Advice on a zoom lens for my digital rebel

[Laura]

I'd like to use my Christmas money to buy a zoom lens to take to Disney with me next month. Somewhere in the $100-$200 range if possible. I was wondering if anyone had this lens: http://www.adorama.com/CA75300AF2.html and if they would recommend it or not, or if they know of a better one out there in that price range. Thanks! :xmas:

Edit - Grrr sorry for starting a new thread. Didn't see the DSLR thread until after I submitted. :brick:


Edit number 2 - after reading what Pisco said on the other thread ("The 28-135 will act like a 49-216 on the Digital Rebel and the 17-85 will act like a 27-136") I'm wondering - is the 75-300 mm a little too much? Basically what I want to be able to do is take good shots of subjects from stadium seats (example: A nice dramatic close up of Shamu from a no-splash seat at Sea World). What lens/focal length would you recommend for this?

 

[PhotoDave219]

Yes, the 75-300 USM is great for up close shots from stadium seats and for Kilamonjaro Safaris. It is not "Too Much" lens. Between that and the basic 18-55 lens that comes with teh DRebel, ill be fine.

Like i said, the ideal kit has a 17-35 , a 28-80 and an 80-200. Thats the general basics....

 

[Laura]

Dave, you should also try out the f/1.8 50 mm that pisco recommended to me a while back if you haven't already. It's only about $80 and takes incredible photos in low light with a really great background blur. I very rarely use my 18-55 anymore since I got the f/1.8.

 

[Laura]

Ugh ok now I really can't decide. I've got 3 lenses in my price range that seem ok but I'm not sure how to choose.

Choice 1: 80-200 mm autofocus telephoto zoom ($109.95)
Choice 2: 75-300 mm autofocus telephoto zoom ($149.95)
Choice 3: 75-300 mm autofocus telephoto zoom with USM ($169.95)

So first of all - is it worth the extra $40 to go from a 200 mm to a 300 mm? Or do you think a 200 mm is good enough? Will it be difficult to focus if I'm zoomed all the way in with a 300 mm? I have a 210 mm on my film SLR and I don't think it works because when I'm zoomed all the way in I cannot turn the focus ring far enough to bring the subject in focus. It's not that way with all zoom lenses is it?

Second of all, if I do decide to go with the 75-300 is it worth the extra $20 to get the USM? That just means it focuses quietly right? Is there anything else special about a USM?

 

[pisco]

Since my name was mentioned a couple of times already I thought I should chime in on this one.

For me, the 200mm falls short many times just shooting at horse shows and the local zoo. I can only imagine that it would even worse on something like Kilimanjaro Safaris. So I would definitely recommend going for the 300mm. So what if you don't shoot beyond 200mm most of the time? It's better to have the extra reach when you need it than to miss the shot.

As far as USM goes, not only is the focus mechanism quieter with USM it is faster. That will help you when shooting moving subjects like animals and children. Seems like it would be worth the $20 upgrade to me.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Yes... he's right. Go for the USM and go for the 70-300

 

[EpcoTim]

The 300 works out to a 460mm with the 1.6 factor, which is almost to hard to handhold in most situations, so keep that in mind.

And the 1.6 factor also takes care of softness and distortion at the edges, so you can get away with a cheaper lens in that respect. Like the 60 dollar Kodak zoom.

 

[pisco]

The 300 works out to a 460mm with the 1.6 factor, which is almost to hard to handhold in most situations, so keep that in mind.

This is why the IS version of this lens is preferable if it is within your budget. It will allow for hand holding at way lower shutter speeds without getting any camera shake.

This also brings up something I have wondered about for a long time. How does the 1.6x crop factor effect the shutter speed to focal length rule? When shooting fully extended with my 200mm lens do a I need shutter speed above 1/200 or should I up that to 1/320 to account for the crop factor. My gut tells me that since the length of the barrel does not change, only the amount of the image circle captured, I should be able to get away with the slower shutter speed. But then again, the crop factor could increase the ability to discern shake in the image so the higher speed might be better. Anybody have enough experience with this to provide a definitive answer (or at least a really good guess )?

Thanks.

 

[EpcoTim]

Pisco, I always figured going with the new focal length.

But then again I rarely use anything more than a 100f/2

 

[Laura]

I ended up getting the Canon 75-300 mm with ultrasonic motor. I haven't had much opportunity to use it, but the pictures I did take turned out wonderfully. I can't wait to bring it to Disney next week! Thanks for the advice.

 

[EpcoTim]

Have fun on your trip, and take lots of photos