Savio

for my Digital Canon Rebel XT...

Is that a good choice or is there a better zoom lens for the price?

Billiam

It doesn't even look like B&H or Adorama carry that lens so I have no idea how much it costs. Relative to Canon's own lineup, it appears to me as if this particluar lens is in the "bottom feeder" catagory. It's not even USM which means the autofocus will be pretty slow.

Savio

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...0&modelid=7343

Mizouse

how much does it go for?

Savio

I've seen some prices for around $150

Bdog

The EF 80-200mm was introduced back in 1995, they are still around, but I'd get the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM for $179.00 if you want a decent kick around zoom lens.

Dan Martin

The 75-300 is a better bang for your buck.

Savio

thanks for the info guys...

Savio

how well does this lens do at night?

Dan Martin

I guess that question depends on your conditions and what you're shooting. If you're shooting a baseball game under stadium lighting, both lenses will probably be too slow unless you use a very high ISO. If you're shooting a stationary landscape shot and you're using a tripod, then you'll be fine.

What are you thinking of shooting at night?

waTSX

At f4-5.6 it's on the slow side. It depends on what you mean by how does it do at night. For handheld low light photography, it's not going to be the best. For tripod mounted land/cityscapes it would probably be fine.

Edit: Quick draw beat me to the punch.

Savio

I need to do City shots at night but I want to have the option of bringing it to a hockey game or basketball game also...

Bdog

You can look here to see what kind of shots people are getting with a 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 lens. It's basically an outdoor lens, it's not going to work that good for a basketball or hockey game unless your on the sidelines shooting high ISO 75mm at f4. Hockey possible, since it is bright there with the ice... just shoot goalies, they don't move that much.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_75-300_4

Dan Martin

You'll be fine with city shots at night so long as you're using a tripod.

Most basketball courts and hockey stadiums are very dim. Pros typically cover those events with strobes, fast primes, and f/2.8 zooms. Of course pros usually have larger budgets than the average hobbyist, so you'll have to compromise somewhere. Long and fast lenses are big bucks.

You could go with something along the lines of an 85mm f/1.8 which will let you shoot available light at moderate ISO's in most stadiums. Or, if you're able to use a hotshoe flash, the zoom should be ok. It will be tricky to shoot through the glass with a flash at the hockey rink though. The 85mm also makes for a great portrait lens, if you want to get some dual-use from your kit.

The key will be to buy from a shop that has a liberal return policy. You'll really need to try both to see which lenses suit your needs the best.

moeronn

Mizouse

yea at that price id suggest that lens as well..

MrChad

a better lens for night use and sports use would be an 85mm/1.8 USM or 100mm/2.0 USM if you can swing the price. The 100-300mm EF is a huge step above the other Canon zooms as well.

The Canon 75-300mm is tough for sport use, it's a very slow AF lens by Canon standards.

The Sigma and Tamron zoom 7x-300mm for under $200 are sometimes suggested over the Canon models.

But I think you will be much happier with the results from either of the Canon USM prime lenses in all seriousness.

The 100mm/2.0 was used in tandom with a D30 and D60 in a church at nigth some years back for our wedding with amazing results. It's a sweat heart lens that hardly ever is recommended.

LuvMyTSX

I just bought this lense. I'm just starting out with my first DSLR, so I hope to get the hang of the camera and the lense fairly easily. I heard so-so things about the kit lense, so I got this separately instead. It's $299 at Best Buy. Hopefully it will meet my needs as a beginner, but also be a decent lense that I can keep for a while.

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Zoom Lens

Compact zoom lens for EOS cameras with built-in flash
15 elements in 12 groups
Angle of view: 75°-23°20'
Minimum aperture: f/22-27
Maximum aperture: f/3.5-4.5
Minimum focusing distance: 1.6' (0.5m)
Filter size: 58mm
Wide zoom ring for more positive operation

Product Details

Warranty Terms - Parts 1-year limited
Product Weight 13.1 oz.
Product Depth 3"
Range 28-105mm
Lens 28-105mm zoom
Focus Range 1.6' - infinity
Autofocus Yes
Aperture Range f/3.5 - f/4.5

MrChad

that is anything but a so-so lens, a little long for a 1.6x DSLR but it was a very good lens in the film days.

BTW, you may want to check out BHphoto in NYC for your camera gear, unlike most they are reputable.

LuvMyTSX

Thanks for the tip. I don't know much about photography yet - I'm just a beginner - so I only went by what I read in reviews. I have a lot to learn.

jupitersolo

^^^ Also take a look at www.amazon.com, they have the lens for $240. No tax and free shipping. I won't buy anything from bestbuy unless I have to have same day, and that's not most days.

badboy

I have that lens...and I have to say I am happy with it.

Here are some things I have shot with that lens:

http://www.bboyhp.com/photos/detvsnets/detvsnets.html

https://acurazine.com/forums/showpos...39&postcount=5

you'll enjoy it.

LuvMyTSX

Oh good, I was wondering about it because no one had really mentioned it in the lense thread. It'll be nice when I finally know what I'm doing and can use it properly.

MrChad

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/fra...m#28-105Anchor
The 28-105mm is a very good lens for the coin. The 58mm filter size matches very well with some other good Canon lenses.

50/1.4; 100/2.0; 100-300/4.5-5.6; and 70-300 IS USM come to mind.

My wedding was covered completely by my photographer back in the day with a 28-105/3.5-4.5; 100/2.0; and the 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM lens. on pair of D60's and a D30. This was prior to digital specific glass by the way.

With a good flash like the 430EX and a good tripod many magical things can happen with that 28-105mm USM lens.

For what it's worth you can purchase the proper Canon matching lens hood for that lens online as well. That's a good investment if you plan to keep the lens for a bit.

And the USM autofocus will spoil you against most 3rd party glass I'm afraid to say. That's one of the best lenses for a starter kit IMO. The only lens I could see as maybe being better is a Nikon the 18-70mm/3.5-4.5, I really wish Canon would make a sub $300 twin of this excellent Nikkor.

LuvMyTSX

^^ Awesome. I'll look into the flash and lense hood, and I plan on getting a tripod. This is going to turn into a fun hobby.

MrChad

I said the same thing $6000.00 ago....

LuvMyTSX

Haha, yeah, I have to remember to keep things under control financially, since I am trying to save for a house. Photography looks to be a VERY expensive hobby.

MrChad

Taking pictures is cheap...free almost.

Canonitus and Nikosis are expensive:/
Both are deseases characterised by uncontrollable gear acquisition syndrome...

Savio

alright.....

my new budget is 150-275


Here is what I'm looking to do in order of preference...

1. Night shots of city
2. Action shots of baseball/soccer/tennis/basketball games (sometimes at night also)
3. Portrait shots


Also let me know of a decent flash if possible. For the action shots, I don't know how close or far away I'll be. Maybe in the stands...

LuvMyTSX

Hey Savio. You asked for a couple pics with my 28-105 lens, so here goes. I was just playing around on Valentine's Day and took some pics of flowers at home:











I can make them bigger if you want, I just kept 'em small here for space sake.

Mizouse

im kinda tempted to sell my 70-300 IS USM for a 70-200 F/4 i like the idea of the constant aperature and non rotating front element

but man that IS is nice

moeronn

^^ The constant aperature isn't that big of a deal. The larger aperature does make a difference, though.

Also, unless you are using filters, don't worry about the rotating front element.

Mizouse

well the main reason why id trade the 70-300 IS USM for a 70-200 F/4 is because at the 300 end it gets a little soft, and the from what i hear the 70-200 f/4 takes fantastically sharp pictures

guia x

I'm feeling the same way. I don't know why I went with the 70-300 IS when I could have gotten the 70-200 F/4 for the same amount. I guess I was stuck on the IS part as well and I also had my eye on the 70-200 F2.8 IS. In the back of my mind I figured that if I was to get the 70-200 F2.8, the 70-200 F4 would be useless so for Christmas all I told my wife was to get me either the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 F2.8 IS. I guess I thought that she would go all out and get me the 70-200 F2.8 IS. Turns out she didn't want to spend that kind of money on a lens.

Anyway, I'm still pretty happy with the 70-300. It has served me well and will work for now. Having the 70-200 F2.8 on the XTi looked pretty ridiculous. I think once I get a bigger more expensive camera will be the time I start thinking of the 70-200 again.

Mizouse

ohh yea im perfectly fine with the 70-300 it serves me well, but i think later on i want to get something faster, so eventually i want to get the 70-200 2.8 and pair that up with the 24-70 2.8