EF Canon Promotion: 55-200 II USM lens at just $399 (U.P. $490)

[findtay]

Hey guys!

As you can tell i'm totally new to photography and felt that this kinda of questions would fit best in the Newbies Corner.

Well as you can tell from the thread's title, I am wondering is that lens any good?

I'm thinking of getting the Canon 400D and this is the current promotion that Canon is having. Should I get it? I will be going on a trip to Australia next week and am thinking of getting the 400D as well as another lens instead of the kit lens. So maybe you guys could help me with some recommendations on what is a good general purpose lens? Maybe something of the mid-high range?

 

[bwilly]

Hey guys!

As you can tell i'm totally new to photography and felt that this kinda of questions would fit best in the Newbies Corner.

Well as you can tell from the thread's title, I am wondering is that lens any good?

I'm thinking of getting the Canon 400D and this is the current promotion that Canon is having. Should I get it? I will be going on a trip to Australia next week and am thinking of getting the 400D as well as another lens instead of the kit lens. So maybe you guys could help me with some recommendations on what is a good general purpose lens? Maybe something of the mid-high range?

The kit lens should suit you for now.
Look for a general walk about lens, Canon 28-135mm with IS will suits you just fine.
(In layman terms, that's about 5x zoom)
You can also look at Sigma 18-200mm.
When you mention mid-range, could be different from others.

 

[findtay]

The kit lens should suit you for now.
Look for a general walk about lens, Canon 28-135mm with IS will suits you just fine.
(In layman terms, that's about 5x zoom)
You can also look at Sigma 18-200mm.
When you mention mid-range, could be different from others.

Thanks bwilly!

Anyway I guess different people have different ways of interpreting something and I overlooked that! Thanks for pointing that out! I guess when I typed mid-high range was something that was about the price of max 1k. Well don't really know much about lenses so don't really know what's mid-high range! :embrass:

So I guess what I learnt today is a general purpose lens is called a walkabout lens. So does Canon actually have a similar one to the Sigma that you mentioned? And at what price range is that?

 

[grantyale]

Where did you get that UP 490 crap? 55-200 is not bad, in fact pretty good in its class.
You can find a second hand copy here for less than 200. This lens can be a bit soft and lacks contrast and the build quality isn't good, but autofocusing is very fast and it's very compact and light.
Talking about walkabout lenses - zooms of such a wide range are never so good optically, be it Nikon 18-200 or Canon 28-300L. A more reasonable range would be something like 28-135, or 17-85 on 1.6x body. Neither of these are considered top-notch in terms of optical quality but are quite versatile given the range and image stablizer. Do pick a good piece if you're going for a Sigma.

 

[findtay]

Where did you get that UP 490 crap? 55-200 is not bad, in fact pretty good in its class.
You can find a second hand copy here for less than 200. This lens can be a bit soft and lacks contrast and the build quality isn't good, but autofocusing is very fast and it's very compact and light.

Hey grantyale, the UP 490 is seen on Canon's website so that's why am finding out more about it. As you can tell, I ain't got much experience in lenses! ;p

Talking about walkabout lenses - zooms of such a wide range are never so good optically, be it Nikon 18-200 or Canon 28-300L. A more reasonable range would be something like 28-135, or 17-85 on 1.6x body. Neither of these are considered top-notch in terms of optical quality but are quite versatile given the range and image stablizer. Do pick a good piece if you're going for a Sigma.

Thank you for enlightening me on this! One more question I have though, which is what do you mean by picking a good piece? Or is it better that I just stick to Canon lens for now?

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

stay away from the 55-200mm. i wouldn't even buy it for $50. for a very good value for money lens, get the sigma 18-125mm. try not to get the 18-200 bigger brother as it compromises more on image quality.

if you have a max of 1k, id actually suggest getting the tokina 12-24mm for $860 (ms color) plus a 2nd hand 50mm/1.8 prime. that's all you'll need for aussie.

 

[Stoned]

Where did you get that UP 490 crap? 55-200 is not bad, in fact pretty good in its class.
You can find a second hand copy here for less than 200. This lens can be a bit soft and lacks contrast and the build quality isn't good, but autofocusing is very fast and it's very compact and light.
Talking about walkabout lenses - zooms of such a wide range are never so good optically, be it Nikon 18-200 or Canon 28-300L. A more reasonable range would be something like 28-135, or 17-85 on 1.6x body. Neither of these are considered top-notch in terms of optical quality but are quite versatile given the range and image stablizer. Do pick a good piece if you're going for a Sigma.

Actually it focuses fast, but isn't really good for it's price range. Considering that you can get the much better Sigma 70-300 for 200-250 on BnS, paying ~200 for a lens that has less reach, poorer resolution, contrast and colour isn't really a good idea.

