I have decided to purchase a rebel 2000 body, but I am undecided on which choice of lens will be best. I'm going to be taking nature photos along with some sporting pictures. Here are the lens I'm considering: Tamron 28-300 f3.5 Canon 28-80 f3.5-5.6 USM and Canon 75-300 f4.5-5.6 USM Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM and Canon 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM Sigma 28-300 f3.5-6.5 ASP What is my best value? What will create the best quality pictures. Any opinions will be helpful.

-- Ray Tamblyn (rct5@prodigy.net), January 09, 2002

Answers

Hi, Ray. You’ll get lots of opinions on this topic. Your choices cover every focal length from wide angle (28 mm) to telephoto (300 mm). At some point you should decide which is more important, especially if you are going to purchase only one lens initially.

As a rule, it’s tough to find a quality lens that will zoom from 28 to 300, no matter which company makes it. USM lenses from Canon focus quickly and quietly and are of good quality (the silence can be important in nature photography). A 100-300 lens stays in the telephoto range, so you would have difficulty shooting things that are close to you or spread wide.

If I had to choose from your list, I would get the Canon 28-80 f3.5- 5.6 USM. It will be a good general lens for all-around use. You could take pictures of lots of different things, and learn about the camera and your own tastes, etc. When you then want to purchase a serious lens for sports or nature (like a long telephoto with image stabilization), you’ll be able to make a better decision.

For me, the best quality comes from prime (non-zooming) lenses. Canon’s 50 mm 1.4 USM is, by any measure, a great lens in terms of sharpness, lack of flare, color rendition, etc. But it’s too short for nature photography.

If you’re only going to have one lens for a while, you should consider whether you want to use the camera for other things beside nature and sports. Thos applications can require very specific equipment that won’t be of much use in other arenas.

Good luck!

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 09, 2002.

It's hard to find a really bad lens for being made today, but of the lenses you list the Canon 28-105 USM is by far the best in image quality. The Canon 100-300 USM is uaually recommended as a good companion for it.

The 28-300 (and to a lesser extent all 28-200 lenses) all have quite a few optical compromises. They can take nice pictures and they are very handy, but you asked about the best quality pictures.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), January 09, 2002.

The Canon 28-105 don't ask questions it's the best of what you have listed.

Next the 75-300 it is the lesser of the evils you have listed.

The 28-300mm lenses are a great idea but lacking in optical quality. They would probably be ok if you only printed 4X6 sized prints. If you want the best quality without breaking the bank go for the two lenses. It's not as convenient as the one lens but you would have sharper images up to an 8X10 and if you are using a slow film maybe 11X14.

-- john (mr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), January 09, 2002.

28-105 and 100-300 USM is the best combo you've listed there. The above poster is wrong about the 75-300 being a lesser evil...the 100- 300 is sharper, faster AF, better built, FTM, etc....

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 09, 2002.

i just purchased a eos 7 w/ the 28-90 and in addition the 75-300. i have found the two lenses to do an outstanding job. the 28-90 does well in the landscape and as well in the portrait dept. the 75-300 has only been used, so far, to capture my son-in-law surfing, but let me tell you the programed sports mode, w/ the cont. autofocus, has given some wonderful results, i can't wait for my first wild-life shoot espeacially if the results are anything like the surfing! to choose 1 lens to do all three is asking alot. i don't know what your budget is for the lenses, but your looking at about 120.00 for the 28- 90 and a little less than 200.00 for the 75-300, this is all quality canon equipment. i say that because i've owned, for the last 15-20 yrs., an A-1 w/ 50mm 1.4 and an 80-210 fd and have not experienced any problems. you may have to decide which type of photography is most important to you now to make your decision. read the reports on the 28-300 and try to make an informed decision from that, but i can tell you that no matter what "they" say i don't know how one lense can perform as well as two, good luck.

-- richard smith (svorick@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

Isaac is right the beter lens would be the 100-300.

