canon lenses

[DisneyPhanatic3]

I just recently purchased a canon ti1 and would like to purchase a telephoto lense. I was wondering if I should purchase the 55-250 IS lense or go for the 70-300 IS USM lense. Heading to Disney in another month and want to have a good lense when I am down there. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[saturndb]

It would help to know what other lens you own.

[DisneyPhanatic3]

I only have the lense that came with the camera 18-55.

[saturndb]

Well a quick look on the web and it looks like the 55-250 is about half the price of the 70-300 is, so i guess in this case for you money is not the factor. I have not used either lens, but it seems like both lens have about the same type of image quality. Both do a good job, but not great. Now the 55-250 will compliment the 18-55 kit lens you have. Adding that lens will give you a range of 18mm - 250mm. Also for the price savings of this lens you could pick up the Canon 50mm lens and add it to your collection.

hope this helps. Enjoy your new lens :thumbsup2

[ChiSoxKeith]

What kind of shots are you looking to take with the zoom? You could always rent the 100-400 from either www.lensrentals.com or www.borrowedlenses.com

I've got the non IS version of the 70-300, and it's a lot of fun but I wish I had the IS version.

That's what I plan on doing for our trip in December. I'm going to rent the 100-400 and possibly get a 50mm.

[Bstanley]

I haven't used either of the two that you mentioned however I purchased a 70-200 f4L telephoto (from Adorama (http://www.adorama.com)) for a trip to Europe earlier this year and I am now officially spoiled.

Very crisp, clear photos - fast focusing - reasonable bokeh and it is about as light as you can get in an 'L' lens. It would be nice to have the IS version, but I just couldn't talk myself into the money - next time maybe.

[-Hope-]

I recently purchased the 28-135 and I LOVE it. It doesn't have the zoom capability of the ones you mentioned but the versatility and quality make it a perfect 'walking around' lens. In addition to the great range it also has IS, wide angle, and macro capability. I don't even surf for other lenses because I love this one so much. (Well, at least until I can afford a beautiful red ring. ;) )

[saturndb]

Bstanley mentions a good lens that is about the same price as the 70-300. It does not have the 300mm reach, but it's image quality is a lot better. Also the they offer one with IS but that will cost a few hundred dollars more.

[bob100]

I just recently purchased a canon ti1 and would like to purchase a telephoto lense. I was wondering if I should purchase the 55-250 IS lense or go for the 70-300 IS USM lense. Heading to Disney in another month and want to have a good lense when I am down there. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

get the 55-250IS - excellent quality and only $199

[photo_chick]

I'd go with the best lens your budget allows. From what the original poster listed that would be the 70-300 IS. Though when you consider you can have L series glass for just a little more.... I'd go that way if I could.

No one has mentioned the 75-300 (runs under $200) and I'd steer clear of that one since the 55-250 is a better lens and in the same price range.

[DisneyPhanatic3]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will look into the different lenses.

[AlbertZeroK]

I would go with the 70-300 IS. It's a decent lens. I wouldn't worry about missing a lens between 55mm and 70mm. I shoot often with a 17-55mm IS f/2.8 and my 70-200 IS f/2.8 and I don't miss the 55-70 range at all.

The 70-300 doesn't come with a lens hood, you should think of picking one up, if for no other reason than to protect the lens.

[Bstanley]

So I'm trying to decide whether the next step in my upgrade journey should be a T2i or a 17-55mm f2.8 lens.

At this point I'm leaning toward adding the lens to my XS as probably the better choice - but I've noticed something unique about this lens - it's virtually impossible to find one used!

Apparently the 17-55mm f2.8 is the LAST thing a photographer lets go of - hmmm, or is it that no one ever buys one...

[spinetnglr]

I have the Nikon version of the 17-55mm 2.8 and love it!! Its by far my favorite lens that I have and wouldn't think of selling it. I found mine used on Craigslist and haven't seen one on there locally since I bought it over a year ago.

[Uncle Greg]

I shoot Nikon so I can't speak directly to that lens, but if budget is a concern you could check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

I shoot it in a Nikon mount and love it. They released a version with image stabilization as well.

[VVFF]

These come up all the time:

http://www.adorama.com/CA1755R.html

[disneyboy2003]

So I'm trying to decide whether the next step in my upgrade journey should be a T2i or a 17-55mm f2.8 lens.

At this point I'm leaning toward adding the lens to my XS as probably the better choice - but I've noticed something unique about this lens - it's virtually impossible to find one used!

Apparently the 17-55mm f2.8 is the LAST thing a photographer lets go of - hmmm, or is it that no one ever buys one...

I've got the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens, and I really love this lens.