FYI, while the Canon 28-300L may have it's issues with sharpness, the Nikon 18-200 is amazingly stellar. It's good, very good in fact, even when matched up against some more exotic lenses like the famed Nikkor 17-35/2.8.

To the TS, I'd personally recommend that you get a D80+18-200VR. That's probably all you're ever going to need. Do remember to get a decent tripod and also a SB600 or SB800 flash(depending on your budget).

 

[bwilly]

if your budget is $1k max.
a good walk around will be the Canon EF-S 17-85mm lens.
I would have get it but I got too many lens already. haha..

Served you wide angle, plus a bit of zoom.
Pretty good rating in the magazines.

Too much zoom, you compromise on the quality.
Later on, look for another 70-200 or 70-300 lens.
For those can't get near shots.

 

[grantyale]

Actually it focuses fast, but isn't really good for it's price range. Considering that you can get the much better Sigma 70-300 for 200-250 on BnS, paying ~200 for a lens that has less reach, poorer resolution, contrast and colour isn't really a good idea.

FYI, while the Canon 28-300L may have it's issues with sharpness, the Nikon 18-200 is amazingly stellar. It's good, very good in fact, even when matched up against some more exotic lenses like the famed Nikkor 17-35/2.8.

To the TS, I'd personally recommend that you get a D80+18-200VR. That's probably all you're ever going to need. Do remember to get a decent tripod and also a SB600 or SB800 flash(depending on your budget).

Sigma 70-300 is of course sharper but slower in AF, marginally more expensive and a bit bulkier. It all depends on what one shoots and IMO 55-200 makes good company with the kit lens.

:lovegrin: Nikon 18-200 is certainly a good performer as a walkabout, but optical quality isn't just about sharpness. Aside from the VR feature and the extra reach, the newer 18-135 looks a lot better to me. Nevertheless I do agree that D80 + 18-200 gets anyone a good start. SB 600 doesn't do FP flash so get a SB 800 if going for D80.

 

[findtay]

Hey guys! Thanks for the reply! But just one slight problem is that I have kinda set my mind on getting Canon. Yea i know there's this "war" going on with Nikon D80 and Canon 400D, but thought for quite a while and have decided to go for the Canon.

I heard that the kit lens for Nikon is quite a good deal for starters and Canon's is well, well below par, so that's why am looking for a replacement lens for the Canon's kit. Maybe something that I can take the various landscape in day as well as night as well as some candid shots while i'm over in Australia.

Forgive me as I'm not too sure about many of the terms used so am just using my layman's terms to kinda describe what I want.

 

[grantyale]

Any perticular reason for choosing Canon over Nikon? I'm a Canon user but I see the two pretty much neck-to-neck with Nikon offering probably better features at entry level in terms of both body and lens.

I wouldn't recommend Sigma, for serveral reasons from their QA, bad finish on the EX series to possible compatibility issuse as a result of reverse engineering. But if you're set with Canon, you can take a look at the following -
Sigma 17-70/2.8-4, versatile, inexpensive.
Tamron 17-50/2.8, brighter, good optical quality except for field curvature.
Tamron 18-200, but as we all know, 18-200s are just as they are.
Canon 17-85IS and 17-55IS may be out due to cost I guess.

But hey... you are getting carried away aren't you?

 

[peapilot]

I think this issue has been brought up again and again, but I believe that the kit lens good enough for those starting out on photography and still learning the ropes. Image quality is pretty good for one even though it feels "cheap" and "plastic", what you get in return is an excellent lightweight system that you'll be thankful for when trekking or travelling.

The kit lens is also a really good (and cheap) all-rounded lens that you can use to figure out which area of photography you like more and your shooting style. You would by then be able to make are more informed choice as to which lens to get.

I'm no pro photographer here unlike many on the forums, but I am no stranger to bad purchases and heartaches. Why invest 400-500 on an average lens when the much cheaper and lighter kit lens can do the job just fine? I'd rather use that money to get an external flash unit, or take up photography courses that could arm me with the know-how to take much better pictures. Your lenses will last you a few years, but the know-how stays with you for life. Likewise, I could keep that money and save up for when I'm more certain of the kind of shooting I want to do and then get the best lens I can get with my now increased budget.

Bottomline is, the 18-55 kit lens from canon is good enough (I know because I'm using it too ) for amatuer photography work, save the money for much higher quality lenses when you are more experienced. If you really intend to buy more lenses, get another one to complement the kit lens such as a 55-200 or an ultra-wide eg. 10-22.