I was thinking that the IS version of the 75-300mm would help out with hand holding and be great if you were mostly printing 4X6 or a few 8X10s. It is a good basic and relativly inexpensive lens for smaller sized printing. Somehow {my mistake} the ending got left out of the sugestion. Usually my posts are long winded.

Another lens you might check out is the 28-135 IS. It is very good quality. It is costly {more expensive than the body} but... 1 Is good optically. 1.1 Allows you to crop when enlarging or print larger pictures. 2 Great range most times you might leave the longer lens at home. 3 Might satisfy your needs longer. Where as you might start with the 28-135. Figuer out what you want vs. what you need from your experiences. And check out other lenses or options that might suit you better. For example an L lens or possibly a fast fixed focal length and a teleconverter. 4 Good overlap of the 75-300 or even the 100-300 which provides allot less lens switching.

The 28-105 would serve the same. Just not to the same degree. With the 28-80 lens you are wasting your money and time. Most people try to dump them and find out they are worthless {$25.00 in trade at most stores} as soon as they start getting serious about photography.

Sorry about the incomplete post. Hope this helps.

-- john (mr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), January 10, 2002.

No offence meant in any way, but Richard is showing his amateur status. The 28-90 is typical of kit lenses, and its performance is not good. The 75-300 has a reputation as a reasonable performer, although not as good as the 100-300, which is a class up (with ring usm, better optics, better construction). The programmed modes are fine to begin with, but as soon as you want to start taking any kind of control, you'll venture into the proper modes, and you won't go back. You know better than the camera does.

The 28-135 is an interesting lens. It is a sort of intermediate step, with better optics, and a slightly more solid feel than the 28- 105 and 24-85, but not as much so as L series lenses.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

Hi

The best combination is 28-105 and 100-300. Out of this 28-105 gives you good quality pictures than 100-300. Do not go and get those kit- lenses like 28-80 or 28-90. I did the same and at last I had to trade it and get this combo. I also have a prime 50mm/1.8 which is a sharp lens and good for snapshots. It is cheap also, it just cost you about 80 US$. There is another good lens in this range 50mm/1.4 USM which is much more costlier than this. Go for it if you have budget.

Another suggestion that I have is about the camera body. You are going to get one of the cheapest Camera body available in the market now. Why? If money is not a problem for you then why dont you get a better camera body with some more features and of a good built. I suggest you to get one with multiple metering features like Matrix, Centerweighted, Spot etc. The camera body must let you select these metering modes by yourself. Rebel 2000 has all these except spot meter (the most important one). Instead of spot it has a partial meter which is not that accurate as spot meter. It will not let you select metering mode as you wish rather set it itself in different shooting modes. Spot metering may not be a requirement for you now as you are a beginner but later it will be. This too happened with me. I am now planning to change my Rebel with EOS3 because of many of such reasons. Go to Canon USA site and compare these cameras. EOS3 is costly but you have other cheaper options like Elan 7E or A2/A2E (A2E:Discontinued in US but available in gray market in different name EOS 5).

Good Luck

-- George Mathew (george_mathew2k@yahoo.com), January 10, 2002.

First of all, I'm not keen on after market lenses but, secondly, I would not consider a 28-200/300mm from any brand unless it's maybe the Canon 35-350mm which is too heavy, too expensive and still not quite sharp enough. Of the remaining lenses, the 28-105 and the 100- 300 would be my choices and, in fact, were my choices several years ago when I was moving out of Nikon manual focus to Canon EOS equipment.

If you want or need the IS feature, the 75-300 is available but it's not optically superior to the 100-300. Neither of these lenses have a great reputation for sharpness at the long end of the zoom range but they do okay and actually my 100-300 is pretty sharp at 300mm if I use a tripod and fine grain film. Another thought is the 100-300mm f/5.6L lens. It is a superbly sharp lens but it has a lot of features I don't like: push-pull zoom, rotating front lens element, no USM motor. It's being discontinued so it is realtively cheap right now. If you find you need the IS feature, check out the Canon EF 28-135mm IS. It's said by some sources to be optically superior to the 28-105mm. These are just alternatives.

