lenses for canon eos (drebel) on the budget+ ?

[k._rivkin]

Dear All,

 

Thank you in advance for helping me:

 

I've had drebel for some time now. I'm very satisfied with it and with

a kit lens 18-55, especially for landscapes 18/f10, but in general

55mm f5.3-f6.3 is not exactly sharp.

 

Not willing to spend money on L optics, I wonder:

 

Is there are something (like manual focus Zeiss lenses with an

adapter) that can help me to cover 35-250mm ? I mean two lenses that

cover this range, do not cost 1000$ and in the same time are tolerable

for f6.3 ?

 

Again manual focusing and manual aperture is ok, cause I'm used to my

medium format gear, and drebel does not exactly focuses well in the dark.

 

I would consider to have primes, like 35mm, 100mm, 250mm

but telephoto primes made by Canon are super expensive, and I don't

know how others stack up against them.

 

Again thank you for replying to this message,

[bobatkins]

See <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html"><b>this article on 300D/10D lenses</b></a>

<p>

Depends how much money you do have. The Canon 24-85 and 70-200/4L would make a great pair of lenses, but will cost you almost $1000.

<p>

The EF 28-135IS is a very good lens and will cost you around $400. Recommended.

<p>

The EF 50/1.8 is small, light, cheap and sharp. Get one.

<p>

I would not consider using manual focus lenses. Too much of a pain for too little gain, unless you already have them lying around so they are essentially free.

[melissa_eiselein]

There is no reason for me to post after Bob. He always has the best answers. But I did want to jump in because I was in the same position as you less than two years ago.

 

<p>To affordably cover a wide range of situations, I'd recommend the following lenses:

<br>1)Your 18-55 is a must have for your D-Rebel.

<br>2)Next, get the 50 f/1.8. It's sharp, fast enough for lower light situations and will make a good portrait lens on your D-Rebel for those background blur shots. And it's the best bargain out there.

<br>3)Then add a 28-135 IS for ease of use. That one lens is great for most situations...except blurred backgrounds. Next to my 17-35 (which is a must-have for my 10D) the 28-135 is my favorite lens. (You can substitute a 28-105, but that extra 30mm makes a big difference.)

<br>4)Finally, for a longer lens, consider a 70-200 f/4L. It doesn't cost as much (or weigh as much) as the 2.8 and it's WAY better than a 70-300 (which I used to own).

 

<p>Primes are excellent and comparitively inexpensive. But, for me, they're inconvenient. I like to have the zoom ability, not to mention that I prefer going out with one or two lenses instead of eight or 10.

[jimstrutz]

I agree. Manual focusing with the viewfinder on the DRebel isn't easy or fun. You can do it, I know, but AF lenses are usually a better fit for the DRebel.

 

Lots of differnt lens mounts have been adapted to the EF lens mount of the EOS cameras, but the most common adapters, and least expensive to find are for M42 screwmount (Practica, Pentax, etc.) lenses, and T mount lenses. There are some very good ones out there. A Nikon adapter will cost more as will the lenses, but I hear it can be done.

 

Canon's 200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC will give great results. That with a 50mm f/1.8 and a 100mm f/2 will blow your budget, but provide excellent results. If the 1.4x TC is a third party brand instead of a Canon, you can also use it on the 100mm, and even the 50mm, for more versatility.

 

Otherwise, Canon's 28-135mm is a great match, as is Tamron's 24-135mm.

 

Canon's 70-200 f/4L with a 50mm f/1.8 and a 1.4x TC should all fit under $1000 and will certainly be a sharp set of glass.

[jim_larson1]

I tend to disagree with the 28-135/IS recommendation. With your kit lens, this lens will cover much of what you have now and much of what will be covered with future lenses.

 

What to get depends upon budget. For $625, the 50/1.8 PLUS 70-200/4L is ideal.

 

If you are really tight on funds, the 50/1.8 ($70) and 75-300/USM (under $200) is the way to go.

 

If you need a high quality wide angle to supplement the kit zoom, look to the 28/1.8 ($170) or 24/2.8 primes. ($330)

[k._rivkin]

Thank you very much for the answers.

Probably will buy 50,28-135.... Then makes little sence for me to buy -200L....

 

Any good 300-400 mm primes out there for ok prices ?

Interstingly so unlike electronics people are really oriented against non-brand (Tamron) equipment...

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Probably will buy 50,28-135.... Then makes little sence for me to buy -200L.... </i> <p>

<p> The 28-135 is a very good decision. The 50/1.8 is a bit less. I must warn you about those primes and L lenses. Do NOT buy any of them. If you buy one, you will never be happy with anything else. That will cause you enormous financial problems (and possibly, like in my case, also marital ones as well) as you'll always be in a quest to get more. I think that Canon primes and L lenses should all bear a note saying: "Beware! Addictive substance!". Take the advice of an addict and stay away from them. <p>

<p> <i>Any good 300-400 mm primes out there for ok prices ? </i> <p>

<p>At O.K. prices you'll only get O.K. lenses as photography is a <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#expensive">costly habit</a>. You can have 300/4 non-IS or <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml">400/5.6</a> for about 600$-800$ (mind you, these <b>are</B> considered O.K. prices in the telephoto area) but these are L and you will be forgetting my warning above :-((<p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[henry_minsky1]

The Canon 55-200mm is very nice and inexpensive. Worth looking at.

The 28-135 IS is fabulous though, and because the shots are stabilized, you tend to get sharper images especially at the long end.

In terms of chromatic aberrations, I found a little bit of purple pixels from the 55-200, but none from the 28-135, btw.

[camilla]

I bought the Tamrom 28-75 XR Di used for less than 300$, and this lens is really good! I can highly recommend it to anyone who is more concerned with good image quality than brands. For the money, it's outstanding. It won't give you much in the long end, but since it's relatively cheap you can perhaps spend some on a used 80-200/2.8 or a 70-200/4. If those are too expensive for you I'd have a look at Sigma for the best deal on a budget tele-zoom, I had a 70-300 dl macro myself, and thought it was decent up to 200, then soft.

[camilla]

It should be Tamron, not Tamrom... would also like to mention that this lens has decent macro-focusing ability which adds to value.

[mormegil]

There was a mention of the 24 2.8.

 

I was considering getting a Sigma 24 1.8 (DG EX...etc), as it's rated pretty well, and not very pricey. Does anyone have any opinions on this lens?

[k._rivkin]

Well, for perfectionism I have medium format... But I was really surprised that the kit lens has such a good resolution for a price, but such a prepostrous sharpness...

 

I hope 50mm standart works fine...

[k._rivkin]

Actually I've changed my mind.

Canon EOS 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM +

50 mm +something for the wide angle seem to be a better lineup to me rather then 28-135 +50mm.

 

Anyone has anything on this idea ?