2nd lens for 300D

[robmiller]

I'm in the process of searching for a 2nd lens for my 300D and can't

quite decide which way to go. I'm looking for a zoom lens that takes

fairly sharp captures with a rather inexpensive price tag (I really

don't want to spend more than $500). Can anyone out there suggest

something for me? Thanks a bunch!

[ben_kriete]

I assume your first one is the 18-55 kit lens? If you want more of the same, the 17-85 EF-S will extend your range slightly, as well as adding image stabilization. If you want something longer you can pick up a 70-200 F4 used for right around $500. The new 70-300 IS (3.5-5.6?) is also getting very good reviews but is probably about $600 and is new enough there aren't many on the used market. You should also consider the 50/1.8 as a high-quality inexpensive prime lens and really the easiest way to get into available light photography.

[corey_gardner1]

Depends on what you want. Mid-range zoom (28-105ish), longer zoom (70-200) or something higher quality to replace the one you have (18-35?). A decent mid-range zoom is the 28-135 IS lens. Anything better will cost more than your budget. If you want something longer go for the 70-200 f/4L. To replace the 18-35 range isn't cheap. The 17-40 f/4L is way beyond $500. Not sure about other options.

[fmueller]

I am also assuming that the 18-55mm kit lens is your first lens. I am further assuming that by 'zoom' lens, you actually mean a tele lens, ie a lens with a longer focal length than the 18-55mm.

 

If the quality of the 18-55mm is sufficient for you - don't listen to what other people tell you, use your own judgement - consider the 80-200mm 4.5-5.6. IMHO this lens is quite underrated - easily of the quality of the kit lens. The best thing about it is that it usually sells used for well under $100. There are a lot of other goodies you could buy with your remaining $400 and a little bit, such as a used super wide angle (egTokina 12-24mm), a flash, a 50mm 1.8, to name just a few.

 

If you are not happy with the kit lens and want a tele that's better, the 70-200mm f4 has a great reputation, but will pretty much exhaust your budget.

[ky2]

70-200/4L.

[jbq]

The 70-200/4L is at the top end of your budget, there's little doubt that no Canon T-T is cheaper and sharper. Beware, it's a big and heavy lens by consumer standards.

 

The 100-300/4.5-5.6 is cheaper, focuses quickly, but if you have a 18-55 that'll be quite a gap.

 

I'll second the recommendation for the 80-200/4.5-5.6. It's lightweight and takes very decent pictures.

 

Don't underestimate the venerable line of 75-300 lenses. They're not the best in terms of construction, and most people agree that the image quality drops a bit beyond 200mm, but they're cheap and on a 300D you'll find that 200mm is already pretty long and the "extra reserve" to go all the way to 300mm will be there when you need it.

[yakim_peled1]

Which lens do you have? Do you like it's quality? What do you want to shoot with the other lens? What are you generally shooting?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mark u]

Going in the other direction....Sigma 10-20.

[robmiller]

Sorry for not clarifying my current lens. It's the kit lens that came with the camera. I shoot mostly landscapes and have been debating between a wide angle lens or a longer tele lens. I really don't want to lose quality. I like the kit lens, and would prefer the new lens to be at least as good or better when it comes to capturing available light. Thanks for all of your help. I hope this clarification helps!

[mcgarity]

For landscapes a wide angle zoom would seem to be more logical. The only problem you have a limited number of choices to get a zoom that is significantly wider than what you already have.

 

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a very good lens but is considerably more than you want to spend. The USA version is $690 (which is $110 less than it went for in 2004.) The gray market version is $675.

 

The Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 is $479 at B&H.

 

The Tokina 12-24 f4 is $500 at BH.

 

The Tamron 11-18mm f4/5.6 is $519 after rebate at B&H.

[jojo_ma]

For an ultra wide, either the Sigma 10-20 or for more money, the Canon 10-22. The Siggie is quite an amazing UWA at $430+.

 

See http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/uwatest

[fmueller]

<i>I like the kit lens, and would prefer the new lens to be at least as good or better when it comes to capturing available light.</i></p>

 

80-200mm 4.5-5.6 - it's small and lightweight and an ideal companion for the kit lens. KEH has the lens used starting at $49. Save up another $28 and add that to the rest of your budget to buy a Sigma 10-22mm.

 

Why choose, when you can have both!

[robmiller]

Thanks for the help folks, I just bought the sigma wide angle zoom. Can't wait to play and post.

[better lighting studio]

I would like to suggest two lenses, that you can get on ebay for around $300 - 325.00. first the prime 50mm f/1.8 the next the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 with the word macro on the side not the one with the flower trust me.the 50mm should be around 125.00 and the 28-105mm with lens hood should be less then 175.00 so for $300.00 you get them both, with the other $200 I would buy some extension tubes for the 50mm A+ macro work. other $100.00 on a third party flash. good luck<div></div>