I also have a Rebel 2000 and it's a good little camera for most subjects. It is not, however, my most used EOS body. For sporting events, the Rebel does not have a real motor drive and 1.5 fps is slower than I could cock and shoot my old Nikon F2's. You may need a real motor drive but if you do, the Rebel makes a nice second body. I wouldn't jump into the EOS 3 price level just yet.

Overall, the best value combined with the best quality would be the 28-105 and the 100-300. You can save the cost of the IS lenses by buying a good tripod if you don't already have one. You can pick up some better optics in the 100-300L lens at the cost of some good features in the lower priced model. Enjoy!

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 10, 2002.

Hi Ray, Given that we both have an interest in the same subjects to photograph, I feel that I can give some advice. I started using a Sigma 70-300 APO macro and a Canon 24-85 with my Eos 50e, both lenses gave fair results, but where the Canon had the edge on overall sharpness, the Sigma triumphed in it's macro ability (an often overlooked feature for nature photography) I have recently bought a 28-135 IS Canon and a 70-200 f/4.0L Canon on ebay for a lot less than retail prices. The difference these two lenses have made to my photography is simply night and day, contrast and sharpness are way better. Fast, silent focusing on the 70-200 is a major asset when trying to photograph deer and other easily spooked animals. At the end of the day if you are after fast focusing and sharp images I would avoid the Tamron and the Sigma, due to their wide zoom abilities......they are trying to be all things to all men and really end up being mediocre in most circumstances. The 100-300 Canon is by all respects a very good lens, but has limited lattitude when compared to the 75-300 Canon. the 28-105 Canon is also a very good lens, but have you considered the 24-85 Canon, I found that the extra width it gave was far more usefull than the extra 20mm the 28-105 gives at the top end. Choices, eh. Where would marketing men be if we never had them?? Regards, John

-- John MacTavish (john@lochnell.co.uk), January 12, 2002.

Well I won't go into detai, everyone else covered it all. I just wanted to register another vote for the 28-105 and 100-300 combo. That 28-105 is a damn fine lens.

-- Marcus (Citizensmith@lanset.com), January 14, 2002.

what's better, the 24-85 or 28-105?

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.

if you had to choose between the 100-300USM and the 70-300IS which one would you pick and why?

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.

I too would like to know what people think about the 24-85 vs. the 28- 105.

I'm brand new to the AF world. Since 1981 I have been a happy user of Minolta XG-M and X-700 cameras and various lenses. My favorite lens--which unfortunately was stolen--was a Tokina ATX 28-85.

Just last week I bought a used Canon EOS A2E in terrific shape (with a newly-repaired program dial!!), and a brand-new 75-300 III USM. I used it this weekend at a soccer tournament with spectacular results (though I still have a lot to learn about getting the camera to focus on what I want it to. I had the ECF turned off for the first part of the weekend, but later turned it back on and found it quite helpful and accurate).

I also bought a used Speedlight 430EZ. And that's what brings me to my question about which lens to get. The 430EZ's zoom goes out to 80mm. The 24-85 will only zoom 5mm beyond, but the 28-105 will zoom 25mm beyond. How does this affect my choice of my "main" lens between those two options?? (I'm in no position to afford any IS or L-Series lenses, so please don't suggest them. :-) )

Thanks in advance for your help. I've found these forums (fora?) to be enormously enlightening.

Gerry

-- Gerry B. (bthoven@earthlink.net), January 22, 2002.

"The 430EZ's zoom goes out to 80mm. The 24-85 will only zoom 5mm beyond, but the 28-105 will zoom 25mm beyond."

The fact that the zoom goes to 80mm doesn't prevent you from using longer lenses with it.

http://teladesign.com/photo/eos-flash/ index3.html#zoom

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), January 22, 2002.