OK guys, here's the key. Start smoking. Then quit and show your wife how much money you're saving on not smoking. In my case a pack of cigarettes costs $9.75 so that's close to $300 per month. So when her eyes pop out when you tell her you paid $$750 (canadian) for a lens, you tell her that it's less than 3 months of smoking. The key is to not let her do the math: "hey, you bought $10,000 worth of equipment, so that's 2 1/2 years, but you've only quit for 2 weeks". lol. kidding. My wife loves me, that's why she lets me get outrageous toys.
what was wrong with the 75-300?? and why are yo getting rid of it? I know partly to get some money back to help pay for the new gem you got. but are there other reasons
me.. I have a jar that is collecting pocket change for the purchase of a new lens, not sur which one yet, but when I have enough saved up im getting something
Absolutely nothing wrong with it. The 75-300mm IS is a great lens. The 70-200mm has faster focusing and tends to be sharper from end to end. It will also attract more attention (not a positive), so it's a good think I live in a small town. I also need to get a 1.4x converter to get the same reach I had with the 75-300mm. I'd recommend both lenses.
Originally posted by jab119:
what was wrong with the 75-300?? and why are yo getting rid of it? I know partly to get some money back to help pay for the new gem you got. but are there other reasons
me.. I have a jar that is collecting pocket change for the purchase of a new lens, not sur which one yet, but when I have enough saved up im getting something
You really should buy the kit lens. It's the biggest bang for your yuck you'll ever get ($100). At worst, buy it for a wide angle lens. Better pay $100 for the kit lens than $500 for a decent wide angle lens. Get the stock lens and a 75-300mm, then save up for a macro lens, approx. $400.
Originally posted by orussell:
I'm considering buying a Rebel in the next couple of months. If I buy body only, as opposed to the kit, what's a good "all round lens" to look for?
Thas exactly the course i am following, but keep in mind lighting when looking at macro lenses...
although i didnt go for the IS version i got the 75-300mm III f4-f:5.6 as i have a steady hand, and have had good results full zoom down to about 1/100 shutter ( also over the sigma - the canon takes the same size filters as the kit lense) . although they say 1/300th is minimum for hendheld at full zoom as a rule - shutter no slower than the focal length of the lens for a given shot. so at 100mm you shouldnt shoot less than 1/100th...
this is from thursday - handheld full zoom - 1/250th
as a comparison and to give you distance scale this is the kit lense full zoom from the same vantage point.
Originally posted by Jacko:
You really should buy the kit lens. It's the biggest bang for your yuck you'll ever get ($100). At worst, buy it for a wide angle lens. Better pay $100 for the kit lens than $500 for a decent wide angle lens. Get the stock lens and a 75-300mm, then save up for a macro lens, approx. $400.
Thanx for the advice. I also hear the stock lens has less cropping because the way it's designed, it is closer to the CMOS. Apparently it only fits the Rebel.
its the sensor size itself, from what i know that gives the crop factor... the rebel/300d is a 1.6x crop factor - no matter what lense is on it. my thinking on the EFS mount is the ability ot mount a longer focal lense in a shorter profile - to balance the weight of the camera and large lenses better. closer to the sensor might also help with lense distortion issues -w cheaper glass???
the focus ring on the kit lense kind of sucks, and its touchy... but useable, no doubt ( and if you auto focus its not really an issue). just too close to the end, and too narrow fro my taste maybe. well worth the $100...
