I've spent countless hours reading forums, reviews (photographyreview.com) and finding best pricing on lenses that I'm wanting to acquire.

I've got a new Canon Rebel 2000 w/ a 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 standard lens. Obviously I need a zoom lens to go with it. I'm VERY tempted to just go and buy a 28-200mm by either Canon or Sigma... I can get a Sigma for $175 new, and a Canon for $350 new. Canon's twice the price, but from reviews I've read - Canon doesn't have annoying zoom creep, as well as loss of sharpness on the long end (unlike Sigma), and it also has USM.

I don't know if I'd feel good buying a $350 lens for a $150 camera, and having to sell my original standard lens.. so I've also considered just buying an addition to the standard, like an 80-200mm Canon for $100, or a 75-300 Canon for $150.

I've been trying to figure out how much it will annoy me to have to take off the 28-80 and put on a 80-200 or 75-300 everytime I want to zoom into a subject.. especially considering that I'm going to Europe for the New Year's. People say the 28-200 is a great lens for traveling. Hmmm...

And with Sigma, if I was to get a 28-200, I might as well get a 28-300 for an extra $50. Then I've read that the full 300mm zoom on a Sigma is really about 220mm on a 75-300 Canon lens. WTF? Will it be the same on a 28-200 Canon Lens too?

So I guess my choices are:

Canon:

$100 for 80-200mm [Good reviews, hassle to switch for composition?] $150 for 75-300mm [Same as above, heard it's bad for indoors] $350 for 28-200mm [Very good reviews, multipurpose range]

Sigma:

$175 for 28-200mm [Fairly good quality, softness at 175mm+, zoom creep] $225 for 28-300mm [Softness at 200mm+, zoom creep]

Arg. What makes this all the more difficult is I'd like to have this by the end of the week, which means I should order either today or tomorrow, since XMas is coming and it may be too late for the trip if I don't order soon.

Please help? I appreciate you fellas taking the time to read..

-- Romy M (slay@usa.com), December 17, 2001

Answers

Optically, two lenses (28-80 + 80-200/75-300) will thrash any 28-200 or even more so any 28-300. I had a Canon 80-200 USM for a few years, and it was a reasonable lens, and fits well with the kit you have, and is very lightweight and compact. Also, it is rated quite well on photodo. However, probably the best option in order to stave off an upgrade is to go for the 75-300, which is better built, and gives a longer reach, and the quality isn't too bad. I personally would stick with Canon lenses. I replaced my Canon 80-200 with a Sigma 70-300, which I've subsequently replaced with a Canon 70-200 F4L and a 300 F4L IS, but that's a LOT more money. Certainly I got some good pics with the sigma, but I was never quite happy with it. If you can afford it, I recommend you go for a Canon 100-300 USM, as it's a class up from all the other mentioned lenses, with ring-USM and Full-Time Manual. Optically very nice as well.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), December 17, 2001.

if you want an all around travel lens go for the 28-135IS for about $450. the 135mm focal length is very close to that of 200mm. it also features the image stabilization option, which will let you shoot without a tripod (especially useful on vacations). don't worry about the diverse prices of the body and lens. the body is just a box to keep film in while it is your lens that does the work. good luck!

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 17, 2001.

Do you definitely need to be out at 2 or 3 hundred millimeters? If not, sell the 28-80 get the Canon 28-105!

-- peter bg (pbartzgallag@macalester.edu), December 17, 2001.

As suggested above, I would think twice about the need for a long telephoto. About the Sigma zooms: I used a Sigma 28-300 (effectively 29-286) exclusively on my EOS 3 for most of a year. The versatility was great, and it is very compact for its range. Then I tried my first Canon lens, the 50 1.4 EF USM, and never went back. The difference in quality was astounding. Of course the optical quality of a prime will generally beat a zoom anyway, but I would still recomment a Canon lens for the better glass - like the 28-135 IS, or 28-105.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), December 18, 2001.

Thanks for the help guys, I appreciate it.

I'm going to look into the 28-105/135 and if those don't fit my style or are too expensive, I'll probably go with an 80-200 or 75-300.

Can you guys recommend some good sites for used/new photo equipment? Maybe somewhere I can get rid of my 28-80 if I need to? I could always do ebay, I suppose.

Thanks again. Romy.

-- Romy M (slay@usa.com), December 18, 2001.

B&H has very good customer service in my experience. They buy and sell used gear. www.bhphotovideo.com

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), December 18, 2001.

I use a 28-105 and a 75-300 (and a 50) and they are a good combo. The 28-105 is a really great lens.

The 28-80 is a pretty crappy lens as they go so you'll want to swap it for something.

-- Marcus (Citizensmith@lanset.com), December 19, 2001.

don't get the 80-200! it is as much of a piece of crap as the 28-80!

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

If you wont excellent glass at an affordable price then I'd certainly look at the EOS 100-100 F5.6L Its an absolute bargain at the moment at B&H and as with most "L" glass, offers quality far superior to its competition.

The downside of course is slightly noisy focus, and rotating front element but if its for occasional use Its easy enough to live with.

Personally I've gone with the 70-200F4 which I picked up on e-bay for $425 with delivery. If you can stretch that far then it would be my number one recomendation over anything.

-- tony (tony@army.com), December 21, 2001.

Actually, the 80-200 isn't at all bad, optically. I had one for a few years (the now-defunct USM version), and never had much reason to complain about it (especially compared to my 35-80 USM, which was a truly dreadful lens). Sure, my Sigma 70-300 APO was sharper, and both lenses are completely blown away by my 70-200 F4L, but the 80- 200 is a fine lens for the money.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), December 24, 2001.