35mm lens VS Digital lens

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I'm currently shopping for a lens (I was doing the same thing months ago but waited because.. well buying your first lens is a big deal. For me anyways)<br>

I want a tele zoom lens. The one I found on Keh is: 75-300 F4-5.6 IMAGE STABILIZATION ULTRASONIC (58) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENS<br>

I own a Rebel XS. I'm wondering: What are the pros and cons of buying a 35mm lens for a DSLR?<br>

I have 600$ to spend on the lens if it helps.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is no such thing as digital lenses. Lenses always work analog.</p>

<p>Doesn't matter. They're the same.</p>

<p>Lenses for 35mm film will cover the whole 24x36mm frame of full frame cameras, but they are 100% compatible with crop sensor cameras like the Rebel XS</p>

<p>Some companies claim better coating on their new "digitally optimized" lenses, but I suspect that's as much marketing as science.</p>

<p>If you have $600 to spend I'd look a a new Canon EF70-300/4-5.6IS USM or a Tamron 70-300/4-5.6VC USD lens. Both are much better than the old Canon 75-300 you found at KEH</p>

<p>Ana,</p>

<p>The only thing you need to concern yourself with, on a Rebel XS, is to make sure the lens has either an EF or EF-S lens mount. Both will work on your camera. No other lens mounts will work.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter if the lens is for "35mm" or for a reduced size sensor. Just make sure the lens mount fits and buy the focal length range you need. If you want a 75-300 then buy a 75-300. On KEH browsing the "Canon EOS" category will give you Canon's EF lenses. Browsing "Canon Digital" will give you Canon EF-S lenses.</p>

<p>Personally, I think you'd be better off buying the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS rather than the 75-300 IS. But if you really want to spend your $600 then buy the Canon EF <strong>70</strong>-300 IS instead. Optically it is better than the 75-300. </p>

<p>Bob and Matthias,<br>

Ana's post is, I'm assuming, a reference to how KEH categorizes Canon EOS lenses. They put EF-S lenses into a category called "Canon Digital." </p>

 

<p>A lens designed specifically for APS-C cameras (called EF-S for Canon) can be smaller than one made for 35mm film. For the 17-40 mm range one can generally do better with an APS-C specific lens. You can get one of several nice APS-C 17-50 f2.8 lenses for less money than a 17-40mm f4 lens for 35mm film. </p>

<p>Canon makes a pretty good 55-250 EF-S lens for $200. The 75-300 is generally not well liked, but I have never had one. The more expensive Canon 70-300 is well-regarded and is built better than the 55-250. The 55-250 is smaller, cheaper, has similar image quality, and costs much less. The 70-300 is so good that Canon made a fancied-up L version. </p>

 

<p>Yup, the 75-300 I had was the worst lens I have ever owned. People should pay *you* to take it away</p>

<p>While it wasn't that bad ;-) It was still quite soft (quite!) Plus, even though it had USM, it wasn't FTM USM (so you can't refocus while AF is On).</p>

<p>I definitely would not buy that particular lens. Even the Tamron (with VC) is far far better. The current (non-L) 70-300 USM w/ IS is available for a reasonable price nowadays, and, since you are shooting on a rebel, the EF-S 55-250 will give you far better IQ (though not quite the reach).</p>

 

<p>Canon EF70-300/4-5.6 IS USM +1</p>

<p>See also http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/telefoto.htm</p>

<p>For around $600 get the non-IS 70-200 L f4. Check out B&H.</p>

Yeah I think it was that bad. Wouldn't even make for a good boat anchor

<p>Ana, the very best buy and one of the best performing lenses in the Canon consumer line is the 55-250mm lens. It would be a great match for your camera. Good luck! </p>

<p>Ana,<br>

I'm with many of the others here, . . . Please, Please get anything other than that 75-300 unless your after a good paperweight!</p>

<p>I've had the 75-300, and like Chris, it was the worst lens I've ever owned. It was terrible for what it costs at the time I bought it.<br>

I don't have any experience with any of the "alternatives" previously mentioned, but I too would give the "+1" to anything over the 75-300!</p>

<p>I see you've been around PN awhile, so I hope you take what has been given to heart!<br>

Best wishes,</p>

<p>Well, the 75-300 isn't really a HORRIBLE lens (or maybe it depends on which copy you get). It's just not a particularly great one. Still, I got some very good, sharp photos from mine before eventually trading for a (better) used 70-300. I think my trade-up was about $150 -- money well spent.</p>

<p>Examples from the old 75-300:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phquailatsunset.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phquailatsunset.htm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phelderlion.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phelderlion.htm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phegret01.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phegret01.htm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phgerenuk.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phgerenuk.htm</a></p>

<p>As you can see, it was a somewhat moody lens, with some shots just a bit soft and some tack sharp.</p>

<p>If you have the money and don't mind losing 100mm on the long end, I would highly recommend the 70-200 f/4 IS. I love mine.</p>

<p>Pretty much any lens is fine for web shots. The old 75-300 isn't bad at the short end of the focal length range, especially stopped down a stop (or two), but it gets soft when zoomed out to 300mm. It's fine if you're not demanding and want only small prints, but it's not a "good" lens. Then again, it's dirt cheap for a telephoto zoom, even brand new (around $150), so you really can't expect much from it. If you can pick one up for under $100, you'll probably get your money's worth.</p>

<p>Do NOT confuse the 75-300 with the 75-300IS. They are <strong>NOT</strong> the same lens. The IS version has different optics and is significantly better.</p>

<p>Sarah,<br>

Mine must have been a bad copy ;>)<br>

At least I thought it more worthy respect as a paperweight than a boat anchor!</p>

 

<p>Following everyone advices, I won't get the paper weight.<br>

I value comments from people who answered as I'm still learning about photography and want to spend my money wisely. You know what you're doing. I don't yet :)<br>

<br /><br /></p>

<p>Another question if I may:<br>

Is there a difference between <strong>55-250 F4-5.6 EF-S IS II</strong> and <strong>55-250 F4-5.6 EF-S IS</strong>?<br>

Is the II at the end of the first one an upgrade or downgrade?<br /><br />Thank you </p>

<p>"II" and "III" designations mean the lens is a later design. Sometimes it's a significant optical upgrade. Sometimes they just change the shape of the lens hood or the type of rubber used on the focusing ring or the color of the printing on the lens.. As far as I know there's only one optical version of the EF-S 55-250. The "II" version has some minor external cosmetic differences.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your answers and help.</p>

<p>Oh yes, to be clear, I was referring to the IS lens (same one the OP was asking about). I've never seen/used the non-IS lens.</p>