lense choice?

Hi,


I am brand-new to the SLR camera world, having replaced my old "point and shoot" with a Canon Rebel XS. I am a beginner and just wanted a decent camera to get some great quality shots of my kids when they play sports (football, baseball, basketball, swimming, etc) and of our family when we are out and about, at school events, etc.


My camera came with the 18-55 lense but I need to think about getting another lense so I can get some close-up shots of my kids, etc.


I was thinking about the EF 55-250 for $250 but don't especially like the idea of lugging around 2 lenses. The local camera store recommended the Tamron 17-300, but even I noticed the quality didn't seem so good. The Canon 18-200 looks nice but the $800 or so sticker priceabout gave me a heart attack! Then I went to this site, which is wonderful and has so much good info, and started reading about all the 75-200's and 75-300's and how great they are for sports.


Is the 18-200 worth the money, or would I be better to go with 2 lenses and save my cash? Do you really think I would need totake 2 lenses to football games, etc. or can I generally get by with one or the other?Should I really consider buyingone of the other "sports" lenses (the $5-600 dollar ones, not the $1,500 ones)?


I mainly use the auto-focus mode, and while I hope to eventually take a few classes and learn a little bit more aboutusing my camera, I don't think I will ever become an expert photographer.


Can someone give me some advice, please? Thanks!

Looks like you've done your research and already understand your options.


As you know, your choice comes down to:

• Convenience
• Quality
• Low price

<div>Pick any two.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Want convenience and quality? Canon 18-200, but it will cost you.</div>
<div>Want quality and low price? Canon 55-250, but you have two lenses.</div>
<div>Want convenience and low price? Tamron 18-200 (only $230 after rebate), but the quality is poor.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newbie

Is the 18-200 worth the money, or would I be better to go with 2 lenses and save my cash?

---

</div>


I think the 18-200 is worth the money (for what it is), but in your situation I would encourage you to try two lenses. In time I think you'll find that lugging around an extra lens (or two) and swapping them out is well worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newbie

Do you really think I would need totake 2 lenses to football games, etc. or can I generally get by with one or the other?

---

For football games, I think you would be just fine with only one lens. The 55-250 would be an excellent choice for the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newbie

Should I really consider buyingone of the other "sports" lenses (the $5-600 dollar ones, not the $1,500 ones)?

---

I would encourage you to consider the 70-200 f/4. It's $640 online, and the quality is very impressive.

Welcome..., to the Machine!


I would say 2 lenses are better than one. Keep the 18-55 Kit Lens for family shots and walking around and I really like Daniel's suggestion of the 70-200mm f/4L for $640 for your kids sports, and it's also a good portrait lens.


I don't think you will have to bring 2 lenses to football games, the 70-200 should handle all of that. This will be a very good outdoor sports lens, but it's too slow for basketball indoors in poorly lit gyms. If you decide you want longer reach for football then you could always add a 1.4X extender ($300) and then the lens will be 98-280mm f/5.6L, which will be fine if there's plenty of light.


Rich

go with one of the 70-200 2,8 lenses...





All of canons are above the 1000 dollar range... Try for the sigma maybe... Its about $700, if you look hard you can find one for 500-600 used...





its a great lens...





Also you may want to invest in a camera backpack, it will make your life alot easier.

I definitely concur with Daniel and Rich - while I think the 18-200mm is a decent lens, any superzoom lens like that mean a lot of compromise in terms of distortion and other issues. Since you already have the 18-55mm lens (decent, especially at narrower apertures), adding the Canon 70-200mm f/4L would be a good choice, and slightly cheaper than the 18-200mm. The 70-200mm f/4L is an L-series lens - excellent quality!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

adding the Canon 70-200mm f/4L would be a good choice, and slightly cheaper than the 18-200mm

---

Seriously? Dutch prices:


18-200: 429 euro


70-200 f4L: 565 euro





But yeah, buy a 70-200 f4L. Unless you absolutely need weather-sealing, f2.8 and/or IS this is an amazing lens!


