Cannon Rebel xs lens question

[ken_clouse]

<p>Hello <br>

i have a Cannon Rebel xs and have the 18-55 lens and the 75-300 lens i am trying to find a better zoom lens that can take better shots from a distance but wont cost an arm and a leg for example today there was an Eagles nest but its about 300 plus yard away any help would be appreciated i mostly would be using it for wildlife .</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Good long zoom lenses are not cheap.<br>

Cheap long zoom lenses are not good.</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>It really depends on what you mean by an 'arm and a leg'. For significantly greater reach than your 75-300mm, you are talking of 400/500/600mm max lenses. Both Sigma and Tamron have modern, high quality (compared to your 75-300), image stabilized, 150-600mm lenses for around $1000. That's a steal for those focal lengths and that quality.</p>

<p>OTOH, you could reach those focal lengths with a simple 2x teleconverter mounted behind your 75-300, which will effectively make it a 150-600mm lens for $100-$200. The downside though is that you take a huge hit to both image quality (at which the 75-300 already suffers), and to autofocus (which will likely not work at all except in the brightest of light - even when it does, it'll be much slower). Personally, I can't recommend this route with the 75-300 you've got, as the pictures <em>might</em> be adequate for identification of species, but not much more than that. </p>

[ken_clouse]

<p>Thank you for the input i guess my next step would be to rent one and see how it does i would be willing to spend a 1000.00 if the quality was good .</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you have the opportunity to rent one of these, that would definitely be a good idea. It's a relatively inexpensive way to find out if the lens fits your needs.</p>

 

<p>Another thing to consider is buying used, particularly if there's a reputable photo equipment store in your area that sells used equipment and has some sort of guarantee (e.g. a policy that lets you return it for a full refund within a certain time period if you're not satisfied). I've bought a couple of used lenses over the years, including a 300/4L IS USM that would have been too expensive for me to buy new, and I've been happy with both.</p>

 

<p>Speaking of the 300/4, that gives me an idea. I don't know how much extra reach you need beyond 300, or whether you need a zoom. The 300/4 is faster and much sharper than your 75-300, and with a good 1.4x teleconverter it's a 420/5.6 that's quite good (particularly if stopped down a bit) and retains autofocus. If 420 is enough, or close to enough, this might be an option. Canon also has a 400/5.6, though it lacks IS and you'll lose autofocus if you use a teleconverter. Both the 300/4 and 400/5.6 are (by the standards of professional telephoto lenses) relatively affordable, lightweight, and compact. Just a thought.</p>

[ken_clouse]

<p>I will check to see if there are any camera shops still around i know through the years alot have closed i appreciate<br>

the information yesterday when i saw the 2 Eagles on there nest my camera didn't do well with my lens and i belong to a few Bird groups on Facebook and some of there pictures are breath taking i just need to get a better lens for distance shots </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Usually a better lens is the right answer, but you may also want to consider a newer rebel. The specific reason is that buying a recent used one will yield nearly twice the pixel density (@18MP vs 10.1MP), cost only a few hundred dollars, and have substantial other improvements (such as an ISO limit MUCH higher than the 1600 on your XS). All that combined means you'll be able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (yielding (hopefully) sharper images), and you'll also be able to crop significantly tighter without nearly the overall impact to image quality, effectively making your 75-300 more capable (though it will inevitably still be the limiting factor). </p>

[peter_c5]

I had a Canon 75-300 and found its image quality at 300 was miserable. I made some comparative shots between it and

a Canon 18-200 - not the best EFS lens by any means - and found that the central portion of the 18-200 image was much

sharper and more contrasty that the 300's. I sold the 75-300 - not for very much!

 

So I'd agree that a new lens would probably be your best bet. Why not consider the Mark I version of Canon's 100-400?

Now that the Mark II is out, secondhand copies of these are around at very reasonable prices.