DSLR lens help

[Dead...Again]

I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 with the standard 18-55mm lens. I would like to get a new lens with more zoom capability. For you guys out there with SLRs and SLR experience, what would you recommend for a second lens? Should I get an 18-200mm lens to just replace the one I have, should I go with a 75-300mm to give more zoom? I would prefer to spend no more than $200, but I can go over that if need be. I saw this on buydig that looks like a good deal.

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.a...mid=200&ref=cj

[Qicmee]

When I was using an SLR, I tried to avoid changing the lens due to letting dust into the body. So, for myself, I'd choose this Tamron lens. Switching from the max. of 55mm to 200mm would be a huge change anyway. I assume your current lens might be a bit better for low light than this Tamron.

You already read the reviews?
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-18-2...owViewpoints=1

Have fun!

[Fenris]

Definitely a good deal. Glass is expensive. I haven't even bought a new lens since getting my camera four years ago. I'd love to be able to get something with a bigger zoom, but I can't rationalize the cost. Under $200 is a steal, and if you want it, go for it. I can't speak for the quality of the manufacturer though. If it's got good reviews, get it.

[BigTwinky]

Just remember that with zooms that have a wide focal range, you get the jack of all trades, master of none thing. It is great for practicality, but the image quality won't be as good. Compared to getting say a fixed 135mm prime lens, where the image quality is awesome, but it's not so versatile.

I had a few Tamron lenses and one Sigma lens and the one irk i have is the slow autofocus. Granted, if you are shooting in the day, not an issue. But I shoot shows in low light, so major issue.

Canon makes a decent 55-250mm lens. It's an entry level kit lens (so same quality as your 18-55) and is usually sold in kits with the rebel line cameras. I'd probably opt for that over the Tamron or any 18-200 lens, but that's me. I shot with a friend's 55-250 a few years ago and was pretty impressed for the lens that it is.

A bit more expensive is the 70-300, but now you are in the $650 range. I had this lens for a while and loved it. It's a middle line lens. Not pro, but not entry level either. It replaced the 75-300 which honestly is pretty crap.

So for around $200, I'd recommend 55-250 over the other ones listed.

Glass is by FAR the most important component for image quality, focus speed and so on. I'd so rather have a cheap camera and good glass, than a pro line camera with cheap glass.

[Slaughter]

Great topic and replies. I also have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 with the standard 18-55 lens and have been wondering about other options.

[Dead...Again]

Thanks guys. I think I will follow Twink's advice and go with a Canon 55 - 250.

[Dead...Again]

OK, I am confused, what is the advantage of going with these:
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras - $299
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras - $649
Over:
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - $199

[Slaughter]

This is an old review of the 55-250, from 2008, but also mentions other Canon lenses. I don't know enough of the differences yet to determine why one would be picked over another, though the 55-250 might be what I go with based on this review.

[Devilguns]

Maybe I can help a little. I used to be into photography back in the day and just got back into it as a hobby about a year and a half ago. I've purchased just about every entry level lens from 99$ to $550.00 I have to agree with Big Twinky, for your budget the 55-250 would be the way to go.



And to help you with your question the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - $199 Has no image stabilization. Shooting at the higher focal lengths you are going to need a tripod. I have this lens and have taken some cool shots of the moon with it. I tend not to use it that much due to the lack of image stabilization, it makes a difference.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras - $649, now I don't own this one but USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor. It's a faster focusing lens and at the price will offer better quality.

Finally the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras - $299. I have this one, it has image stabilization and focuses pretty quick. You can take some decent portraits with it.

My 2 cents, out of all the ones I bought my favorites have been the Sigma 17-70mm first version about $350. And the Canon 18-135mm second version $549. What I like about these lenses are the front elements are pretty big and let in a lot of light. And photos come out very sharp. Most of the time 135mm is all the zoom I need. It really depends on what you will be shooting.

[Dead...Again]

Ordered the Canon 55-250 off Rakuten for $140.

[JohnyRico]

Maybe I can help a little. I used to be into photography back in the day and just got back into it as a hobby about a year and a half ago. I've purchased just about every entry level lens from 99$ to $550.00 I have to agree with Big Twinky, for your budget the 55-250 would be the way to go.



And to help you with your question the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - $199 Has no image stabilization. Shooting at the higher focal lengths you are going to need a tripod. I have this lens and have taken some cool shots of the moon with it. I tend not to use it that much due to the lack of image stabilization, it makes a difference.

The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras - $649, now I don't own this one but USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor. It's a faster focusing lens and at the price will offer better quality.

Finally the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras - $299. I have this one, it has image stabilization and focuses pretty quick. You can take some decent portraits with it.

My 2 cents, out of all the ones I bought my favorites have been the Sigma 17-70mm first version about $350. And the Canon 18-135mm second version $549. What I like about these lenses are the front elements are pretty big and let in a lot of light. And photos come out very sharp. Most of the time 135mm is all the zoom I need. It really depends on what you will be shooting.

From now on when I see the Hellboy avatar I am going to think "Little Mermaid collectors plate".

[Devilguns]

From now on when I see the Hellboy avatar I am going to think "Little Mermaid collectors plate".

Lol my wife and I have two different ideas when it comes to entertainment. She's hard core Disney, my toaster even burns Mickey Mouse on my toast and plays "It's a small world" when it done

@Dead Again, that's a real good price!

[goldenfooler]

Lol my wife and I have two different ideas when it comes to entertainment. She's hard core Disney, my toaster even burns Mickey Mouse on my toast and plays "It's a small world" when it done

@Dead Again, that's a real good price!

At least it is easy to get her a gift.

[flipkid]

I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 with the standard 18-55mm lens. I would like to get a new lens with more zoom capability. For you guys out there with SLRs and SLR experience, what would you recommend for a second lens? Should I get an 18-200mm lens to just replace the one I have, should I go with a 75-300mm to give more zoom? I would prefer to spend no more than $200, but I can go over that if need be. I saw this on buydig that looks like a good deal.

http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.a...mid=200&ref=cj

I've been shooting for about 6 years now with Nikon. When I first started shooting I tried to go your route and get a lens that was versatile in terms of wide angle and zoom.

If I were you, I'd save up for a lens with a bigger aperture. Now I only get lenses that are f/2.8 or better (f/1.8 or f/1.4).

It's going to cost you a little more, but in the long run you'll be happier with your lens and your shots.

+ flipkid