New Lens Decision?

[rfn]

I've a Canon EOS 350D - with the kit 18-55 lens.
I'm looking to purchase another lens, budget circa £200 - that can auto focus.
My interests vary wildly - from motorsport/track photography to landscapes.

I've seen the two lenses - which would be the best of the two (or is there another better solution I've missed)

Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II Lens (Canon AF) £169 Jessops
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/27516...

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III Telephoto Zoom Lens £135.95 Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-75-300mm-4-0-5-6-Tel...

On a separate note - I've heard 2x converters mentioned - could these be useful when taking photos from grandstands? If so - any suggestions? TIA!

[cbcbcb]

See zillions of other threads, you probably want the 55-250 IS

Teleconverters are not really suitable on these kinds of lenses as the you will usually lose auto-focus, and the image quality may not be acceptable. They are better on fast lenses, ideally primes.

[RobDickinson]

Forget teleconvertors. They are for fast pro longer lenses.

Do you want an all in 1 upgrade or 2 lenses?

18-55 is distictly average and your not getting the best out of the 305D at all, the 55-250 IS will give decent results for a longer lens, not sure about the 18-200

[rfn]

RobDickinson said:

Forget teleconvertors. They are for fast pro longer lenses.

Do you want an all in 1 upgrade or 2 lenses?

18-55 is distictly average and your not getting the best out of the 305D at all, the 55-250 IS will give decent results for a longer lens, not sure about the 18-200

I've taken around 5000 shots in 6 months with the 18-55, and you're right, often the photos are a bit, average. I need to learn more about the camera too - but don't mind if I have 1 or 2 lenses. I generally only photograph if I've driven somewhere and then I'll have my camera bag with me - so both lenses would be available to me.

[havoc]

cbcbcb said:

See zillions of other threads, you probably want the 55-250 IS

And coincidentally my Dad's almost certainly selling his very soon - he's just got himself a 2nd-hand 70-300IS (half-a-step up from the 55-250, but there's nothing else until you hit L-series).

If you're interested, PM me and I'll give him a call, hopefully put you in touch with him.

[tinman0]

To be honest, I don't think the 18-55 Canon kit lens is that bad. It's wide enough for landscape stuff for much of the time and its not such a bad performer.

I'd go with the 75-300 Canon zoom though for motorsport. I think the Tamron is overkill and I can't see an all in one zoom being any better than the kit lens at 18mm. Longer the better I figure for motorsport.

[DiscoColin]

rfn said:

Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 USM III Telephoto Zoom Lens £135.95 Amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-75-300mm-4-0-5-6-Tel...

I bought that lens second hand - a friend let me have it for buttons and I think that they go through eBay for about 90 quid. Some of the pictures that I got out of it with my old 400d leave me of the opinion that in terms of value for money it is right up there with the cheap 50. Recommended highly.

[g3org3y]

I though the 75-300 wasn't really rated. Slow and cumbersome.

55-250 is a better choice imo, sharp with IS.

[DiscoColin]

g3org3y said:

I though the 75-300 wasn't really rated. Slow and cumbersome.

55-250 is a better choice imo, sharp with IS.

Depending where you buy it, 50-100% more expensive though (more if you have a mate offloading the older lens for £50, which would make it a no-brainer ). As well as being shorter of course.. Purely on value grounds, it becomes debatable over which to go with, but can't argue with you on the speed of the 75-300 as it is sllooowwww. But good output can be got and it is cheap like the proverbial budgie...

[g3org3y]

DiscoColin said:

g3org3y said:

I though the 75-300 wasn't really rated. Slow and cumbersome.

55-250 is a better choice imo, sharp with IS.

Depending where you buy it, 50-100% more expensive though (more if you have a mate offloading the older lens for £50, which would make it a no-brainer ). As well as being shorter of course.. Purely on value grounds, it becomes debatable over which to go with, but can't argue with you on the speed of the 75-300 as it is sllooowwww. But good output can be got and it is cheap like the proverbial budgie...

You can spend next to nothing but if you ultimately end of with a slow frustrating lens that means you miss shots you'd want, then £50 actually seems like a lot of money.

[MonkeyHanger]

g3org3y said:

I though the 75-300 wasn't really rated. Slow and cumbersome.

It's pretty poor. It was my first "long" lens when i got back into motorsport photography and is rubbish when you get past 200mm.

Others have suggested the 55-250. From what i've been told it's a nice lens and that's what i'd be aiming for. As for the 18-XXX superzooms, there's rarely anything super about them

The old Canon 100-300 USM is said to be fairly decent too. A used one would be a very good buy.

Edited by MonkeyHanger on Sunday 24th January 16:06