 

[shawnlim]

I think this issue has been brought up again and again, but I believe that the kit lens good enough for those starting out on photography and still learning the ropes. Image quality is pretty good for one even though it feels "cheap" and "plastic", what you get in return is an excellent lightweight system that you'll be thankful for when trekking or travelling.

The kit lens is also a really good (and cheap) all-rounded lens that you can use to figure out which area of photography you like more and your shooting style. You would by then be able to make are more informed choice as to which lens to get.

I'm no pro photographer here unlike many on the forums, but I am no stranger to bad purchases and heartaches. Why invest 400-500 on an average lens when the much cheaper and lighter kit lens can do the job just fine? I'd rather use that money to get an external flash unit, or take up photography courses that could arm me with the know-how to take much better pictures. Your lenses will last you a few years, but the know-how stays with you for life. Likewise, I could keep that money and save up for when I'm more certain of the kind of shooting I want to do and then get the best lens I can get with my now increased budget.

Bottomline is, the 18-55 kit lens from canon is good enough (I know because I'm using it too ) for amatuer photography work, save the money for much higher quality lenses when you are more experienced. If you really intend to buy more lenses, get another one to complement the kit lens such as a 55-200 or an ultra-wide eg. 10-22.

:thumbsup: Well said. Just to share my experience. I had the EFS 17-85 IS where somebody mentioned just now. Have no doubt that this is a very versatile lense from wide to tele end. But remember the weight of the lense. Not heavy i know, but weighs enough to cause a off CG on a 400D. The handling is pretty werid cause there is always a overhang feeling when i fix it on my 300D. My 85 F1.8 kinda have this overhang feeling too. So was wondering if the body and kit lense were engineed to pair with each other for max handling?:think:

 

[findtay]

Hey guys! Thank you so much for the replies. Anyway just a little update, I couldn't resist any longer and finally gave in to temptation and got myself a 400D just this afternoon. Can't wait to start using it once the battery is fully charged!

And thank you for the advise, didn't blindly buy the promo lens as mentioned in this thread! Well I guess now it's time for me to start playing around to find my style but I still have one question bugging me is should I actually get another lens for my trip to Auz? Is a EFS 17-85 or a EF 28 - 135 a better one to get now?

 

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

there have been many extolling the good points about the kit lens. but i would beg to differ. i for one think that the kit lens really really CMI. soft at corners, quite bad distortion, but the worst thing is that the colour and contrast rendition really is poor. skin tone rendition with the kit lens is also abysmal.

i sold it for $80, bought a tokina 19-35mm for $180. the tokina loses out by 1mm, but the colours and contrast is really :thumbsup: not to mention the all-metal build quality. i have printed 8 x 12's with no problems whatsoever. with the kit lens, i had to PP my pics quite a bit, and even then i couldn't get the effects i wanted.

i wouldn't suggest u buy the 17-85 or 28-135. consider the sigma 17-70mm. or the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. i'd lean towards the tamron if i were you. it is versatile and has a good max aperture. the tamron would probably be the last lens you'll need in that focal length range...unless of course you want a fast 1.4/1.8 prime.

 

[shawnlim]

Hey guys! Thank you so much for the replies. Anyway just a little update, I couldn't resist any longer and finally gave in to temptation and got myself a 400D just this afternoon. Can't wait to start using it once the battery is fully charged!

And thank you for the advise, didn't blindly buy the promo lens as mentioned in this thread! Well I guess now it's time for me to start playing around to find my style but I still have one question bugging me is should I actually get another lens for my trip to Auz? Is a EFS 17-85 or a EF 28 - 135 a better one to get now?

Welcome to the world of SLR photography as an Canongraphers. If you wanna know, try it out. Can be arrange and its fine for me as i got the 17-85 IS. But the only up sad is, u might have to come all the way to Jurong Point.

 

[findtay]

Any perticular reason for choosing Canon over Nikon? I'm a Canon user but I see the two pretty much neck-to-neck with Nikon offering probably better features at entry level in terms of both body and lens.

Well I guess someone in this forum did mention how we feel to the camera is just as important as the specs. Well I guess that even though Nikon offered a better deal with their kit lens, somehow I just felt more drawn to Canon and it also helped that when I carried both the cameras, Nikon's weight was quite a drawback for me cos I feel that even though the camera is good, the weight might be of a hinderance when I wanna go around taking pictures as I might think twice about bringing it out.

So I guess that's why I was bent on getting the Canon.

But hey... you are getting carried away aren't you?

Haha! Yup! Guess am just too excited to finally get it!

 

[babykailan]

i sold my 300d kit lens to buy a 17-85mm IS for my bali trip.
no regrets. the range is there, the IS helps heaps.
paired with a good cpl, the images are super.
it's a freaking heavy lens but it feels macho and although i am aching all over, i feel GOOD!
hahahah...