• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Need a new camera lens. Suggestions?

Satchmo

Satchmo

Why do they call it a Power Ranger???
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
1,884
I have an old digital Rebel XS and the 18-55 lens that came with it had the autofocus crap out.  I'd like something with a little bit more reach for pictures at further distances.  The Best Buy guys told me the lens I had was a real basic, and I should look at a USM (Ultra Sonic Motor?) with glass lens instead of crystal.  It was a nice lens, but $500.  I am looking for some feedback from the throbbing brain that is CP.
 
So, here are my questions:
 
1.  Is image stabilization a must?  It drastically effects the price of the lens.
 
2.  What would be your choice for a walking around lens for $300?
 
3.  Will the average Joe (or below average Jason) notice the difference in picture quality between a basic lens and an USM?
 
Thank for the help.
 
Q
 
Some thoughts for you:
 
1.  Yes, IMHO, the image stabilization is a must have.  You will see a difference in your pictures.
2.  The USM offer quicker auto-focus.  Lots less noise too, if that's important.  To answer #4, it depends on what you're shooting.  Kids sports...maybe.  Is it a must have like the IS?  Probably not.
3.  Good glass is awesome but expensive.  A good place to put your money.
4.  Whopper got a nice lens.  Also take a peek at the Canon 75-300mm  or see if you can find a decent price for their 70-300mm.
5.  Pass on Best Buy for this purchase.  Go to a camera store and ask lots of questions.  See if they have a rental program and take the lens for a spin to see what YOU like best.
 
Image stabilization is a must for a lens with a long range. You will notice it if its not there. Get it! USM is nice and fast, but not totally necessary.
 
Second, since this is an old Rebel XS, dont worry about getting anything fancy or expensive. The age, size, and density of the sensor wont warrant a really nice piece of glass. It will make a nicer picture, but the increase in quality will be minute. It would be like putting high octance gas in a Civic. Good glass really matters when you start getting into Full Frame sensors with bigger, more sensitive, less dense photosites, ala Canon 1DS & 5D. They will reveal the tiniest flaw in any lens like nobody's business.
 
The lens whopper purchased was in consideration before this lens went out.  Thanks for the suggestion.
 
I would ultimately like to shoot further distances than the 18-55 gave me.  If I could get a bit better picture quality for a few dollars extra I would.  Features like the speed of autofocus and noise reduction were nice (I tested in the store), but not of value.
 
I was also concernced with benifits of spending $400-500 for a lens and putting it on the older frame.  I think I will stick with the basics for now.  I appreciate all the feedback.  It sounds like a basic/entry level lens with a big more range will suite our needs just fine.
 
Whatever lens you decide to purchase, be sure to check the pricing at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
 
That's where I get all of my camera stuff, and they always seem to have unbeatable prices. 
 
They do have excellent prices, and free shipping.  The main things I need to decide is if I need the image stabilizer.

Thank for the input guys!
 
Satchmo said:
I have an old digital Rebel XS and the 18-55 lens that came with it had the autofocus crap out.  I'd like something with a little bit more reach for pictures at further distances.  The Best Buy guys told me the lens I had was a real basic, and I should look at a USM (Ultra Sonic Motor?) with glass lens instead of crystal.  It was a nice lens, but $500.  I am looking for some feedback from the throbbing brain that is CP.
 
So, here are my questions:
 
1.  Is image stabilization a must?  It drastically effects the price of the lens.
 
2.  What would be your choice for a walking around lens for $300?
 
3.  Will the average Joe (or below average Jason) notice the difference in picture quality between a basic lens and an USM?
 
Thank for the help.
 
Q
Click to expand...
 
1. Yes. It is a def must without it the pictures have a high chance of being poor.
2. I would strongly suggest looking into the Sigma 17-70. It is one of the best lenses for its price point for e EF-S mount.
3. You will notice a difference in picture quality and the quality of pictures it can produce. A good lense might make an average pictures stand out. 
 
I would look at purchasing from Adorama.com. 
 
Highly rated customer service from the DSLR photog world.
 
1.  Unless you'll be shooting from a tripod or other kind of mount system, IS is a must.
 
2.  I think the only lens that you'll find around 300 is the same 18-55mm lens you started with unless you are willing to buy used (which is not a bad idea, many professionals that take good care of their lenses will move on to better things and will sell their unused lenses for cheap.  You can also check stores if they have a consignment/used inventory).  If I had a choice, I think the EF-S 18-135mm would fit your needs the most for the best pricing.
 
3.  The USM is nice but not necessary.
 
I really like their reviews here but I don't buy from them:
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
 
If you're still looking for a zoom lens and nothing too fancy, the EF-S lenses will be a little cheaper and works with your XS.
 
I know that your current camera body is not a full frame sensor, but investing in a good lens isn't necessarily a bad idea if you ever plan to move up.  For the most part, lenses are interchangeable.
 
Also, since your 18-55mm is busted, I'm assuming that you don't have another general purpose lens at the moment?  The 18-135 will span your old lens range and allow you to take further images.


Sorry, for question #2, I was assuming that you were going to stick with Canon lenses.  Disregard if you are open to other lens systems.
 
1.  Is image stabilization a must?  It drastically effects the price of the lens.
Click to expand...
I'll run counter to many recommendations and say that whether or not you need image stabilization depends on your skill level and the kind of shooting you do.  It's most useful at longer focal lengths and to some extent, slower shutter speeds.  If you're a wider angle, sunny scene shooter, you'll likely notice less benefit from it.  But it's available on so many lenses these days, I don't see much reason to avoid it unless you really, really need to shave cost.
 
2.  What would be your choice for a walking around lens for $300?
Click to expand...
 
If it were me and I was limited to a $300-ish lens, I'd pick the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.  No, it's not a zoom but it has very good glass for the price point (~$360), it's reasonably fast, and at wider apertures out-of-focus backgrounds melt into a very pleasing "bokeh". 
 
3.  Will the average Joe (or below average Jason) notice the difference in picture quality between a basic lens and an USM?
Click to expand...
 
As mentioned, USM doesn't directly affect image quality other than potentially affecting you ability to focus quickly and in some circumstances, more quietly.
 
I'll also buck another recommendation or two about investing glass.  I still shoot my old Canon 20D, which has the same sensor form factor (APS-C) but lower resolution than yours.  Most of my shooting is with the aforementioned 50mm and a 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM "luxury" lens.  Next on my wish list is the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM.  The camera is ancient by today's standards but it still benefits from higher quality glass even with the lower resolution. 
 
Speaking of high resolution, more modern sensors have driven the introduction of several L series Mk II lenses because higher sensor resolution has gotten to the point of revealing previously unnoticed optical defects...or so the perception and/or marketing schtick goes.  When I get around to buying a new lens, I'll be looking for a deal on a pre-Mk II lens.  You might be able to find a deal, too.  For instance, my 24-105mm is on Amazon for about $860.  I know it seriously busts you budget but IMO, it's a very good walk around lens.  If you can (or decide to) swing it, the price only stings for a little while!  :whistling:   Otherwise, I think you've received some good lens recommendations so far.
 
I have a Tamron 18-270mm lens for my walk around lens and love it. I have a nikon D3100 and just returned from Disney World a few weeks ago. I took over a thousand pictures with that lens and really enjoyed the results. I bought mine on amazon at the time because B&H were out of stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top