It really is one of the most (if not, THE most) highly-rated EF-S lenses from Canon. So I doubt that no one's buying this lens or that no one likes this lens. If you don't believe me, check out these reviews:

B&H (link (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=425812&is=USA&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews)): 297 reviews, average rating 4.5 / 5 stars
fredmiranda.com (link (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=3)): 200 reviews, average rating 9.1 / 10
Amazon (link (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-Lens-Cameras/dp/B000EW8074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1284042941&sr=8-1)): 133 reviews, average 4.5 / 5 stars


It's really a worth-while lens, and it's probably no surprise that no one wants to let go of it used. Maybe the only way you'd find it used would be at an estate sale. A grim thought. :sad1:

[mom2rtk]

I decided earlier this year that I wanted one of the f/2.8 17-55 lenses.

The Tamron non-stabilized version is very well regarded. It is supposed to be really sharp. However, I wanted IS, and that's where it got all muddy. The general consensus was that when Tamron added the IS, it lost some of the sharpness it was known for. Having unsteady hands, and a habit of always wondering if the one I didn't buy would be better....... I decided to get the Canon IS version everyone raved about. I haven't looked back and have been extremely pleased with the sharp photos and beautiful bokeh.

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/mom2rtk/sunglasses.jpg

[Bstanley]

VVFF - thanks for the link, I hadn't noticed the refurbed version on Adorama, that'll save me $150 when the time comes to pull the trigger! :thumbsup2

Others - I've read the various reviews so I am convinced that it's an excellent lens. And since I've been absolutely ruined for all time with respect to trying to save money on glass ever since I bought my 70-200 f4 L there's no doubt that I'm going to buy the 17-55. In fact I plan to buy it even though it weighs in at almost a pound and a half. Getting f2.8 apparently takes about 3 times as much glass as f3.5-5.6.

[mom2rtk]

Getting f2.8 apparently takes about 3 times as much glass as f3.5-5.6.

Yeah.... I'm slowly getting used to heavier lenses too. But I have no desire to go back. :goodvibes

[AlbertZeroK]

The Canon version of this lens is AMAZING! The IS _WAS_ the best they ever came up with, until they released the new 70-200 IS f/2.8 Mark II. The IS capabilities of the 17-55 are now in the new lens and I'll say, having just upgraded from the old to the new 70-200 IS f/2.8 - it's AMAZING!

They say that IS is being put in the new 300mm IS f/2.8!!! It makes me druel, but I don't think I'll ever own a lens worth as much as a disney vacation.

[disneyboy2003]

...there's no doubt that I'm going to buy the 17-55. In fact I plan to buy it even though it weighs in at almost a pound and a half. Getting f2.8 apparently takes about 3 times as much glass as f3.5-5.6.

Well, because of the 17-55mm lens, my neck muscles are now very well developed. But the photos that come from this lens are well worth it.

[kelleyrn2000]

While on our Disney vacation this summer, by camera's auto focus stopped working (Rebel XT DSLR). I think ds dropped my camera. It works on MF, not on AF, unless you are on a certain setting. I am taking my camera in to the local camera shop next week to have them see if it's a lens issue for sure. If it is, then I want to get a better lens than the standard lens that came with the camera (18-55).

I want better zoom, but I have no idea what would be in my price range (under $250). Thanks for any suggestions!! Oh, and I would like to not have to switch lenses, so a lens with a good range would be great!

[photo_chick]

My money says it's a lens issue, mainly because the AF motor on Canon's is in the lens. I've had a few AF mortors die over the years, and you don't have to drop the camera for that to happen. Do you ever manually focus when the auto focus is on?

for under $250 you are fairly limited. I'd go used with that budget. Check out KEH.com

If you want more reach maybe look at a used 28-135 (good condition goes for around $250). You'd loose a little on the wide end there, but you get more reach and a higher quality lens than the 18-55 kit.

You could replace the 18-55 and add a 55-250 for under $300 used.

Or you could look at an older lens, like the 28-105, that goes for between $100 and $150 used.

[C&B Young]

I would take a look at your photos, and see what mm range you normally tend to shoot in. I picked up the 28-135 lens to use as a walkaround on our last Disney trip, and although it's a great lens I found that I really missed the room on the wide end. You might want to consider the 18-135mm lens if you don't shoot a lot of telephoto. The used price on the 18-135 has really come down within the last year, you can usually find it used online for $250-$300.

[kelleyrn2000]

Thanks, I will check those out. I don't do alot of telephoto, so the 18-135 (used) might be my best shot. Maybe I will put a new lens on my xmas list! I absolutely need more zoom for shooting sporting events for my kids than the 18-55.

[mom2rtk]

FWIW.. when I got my first lens that went down to 18 instead of 28, I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I love that extra room on the wide end, and nowhere more than at Disney. When you back up to use the 28, someone would always fill that space. And you can even get some shots of the kids in the ride car WITH you, or standing next to you in line.