dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
146

suntken34
'twas an inside job
Premium Member
join:2002-09-02
Sheffield, IA

suntken34

Premium Member

[Tech] 300D and EF 55-200mm II USM

Has anybody used this combo? Well I bought the Canon EF 55-200mm II USM after I read Rick Sammon talking about at the "Canon Digital Learning Center" »www.photoworkshop.com/ca ··· dex.html
Anyway, I like to take outdoor shots and want to be able to get some good action shots at sporting events and I don't know if this is what I should have. I'm also getting into doing landscape photography. As you can probably tell, I am pretty new to this stuff. I actually just bought an EF 75-300 III USM with the plans of selling the 55-200 but I'm not sure what to do. I've read some mixed reviews about the 75-300 and now I'm stuck. So far, I've gone by the money-saving method, but as I've read from the plethora of posts regarding lenses, it might be more important to spend the extra money on a good lense. Any insight would be appreciated . I realize I must sound like an idiot. Heh

jester121
Premium Member
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

1 recommendation

jester121

Premium Member

Re: 300D and EF 55-200mm II USM

Lots of folks argue that you should spend lots of time researching, decide on focal lengths, then go buy the best lens on the market. For people that have been avid photogs for a long time, I guess I'd agree with that. If you're going to end up spending the money anyhow, save up and spend it once and you'll be ahead in the long run.

Let's face it - most people, even those who own dSLRs, don't spend a bunch of time on the internet talking about their hobby. They're out using their cameras instead.

In my case, I did some research, but due to budgetary constraints I went ahead and bought the Sigma 70-300 APO shortly after I bought the 300D. It was less than $200 shipped, and it gave me the flexibility to shoot a LOT more photos than I would have if I'd saved up for the 100-400 L IS. Now that my budget is much better, I'll sell the Sigma when i buy the L glass, and probably get 1/2 my money back -- not bad, being able to "rent" a lens for 9 months for $100. Along the way, of course, I've taken well over 3000 shots, the majority of which used the 70-300.

Using a variety of cheap gear also taught me a lot about what I do as a photographer, and therefore how I should invest my resources in the future. For example, I've found that the 18-55 kit lens is plenty wide and sharp enough for everything I ever shoot, so I don't need to waste time with a 17-40 L lens. Also, I do a fair amount of lower-light or flash restricted shooting, so a 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be a must for me down the road. I learned that years of abusing caffeine, combined with a genetic disposition, leaves my hands a bit shaky so IS technology is a must for longer focal lengths.

Finally, I'll point out that once you get closer to the $1,000 price level, it's very easy to get 80% or more back out of your lens purchase price when it comes time to pull the trigger on the upgrade. If you ever need to, that is.

suntken34
'twas an inside job
Premium Member
join:2002-09-02
Sheffield, IA

1 recommendation

suntken34

Premium Member

said by jester121:
Now that my budget is much better, I'll sell the Sigma when i buy the L glass, and probably get 1/2 my money back -- not bad, being able to "rent" a lens for 9 months for $100. Along the way, of course, I've taken well over 3000 shots, the majority of which used the 70-300.
That's a good point. I think I'll keep the 75-300 and use it as a "learning" lens for now. I like the fact that it has the same diameter as the 18-55 (58mm). I'm going to sell the 55-200.