Jan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

Seriously? Dutch prices:


18-200: 429 euro


70-200 f4L: 565 euro

---

Oops. Guess I was misled by the OP's mention of an $800 sticker price for the 18-200mm.


But the differential is much less here - and almost gone once you factor in the hood for the EF-S lens (and that's not even counting the pouch!).


Amazon.com prices:





18-200: US$589, plus $32 for the EW78D hood = $621


70-200 f4L: US$640

Thanks so much for all of the input! This really helps me to figure out what I need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Oops. Guess I was misled by the OP's mention of an $800 sticker price for the 18-200mm.

---

No problem...I took it for granted as well, that explains my reaction [;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newbie

Thanks so much for all of the input! This really helps me to figure out what I need.

---

Alright, I just have to take something in perspective here, before it's forgotten.


The 70-200 f4L we all mention is the cheapest 70-200 zoom Canon makes. The image quality delivered by this lens is L-quality and very very nice. The build quality is very good, although no weathersealing. The USM focus-motor is very fast and accurate. If your willing to put some efort in your shots, this lens can deliver the about the best you can get.


The 70-200 series from other brands like Sigma and Tamron offer f2.8 versions for about the same money, although both lenses have their flaws... The Tamron is good, but has a slow autofocus. The Sigma deals with focus-problems. Both lenses seem to have sharpness wide open about the same as the Canon at 70mm, however on the longer focal lengths, the Canon shows better sharpness wide open.


Read both reviews if your interested so it can give you a better idea.


However the thing I wanted to point out is the lack of Image Stabilization on the Canon 70-200 f4L(and other brands)


While these lenses can deliver great shots, most of these great shots are made by people who putt some thought behind a picture. In other words, unless you have an amazing amount of light(where semi-auto shooting modes work good), these lenses are not simple point and shoot lenses!


For sports you will probably put your settings to values increasing shutterspeed so your own movement(where IS accounts for) is not a problem. However for the portraits you're thinking of, you must at least shoot with 1/200(general rule for full-frame cameras, 1/320 for crop-sensors) to eliminate for camera-movement.


Bottom line, while the Canon lens delivers superb shots, it won't be all easy point and shoot shots.


If you think you would need the IS system, you can look at more expensive lenses like the Canon 70-200 series with IS or at less expensive lenses like the:


Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, although you would lose the USM focussing and a significant decrease of image quality and a slower maximum aperture.


Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens, although less image quality, sharpness and a slower maximum aperture.


Or of course the superzooms you already mentioned.


Good luck with your decision!


Jan

Hi Newbie,


I have recently been doing a lot of lens searching as well. Reading this thread, I think there is some excellent advice, especially covering the "tele" range you'll need for sporting events. But I wanted to add two thoughts regarding more of the "standard" photographic range covered by your kit lens.

1. You can replace and upgrade your kit lens with another zoom. I did this and bought a EFS 15-85(~$700)and have been very pleased. I have seen others recommend the EFS 17-55 (~$1,100)or a "L" series zoom of a similar range of focal lengths. All of these are more expensive but are supposed to be better than a kit lens.
2. For pictures of your family, you might consider buying a "prime" lens such as the 50 mm f/1.8 (~$100), or 50 mm f/1.4 (~$350). There are many other primes that could also work (28 mm, 35 mm and 85 mm), but the 50 mm are very popular. These lenses have the advantage of being "fast" and sharp. This should allow for some great pictures in and around the house.

There are several ways to check out the lenses, of course, this website has reviews of all of the lenses mentioned above, but I also enjoyed thumbing through the "groups" for each lens on flickr. But, ultimately, I am like you and am just getting into dSLR photography. I amstill debating buying the 50 mm f/1.8 or the f/1.4 as my first "prime" lens to see how I like it. For the cost, and apparentlygreat optics, the f/1.8 seems hard to beat for a first prime lens.


Good luck.

Thanks again for all the advice. This definitely gives me a starting point and a few lenses to try, although I agree with Jan that I might need the image stabilization. I am completely unfamiliar with the camera world but have had tons of fun with this camera so far and am really excited to try a new lense to see what it (and I ) can do!