I have had my 300D for a while now and it is brilliant.

Kit Lens is ok'ish ... I have the superb Canon 70-200 L Lens and the pictures from that are simply mind-blowing.

So, today I thought I would take a look at what Lens could fill the lower gap (under 70) .... Jessops have a 24-70 L Canon Lens in for £970.

The 70-200 L Lens is one of the best things I have spent money on - would I think the same if I spent £970 on the other Lens?? It's not in that sexy grey colour either which is a disappointment :(

Any good?

Anything as good and cheaper?

Picture quality is more important than price .... after all a camera does one thing, take pictures, so that is all important clearly.

Pete

Can be had for a lot less (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/) than that

I have the 24-70 f/2.8L, it's a superb piece of kit - very well built and tack sharp.

You might find it a bit uncomfortable to use, though. It's a very heavy piece of kit and will feel strange on a body as light as your 300D. Make sure you take your camera along and try it out.

I use it on my 1D, which is also really heavy, and that combination is really nicely balanced. It all depends what you're after - I need the speed more than lightness and convenience, so the combination suits me well.

24-105 IS L :thumb: I got mine for £620 off Ebay, brand new :)

Sadly that lens wasn't available when I bought my 24-70 - though I've found f/2.8 more useful than I expected.

Maybe I should have both? (Wallet runs screaming for cover... :D )

EF-S 17-55 IS f2.8! (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=3)

Brilliant lens :)

Thanks for all the comments - the 24-105 IS L looks interesting at around £600!

f4 should be sufficient on such a wide lens?

It is a L Lens so will be cracking I guess?

Pete

Pete, go for the 24-105. it's a cracking lens - I replaced a 28-70mm f2.8L with it rather than the obvious 24-70 f2.8L. You won't miss the 1 stop difference especially with the IS

Gareth

I've got the 24-105 f4 and agree that it's a cracking lens. ;)

I still think you'd be better off with the 17-55 f2.8 on a 1.6 crop body, unless you are planning to get something wider to complement the 24-105, such as a 10-22 or even a 17-40. :)

I have been offered a Canon 35-70mm USM F3.5 secondhand ..... worth getting or stupid if I want L quality??

Pete

I think that would be the latter Pete ;) would be next to useless on your 300D, you will need a bit wider than that.

Thanks .... I cannot find any review on that Lens (the 35-70)

Looks like I need to get the 24-105 IS L USM to me??

Pete

You won't go far wrong with that, it's not super wide (38-168 equiv.) but it's a versatile and quality peice of kit :)

As Daryl said ^^^ stick the 17-40 L or the EF-S 10-22 on your wish list if you need a bit wider ;)

I have just ordered a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II Asp SP AF Lens for just shy of £300. Reviews rate it very well against some Canon L lenses and it has just won an EISA award - Winner for "Best Consumer Lens 2006-2007". There are a fair amount of reviews around such as this:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html

and this:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF17-50mm-Aspherical-Canon-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/sr=8-3/qid=1159338335/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-8984627-5364743?ie=UTF8&s=photo

I have the F4 70-200L also and was in the same quandry as you. I'll let you know!

The person with the Lens for sale got it wrong .....

It's actually a Canon EF 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM ...... does that change things?

How much is it worth 2nd hand and will it work on my 300D?

Is it any good?

Thanks all

Pete

Not sure if this is the latest model of that, but it doesn't look good.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=8&sort=8&cat=27&page=2

Thanks for that CW - that is the mark II ..... I think they went up to Mark IV

Not sure which Mark is best, if it's even worth case space .....

There is one which has a metal mount and looks better built?? Am I wrong??

Pete

Am I wrong??



Usually... ;)

Pete,

The 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM does not compare to any L series lens. The 24-to is around £1000 and the 28-80 around £100 lens. They simply are not the same, quality, colours, weight, purpose etc.

The Tamron AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di does get some very good reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=187&sort=7&cat=43&page=1 although I've not used one.

I think you need to decide what your budget is and then its a bit easier to narrow the list down.

The Sigma 24-70 EX 2.8 also gets good reviews considering the price.

Darren

Pete, I know you've got a hole burning in your pocket after the plasma TV let-down, but I'm not sure you're going about this the right way. Quality is important obviously, but the first question for most people is focal length range. Personally, any lens longer than 20mm on a 300D would be useless for me, and most others, as a general purpose walkabout lens. I have the Canon 17-85mm IS and use it for most of my pictures (I also have six other lenses to choose from, ranging from 10mm to 300mm plus macro).

