Hi, im new in lenses and i want to have a complimentary lense for my kit lens... i have it all planned out already, kit for wide, nifty fifty for lowlight, 70-300 APO for the reach. but then, i chanced upon an EF 28-105 4-5.6 in SM which is within my budget. i was just wondering if the 70-300 APO would be better or just get the 28-105? the reason for the 70-300 is the reach and its good reviews. also, i really do not have an idea where to use the 300mm for yet. in fact, i just want to buy that lens because of the 70-200 focal length which i presume to be better than the 55-200 in IQ... any suggestions or comments about this?

in addition, i have heard that as the focal length gets longer the more it zooms less? is this true? so 200-300mm will not matter much in terms of reach? thank you:)

if you have no use for the 70-300 sigma,, don't buy it,, decide first what you WANT and what you NEED,, btw the 28-105 L in hidalgo is around 57k,, i think it's cheaper there than SM,, goodluck with your purchase

cheers

no not the L i wouldnt dream of having that yet... i wanna see the view from below so i can appreciate the view at the peak hehehe i just found the ef 28-105 4-5.6 or is it the 3.5? i forgot... its just below the 15k mark :)

Timmy, remind me to show you my lens book when we have a reunion.. (sorry I wasnt there during the Christmas party..:( ) Maybe you'll re-think and consider an L lens.. :)

@ann haha onga! saya saya pa naman! hahaha hay... L lens... i still feel like i just dont deserve it yet... haha

@ann haha onga! saya saya pa naman! hahaha hay... L lens... i still feel like i just dont deserve it yet... haha

Yeah.. the "doctor" told me you guys had fun.. and that I should've been there... I know you guys missed me. hahahaha..:D

You know, I really recommend that you start early with the L... Don't be intimidated with the price.. you won't regret it... and besides, it would look great with your 30D! :)

Hi, im new in lenses and i want to have a complimentary lense for my kit lens... i have it all planned out already, kit for wide, nifty fifty for lowlight, 70-300 APO for the reach. but then, i chanced upon an EF 28-105 4-5.6 in SM which is within my budget. i was just wondering if the 70-300 APO would be better or just get the 28-105? the reason for the 70-300 is the reach and its good reviews. also, i really do not have an idea where to use the 300mm for yet. in fact, i just want to buy that lens because of the 70-200 focal length which i presume to be better than the 55-200 in IQ... any suggestions or comments about this?

in addition, i have heard that as the focal length gets longer the more it zooms less? is this true? so 200-300mm will not matter much in terms of reach? thank you:)

These 2 are two different lenses with different applications. I suggest you get a mid-to-tele lens now as this could have more uses than a 70-300, or until you get settled down and find out what you need/want.

The 28-105 f4.5-5.6 is not a good lens. It is cheap, but optically not as good as the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 versions (mk1 or mk2). Get the latter if want this range. I have used this lately to shoot weddings while my 24-105L is sent in for calibration. It's pretty decent.

What the L does for you is better contrast, better performance wide open, etc. And when the light is down, the L delivers. But it does not mean that the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 was bad. It's just when things get difficult, the L doesn't fold that easily.

But the price is difficult too. So, if cost is an issue, better save up for the L for a long and better solution. For now, use the kit lens and get the hang of your camera.

As for the 70-200L and 55-200, the latter is no slouch. A bit slow on the AF and aperture side, but it is more than decent. An underrated lens, but if you want a cheap, but optically good lens, the 55-200 mk2 (note it should be the mark 2, not the older one, mk1), is a good performer. Again, not L class, but it holds its own.

If you want a 70-200 range, try to look for the older 70-210 f3.5-4.5 lenses. They are pretty good for over 15 or so year technology. There are many old lenses that are pretty good if you know w/c ones.

Will a 200mm matter vs a 300mm? My rule is this - If your target is near (e.g about 15-25 ft), the magnification you can get with a 200mm vs a 300mm is almost negligible. Where it will matter is when the subject is far away. If you are shooting a baseball or soccer game, you will see how short a 200mm is. In fact, 300mm is just usable. You really need 400mm here.

If you should go the 70-200/300 route, a good option is the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS. Pretty good optics. Almost L, but a price that is more affordable.

I have the canon 70-300 is usm, it is very sharp, optically, you will not be disappointed, plus the IS work so well, It even allows me to shoot 1/4 sec. speed, with good result.

YOu can search over the net about the reviews of that lens and the feedback of the owners of that lens, And you'll usually find good verdict about the canon 70-300 IS USM.

I strongly recommend the canon 70-300 is usm over the sigma 70-300. it is a very good lens.

Thanks for the replies y'all :) i think i have a better knowledge as to the direction i have take :)