seen, it's
optically excellent, and it's wider so it has better
hand-holdability.

Click to expand...

20mm seems to wide as it only gets to 32mm after 1.6x.

Well, as long as you know what you want.

Personally, I find a 50-ish perspective a bit tight for interiors, but of course, your mileage may vary.

[snip]

pmelsa said:
Was concerned that 35x1.6=56mm might get to be a little too longer.
Seemed like a better compromise at 28x1.6=45mm. It is not clear to
me wether it is better to go long or short. Probably comes down to
a personal rather than objective decision.

Very true. I waffled a long time between a 28 and a 35 (I mostly shot a 50 with film before), and I've been pretty happy with my choice.

[snip]

Petteri
--

Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Stephen Scharf · Sep 22, 2003

I would go this route:

28-135 IS ($399)

70-200/f4 L ($575?)

1.4X teleconvertor (for the 70-200-$279)

Both are excellent lenses, and the 1.4X will give you much better images at 280 (on the lens) than the 75-300 consumer lens will. The 70-200/f4 will flat smoke the 75-300 IS.

Donald Cooper · Sep 22, 2003

Adam-T points out that the Sigma in this range is far better than the offerings from Canon:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6154361

pmelsa said:
75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - for wildlife and zoom architectural work.
Only plan to use outdoors. IS will allow me to do more hand-held
picture work. Want to get all the way to 300mm so really get good
pictures of birds and deer that only tolerate getting so close.
200mm still leaves a lot of picture that needs to be cropped. It
appears to be a fairly good lense ... especially for the money
($400)

pmelsa · Sep 22, 2003

That might be true. But willl I have any hope of hand-holding at 280? The one advantage of the other lense is it has IS.

Stephen Scharf said:
I would go this route:

28-135 IS ($399)

70-200/f4 L ($575?)

1.4X teleconvertor (for the 70-200-$279)

Both are excellent lenses, and the 1.4X will give you much better
images at 280 (on the lens) than the 75-300 consumer lens will.
The 70-200/f4 will flat smoke the 75-300 IS.

Stephen Scharf · Sep 22, 2003

pmelsa said:
That might be true. But willl I have any hope of hand-holding at
280? The one advantage of the other lense is it has IS.

Depends on the type of shooting you will be doing. For wildlife, I presume you will be shooting in daylight. In that case, the 70-200/f4 is so small and lght, it should be any problem at all. I routinely use a 70-200/2.8 L non-IS for motorsports and get beautiful results with it.

pmelsa said:
Stephen Scharf said:

I would go this route:

28-135 IS ($399)

70-200/f4 L ($575?)

1.4X teleconvertor (for the 70-200-$279)

Both are excellent lenses, and the 1.4X will give you much better
images at 280 (on the lens) than the 75-300 consumer lens will.
The 70-200/f4 will flat smoke the 75-300 IS.

Click to expand...

tasty donuts · Sep 22, 2003

if you're looking to get close to 50mm effective area, i think it may be a better choice. i have heard a lot of not-so-hot things about the 28mm, and the B&H salesperson also steered me away from it. i am trying a Sigma 28mm f/1.8 right now which is pretty good, but not my cup of tea. but it's a pretty good lens and cheap ($229). if you definitely want 28mm you might want ot check that out.

if you're looking to stay with Canon, the 35mm f/2 seems to be well-regarded.

pmelsa said:
You are correct that 28mm isn't really very wide. What I was aiming
for was something close to 50mm factoring in the 1.6x. 28mm gets
you 45mm. For indoor shots of groups I really didn't want to go
longer. I was concerned about going wider for the additional wide
angle distortion that would introduce.

tasty donuts · Sep 22, 2003

The Os said:
I think you can get just 50mm f/1.8 USM instead of the 1.4
The 1.8 is really a great lens, you wont get that much better with
1.4 as you will pay the $ for it. In fact many people who owns the
prime 1.8 say this is their most used lens.
I use it for indoor portrait shots.

its only fault is cheesy build quality (doesn't bother me, it's nice and light) and pentagonal bokeh effects (due to only 5 lens blades). but for my money it takes some superb photos. yes, it's kind of close, and probably won't do for tight indoor quarters, but for taking close-up portraits at medium to close distances it's fantastic.

here's a couple NYPD officers i caught at a street fair yesterday:

tasty donuts · Sep 22, 2003

definitely play with the EF-S kit lens and figure out what you need. i just got my 10D setup and i'm finding only by playing around can i tell what i really need. you can't beat the value of that lens, and it's a very useful range.

the one lens i absolutely wholehearted recommend is the 50/1.8 cheapie, at $70 it simply cannot be beat and tho it's a bit close for general use i think once you get used to using it you will appreciate what it can do. i have yet to take a single bad picture with this lens, the image quality is beautiful.

also recommend an external flash like 420EX, you will get MUCH better-looking pictures indoors. that said the flash on the 300D is a little better than the 10D in that it pops up higher, giving it some separation from the body/lens.

Oscar180360 · Sep 22, 2003

Nice shot, the lens really shines.

Without it I was never able to do so much work in low light like I do now. There seems to be always enough light for it in almost all condition.

tasty donuts said:
The Os said:

I think you can get just 50mm f/1.8 USM instead of the 1.4
The 1.8 is really a great lens, you wont get that much better with
1.4 as you will pay the $ for it. In fact many people who owns the
prime 1.8 say this is their most used lens.
I use it for indoor portrait shots.

Click to expand...

its only fault is cheesy build quality (doesn't bother me, it's
nice and light) and pentagonal bokeh effects (due to only 5 lens
blades). but for my money it takes some superb photos. yes, it's
kind of close, and probably won't do for tight indoor quarters, but
for taking close-up portraits at medium to close distances it's
fantastic.

here's a couple NYPD officers i caught at a street fair yesterday:

Jim V. · Sep 22, 2003

Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

I'd recommend a Sigma 20/1.8 instead. From what I've seen, it's
optically excellent, and it's wider so it has better
hand-holdability.

Click to expand...

20mm seems to wide as it only gets to 32mm after 1.6x.

Click to expand...

Well, as long as you know what you want. Personally, I find a
50-ish perspective a bit tight for interiors, but of course, your
mileage may vary.

[snip]

Petteri Sulonen said:

Was concerned that 35x1.6=56mm might get to be a little too longer.
Seemed like a better compromise at 28x1.6=45mm. It is not clear to
me wether it is better to go long or short. Probably comes down to
a personal rather than objective decision.

Click to expand...

Very true. I waffled a long time between a 28 and a 35 (I mostly
shot a 50 with film before), and I've been pretty happy with my
choice.

[snip]

Petteri
--

Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

--
Jim V.
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/[email protected]

proposed set of lenses for my new 300D

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Donald Cooper

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts