Second/additional lenses (and general advice) for digital rebel

Hi everyone,

I'm getting a digital rebel 300D and I'm shopping around for a second
lens. I've done some light 35mm SLR work in the past, and mostly have
been working on improving my framing and composition with a digital
Elph S230 over the past few years
(http://www.electrictao.net/gallery/portfolio). I like landscape,
scenery, architecture, astro and people photos. I don't generally do
any sports photos, though my fiance is an equestrian so I guess I'd
better start learning how to clean horse muck off my camera. I also
like taking macro shots of flowers and insects, but I feel these tend
to be less challenging tests of composition.

I'm really excited about exploring photography more with the DR, but I
suspect that the kit 18-55 isn't quite what I'm looking for. Though
I like the idea of an 18mm wide-angle, I'm worried about distortion
and sharpness at the 18mm end. Also, I'd like to have more of a
25-125 zoom for walking around. I initially was looking for more of a
70-200/300 telephoto, but I figure I'm only going to use that much
telephoto for a small percentage of shots (i.e. wildlife shots), and
having a more compact, optically sound lens with smaller range was a
better option.

I know that I will get a Canon 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) and possibly a 20mm
wide-angle prime at some point down the road. I'm also probably going
to get a mid-range telephoto zoom at some point (100-300mm), or I'll
just rent a 400mm prime from the local camera place for weekend
wildlife trips. So the big question is, what to get as my second
(first non-kit) lens? Here's what I've been looking at:

1. Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5; Pros: great reviews, great price, USM;
Cons: less zoom, no macro

2. Tamron SP 24-135 f/3.5-5.6; Pros: more range, sharp at 24mm, macro;
Cons: more $$, not so great above 90mm

3. Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6; Pros: big lens with lots of range, less $$,
macro; Cons: would still have to swap lens for 35-50mm range shots, is
image contrast and sharpness sacrificed for the zoom range?

4. Tamron XR 28-300 f/3.5-6.3; Pros: less $$, all-in-one lens, macro;
Cons: image quality at long focal lengths, and is such a wide range
really that useful/valuable? (I got an SLR for a reason, after all)

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of Canon's zoom lenses don't seem
to offer macro capability. Is there a reason for this? Any tips on
getting around this limitation (e.g. dedicated macro lens, etc.)?
Also, any advice on how well/how poorly macro multifilter sets work
would be appreciated.

I have a Meade ETX-90 telescope for casual observing, and it doubles
as a 1250mm f/13.8 spotting scope, but I have no idea how well this
works on terrestrial targets and with a dSLR.

Thanks for reading my long post and TIA for any help,
Peter

In article , Peter Wang
writes
Hi everyone,

I'm getting a digital rebel 300D and I'm shopping around for a second
lens. I've done some light 35mm SLR work in the past, and mostly have
been working on improving my framing and composition with a digital
Elph S230 over the past few years
(http://www.electrictao.net/gallery/portfolio). I like landscape,
scenery, architecture, astro and people photos. I don't generally do
any sports photos, though my fiance is an equestrian so I guess I'd
better start learning how to clean horse muck off my camera. I also
like taking macro shots of flowers and insects, but I feel these tend
to be less challenging tests of composition.

I find this surprising - many people find true macro work much more
difficult. Maybe you have not got close enough yet to realise how hard
it gets!

I'm really excited about exploring photography more with the DR, but I
suspect that the kit 18-55 isn't quite what I'm looking for. Though
I like the idea of an 18mm wide-angle, I'm worried about distortion
and sharpness at the 18mm end. Also, I'd like to have more of a
25-125 zoom for walking around. I initially was looking for more of a
70-200/300 telephoto, but I figure I'm only going to use that much
telephoto for a small percentage of shots (i.e. wildlife shots), and
having a more compact, optically sound lens with smaller range was a
better option.

I have a 10D, so very similar in needs to your 300D, and have a similar
range of interests. The lenses which I take out most often with the 10D
are 17-35 f/2.8L, TS-E 24 f/3.5L and 28-135 IS. I don't do much sport
or "distant" wildlife, but for airshows and the like I would take a
100-400 L IS. I am also fortunate enough to have a range of other
lenses, including fixed focal length ones, which I take as required.

If I know I will be looking for flowers, small wildlife etc I will take
the 100 f/2.8 macro. IMO, there is no point in messing about trying to
do this kind of work with a zoom which focusses a few cm closer than
others. None of them are satisfactory except as close-up lenses. Get a
true macro lens (I know from experience the Canon 100mm macro is
excellent, and by repute, so is the Tamron 90mm; I wouldn't rely on most
others).

I know that I will get a Canon 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) and possibly a 20mm
wide-angle prime at some point down the road. I'm also probably going
to get a mid-range telephoto zoom at some point (100-300mm), or I'll
just rent a 400mm prime from the local camera place for weekend
wildlife trips. So the big question is, what to get as my second
(first non-kit) lens? Here's what I've been looking at:

1. Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5; Pros: great reviews, great price, USM;
Cons: less zoom, no macro

Very good by repute; I've never had one. Consider the 28-135 IS as an
alternative; the IS is very useful.

2. Tamron SP 24-135 f/3.5-5.6; Pros: more range, sharp at 24mm, macro;
Cons: more $$, not so great above 90mm

Don't know it, but the Tamron SP range has a generally good reputation.

3. Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6; Pros: big lens with lots of range, less $$,
macro; Cons: would still have to swap lens for 35-50mm range shots, is
image contrast and sharpness sacrificed for the zoom range?

I have had 3 Sigma lenses and came to the conclusion I can't afford them
any more (as I always end up replacing them with decent ones later).

4. Tamron XR 28-300 f/3.5-6.3; Pros: less $$, all-in-one lens, macro;
Cons: image quality at long focal lengths, and is such a wide range
really that useful/valuable? (I got an SLR for a reason, after all)

The only 10x zooms I know of which I would buy would be the Canon
35-350L and its 28-???L replacement - and even these are really special
purpose lenses for press work. All the small aperture 28-200 and 28-300
zooms I have seen reviewed just don't seem very sharp. The whole issue
of tele zooms is difficult; I never found one which combines low price
with good quality (the Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6USM is not ultra sharp and
lacks contrast at the long end, and I believe the 75-300 may be the
same); you have to go to the L range to get this. Once you do, you
realise how feeble the others are; look at the 70-200 f/4L and 100-400
f/4.5-5.6 L IS.

Other lenses to consider:

Canon 17-40 f/4L - never had one (I have a 17-35 f/2.8L instead) but
from all reports it is excellent.

Canon 85 f/1.8 - excellent lens, good value.

300 f/4L or 400 f/5.6L - both a bit pricey, but top quality

If you develop your interest in architecture, there is only one "must
have" lens: the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L. I rarely leave home (photographically
speaking) without mine. It is unfortunate that the 10D/300D sensor cuts
the field of view so much, and for that reason it works better on a film
body, but I find it indispensable.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of Canon's zoom lenses don't seem
to offer macro capability. Is there a reason for this?

At a guess, it is because the quality you get from trying to make one
lens do too many things just gets too poor, and Canon prefer not to
compromise too much. Cynics would say it's because they want you to buy
an expensive macro lens, or that they are complacent, but (having been a
Canon system user since the 1970s) I would not find either view
convincing. The company does irritate me in some ways, but not these.

Any tips on
getting around this limitation (e.g. dedicated macro lens, etc.)?
Also, any advice on how well/how poorly macro multifilter sets work
would be appreciated.

See above. I would suggest a close-up lens set will work very well on a
zoom provided you don't expect top quality. I got one (Hoya +1, +2, +4
set) with my first EOS lens (35-135 zoom, back in the early 90s) just
for photographing my daughter's hamsters. It was perfect for this. They
are cheap and easy to use, you don't lose X stops of light and for
modest sized prints they are OK. Save the money you didn't spend on
other stuff to buy a proper macro lens later. I am told the Canon
doublet ones are worth the money, but have never tried them - they are
several times the price of the Hoya ones.

True macro work (1:1 or better) is demanding, and too complex to advise
you in a brief post like this. I suggest you get a book, and decide what
it is you like to do, before you spend lots of money. A macro flash will
also be invaluable.

I have a Meade ETX-90 telescope for casual observing, and it doubles
as a 1250mm f/13.8 spotting scope, but I have no idea how well this
works on terrestrial targets and with a dSLR.

Try it, it will be fun even if the results don't match what a pro would
get with a 600 f/4L etc. You will need a VERY good tripod though; expect
to pay at least £200/$300 for one good enough for this. However, for
trials you should be able to use a cardboard tube, gaffer tape and a
bean bag to see if it works well enough to spend money.

Thanks for reading my long post and TIA for any help,
Peter

--
David Littlewood

Since you already have the 18-55mm range covered, you might want to
cover the 70-200 mm range with 70-200 F/4 L USM or go with its big
brother 70-200 F/2.8 L USM. to extend the capabilities of the camera
and photographer first, and then back fill with a 16-35 F/2.8 for
more low light performance and smaller Depth of Fields, and finally
replace the 18-55mm with the top notch 28-70 F2.8 L USM.

Mitch

Since you already have the 18-55mm range covered, you might want to
cover the 70-200 mm range with 70-200 F/4 L USM or go with its big
brother 70-200 F/2.8 L USM. to extend the capabilities of the camera
and photographer first, and then back fill with a 16-35 F/2.8 for
more low light performance and smaller Depth of Fields, and finally
replace the 18-55mm with the top notch 28-70 F2.8 L USM.

Mitch