[condor]

Try to stick to Canon (I assume you have a Canon body).

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by mail4ajo

I cant afford and my use do not require the L series which I know is quality glass.

If this was the case why did you go for dSLR? If you just wanted longer reach, there are many long zoom P&S cameras that can outperform most dSLRs with cheapo tele-zoom lenses. And they will be cheaper too.

One should switch to dSLR for achieving technical excellence. But after switching to dSLR, if you still want to buy cheap lenses, then you are defeating the purpose of switching to dSLR.

I know what you are thinking, you are thinking of the long reach the 70-300 can give, but when you find that it will give you bad images in most but the best condition, you will regret the decision.

Last year I had to choose between, 50-200mm Zuiko lens and 50-500mm Sigma (Bigma). Price was quite similar. I was thinking 50-500mm is VFM because I can get more reach for the money. Finally it took Rudra to show me the light, I went with the Zuiko 50-200mm, currently that is my best lens, I use it as much as my primary 14-54mm lens. Meanwhile I know people in PAAI who bought the bigma, but want to sell it since they don't know what to do with it.

I asked this question to another member recently, Do you want to shoot long range ordinary shots or excellent normal shots?

A dSLR system owner should spend 70% of their investment on lens and rest on body. The lens will stay much longer with you than the body. Don't go cheap on the lens. You can take great shots even with a cheap dSLR body, but you can't do the same with cheap lenses.

Actually borrow a L lens for a day, try it out, then think whether you want cheapo lens.

[Hellcat]

Some Good Lens if you are on a budget.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro II
Tamron AF55-200mm f4-5.6 Di II Macro LD

Personally I would recomend you to go for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM, its one of Canon's lowest priced "L" series lenses. Optically excellent, probably as good as the 70-200/2.8. A stop slower of course. And Accepts both the EF 1.4x TC and 2x TC.


Cheers
Hellcat.

[tsk1979]

Samurai, You can get good shots from non L lenses. Shots which would not have been possible with a P&S.
On the 70-300 front, there are 2 lenses which you can go for
1. Sigma 70-300
2. Canon 70-300

go for the former as it has macro also. 70-200L with 1.4x TC is also good buy you will loose a stop with the TC. No big deal since the 70-300 are F5.6 at the long end.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Samurai, You can get good shots from non L lenses. Shots which would not have been possible with a P&S.

Sure, under best of conditions and in certain F stops. I wrote a long post because he said he doesn't want quality glass.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

70-200L with 1.4x TC is also good buy you will loose a stop with the TC.

Are you sure? Never heard of a TC that doesn't rob a stop.

mail4ajo, spend couple of hours with Krishna, he's got good quality glass. Then you will rethink whether you don't want quality glass.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Are you sure? Never heard of a TC that doesn't rob a stop.
.

Yes if you lens is F4, and you put a TC 1.4x you can go down to F5.6 atmost(1 stop loss).
If you TC is 2x then your maximum aperture will decrease a step more (F6.3 I think)

[praJEEP]

I am planning to buy a digital camera, my budget max 24k can strech more that, experts please do advice..

my options

canon powershot S51S,

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Yes if you lens is F4, and you put a TC 1.4x you can go down to F5.6 atmost(1 stop loss).

Oops, I misread your post. I thought you said without loss of a stop, my mistake.

mail4ajo, it is better to have 1 good lens instead of 3 ordinary lenses. That's all I gotta say.

[kvish]

Canon makes amazing high end lenses, but their aam-aadmi offerings are below par to some of the lenses being offered by Sigma and tamron. Sigma and tamron are cheaper too. Check out both before taking a decision. I am also in the lookout for a tele, since sigma has launched two new lenses (50-150 and 70-200) I think I'll wait.

[tsk1979]

Agree with you kvish, but before buying any sigma or tamron, check for focus accuracy. The entry level SLRs(esp the 350D) is notorios for throwing up focusing issues.
So try before you buy

If I use the 50mm at F1.8, about 20-30% of my shots come OOF.
And thats a canon lens. Looking at web forums, this is a problem with the XT, and most people shoot at F2.8.
With Sigma and Tamron telephoto offerings, you may miss focus quite often for some samples.
So try the lens, if it focuses, buy it.

[mail4ajo]

Thanks for the comments especially from Samurai. Was an eyeopener. I was under the impression that L series are used only by proffessionals for very high quality results and hence said that I dont require it.

I spoke to a few proffesionals in my native and they echoed the same comments on the 300mm lenses. What I am going to do now is to either rent or borrow a L series and a 300mm one for comparision.

I have also heard that the Canon 70-300mm IS USM gives good results and is considered a "hidden L lens". Its priced almost equal to the entry level 70-200mm L series. I think the IS and the extra 100mm is value for money.

[guyonblackybx]

Originally Posted by mail4ajo

What I am going to do now is to either rent or borrow a L series and a 300mm one for comparision.

I would love to do that too where in Hyd can I get to rent lens like these I have Sigma 70-300mm and not happy with the quality of pictures that I get with it. I can't afford a high end IS lens. Any one around here who knows a place to rent lens?

[mail4ajo]

Originally Posted by guyonblackybx

Any one around here who knows a place to rent lens?

I am trying to check in Chennai. The only place I know is in Bangalore, Jaya Nagar, Singh Studio. Charges 500Rs per day for 70-200mm L series.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by mail4ajo

Thanks for the comments especially from Samurai. Was an eyeopener. I was under the impression that L series are used only by proffessionals for very high quality results and hence said that I dont require it.

You are welcome and thanks for taking it in the right spirit. People often take offense when they are told the hard truth, but such a jolt is required to force a change in thought. Although I have owned SLRs since 1989, I wasn't a serious photographer until 2005. It took a Team-BHPian (who is missing on the forum for a year now) to tell me I didn't know jack about photography. I really needed that slap in the face to start thinking freshly about my photography.

[navin]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Last year I had to choose between, 50-200mm Zuiko lens and 50-500mm Sigma (Bigma).
A dSLR system owner should spend 70% of their investment on lens.

So a $1700 E3 body should warrant about $4000 in lenses? I figured $2500 for a 12-60 adn 50-200 SED glass would be enough! :-) just kidding Samu.

Seriously, I also feel that a greater portion of your busget should be the lenses. For a simple-starter "body+2 zoom" solution about 40% on the body and 60% on the lenses. Of that 60% I would spend more on the lens you will use most.

There are a few non L canon lenses that are pretty good. The 17-55/2.8 and 70-300/IS are 2 that come to mind although the later is slow (best used after f/8).

Originally Posted by tsk1979

70-200L with 1.4x TC is also good buy you will loose a stop with the TC. No big deal since the 70-300 are F5.6 at the long end.

I am not sure if a canon will AF with a 1.4 TC and a 70-300/IS. The 70-300 is a bit soft at 200-300/5.6 you will need to stop it to f/11 to get adequate sharpness, adding a TC will make it slower still (so you will need bright sunlight).