Unless you have good reasons for being different, the 18-50mm-ish range is most useful. Do you have the kit lens 18-55mm? Do you use it? Check the EXIF data to see which focal lengths you use most with that.

If I was in your shoes, I would be looking at the 17-85mm lens that I already have, or the new 17-55mm f/2.8. If that lens was available when I was buying, I'd have had it in a heartbeat. It might not be an 'L' lens, but no EF-S glass is. Having said that, numerous respected sources say this is one of the sharpest lenses Canon has ever made. It is also exceptional in other aspects of optical performance, and the price reflects this. If you want to go wider still, Canon's 10-22mm is also a belter.

Another good combo would be the newish Canon 24-105mm IS which is also very highly regarded and would also sit nicely with a 10-22mm and your 70-200mm. I'm tempted by that lens also, but I shoot so many pictures around 20-24mm (on 350D and 20D) that I'd be forever changing lenses, which I find to be a real chore if dust is to be avoided, and then you've missed the damn pic! I now use two bodies when pretending to be taking photos seriously (I'm in the Old City of Jerusalem as I write) and life is much easier.

Which brings up the subject of cameras. If you have a few quid spare, I would look at a 20D, 30D or the new 400D as a worthwhile leg-up from your 300D, with or without battery grip. They're worth it for the fast start-up time, if nothing else.

Finally, if you're keen on image quality, and who isn't, are you any good with Photoshop? I am useless, but for those that know how to tweak a colour curve, get those levels just right and add the right amount of sharpening, it makes a heck of a difference. A few pounds on, say, Photoshop Elements (60 quid) plus some skill can really make your images sparkle, at least as much as any trick glass. I've given up on messing about trying to self-learn and have signed up for evening classes in the New Year. STi-Frenchie had better watch out :D

Best regards,

Richard.

Cheers for that ..... I have just been looking at the Canon 17-40mm L Lens for £430 - I am seriously tempted at that price!!

The 17-55mm you mention is interesting, but I do like L Glass, I'll have a look see :thumb:

Thanks again for the help :D

Pete

You're welcome :) All I would add is that the 17-40mm is an EF lens designed to cover full-frame 35mm format. It works fine on the smaller APS-C formats like your 300D, and is obviously essential if you ever plan to go full-frame.

But if you don't, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is sharper, faster, has a usefully greater focal length range, plus IS. Like for like, EF-S wide-angles are easier to design than EF, hence the advantages (it makes no odds with telephotos).

You can always buy a roll of red pin-stripe tape to fool the impressionable, but I know you're above that kind of thing :lol1:

Richard.

Hmmmm, just read some reports on the EF-S 17-55mm ..... they say its sharp, but it's expensive and doesn't quite reach the 'L' Build Quality.

It also does not come with a pouch and hood!

Red Tape?? Hmmmm don't know actually - the feeling of holding my 70-200 Grey 'L' Lens is fantastic ..... it feels quality, it looks quality and it produces the best sharpest images possible :thumb:

And people look at you like you know what you are doing! :D

Pete

Also if you buy an EF-S lens, you're restricted to which bodies you can use, so it somewhat depends on your future upgrade plans.

Also if you don't buy an L, you'll always wish you had......

Cheers for that ..... I have just been looking at the Canon 17-40mm L Lens for £430 - I am seriously tempted at that price!!


That was the first L glass I bought :thumb: Great for landscape pics

I think 'L' glass is really the way to go, to stop short is selling yourself short in my opinion ...... the extra money they cost is forgotten soon afterwards, but the images last a lifetime.

'L' lenses always command a decent secondhand price too, which is a nice bonus if ever needed to sell.

Pete

You sound like you have made your mind up...........but I did say I would let you know...... This was purely two quick snapshots on P setting of roughly the same subject handheld with very flat light. Applied an equal amount of USM in PS but nothing else at all....not at all scientific.

1st with Tamron AF 17-50 2.8

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/bilposter/IMG_2769_1.jpg


2nd with Canon 70-200 f4L

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y229/bilposter/IMG_2765_1.jpg


I'm chuffed ;)

I have the 2nd Lens .. the Tamron looks impressive however!

£295 is tempting ..... but .....

Pete

I have the 2nd Lens ..

I know that Pete which is why I thought you might like a comparison ;)

I know that Pete which is why I thought you might like a comparison ;)

Yes, sorry ..... I usually lurk in NSR and you are a touch more intelligent in here, I forgot ;) :D

Thanks very much for doing that

Pete