Canon EOS 300D and EOS 10D Lenses

Good work Bob-- do you get any sleep lately? I must say that the apparent diffence between the Nikon DX and Canon EFS lenses directly translates to either company's methodology-- while Nikon seems to support the sub-35mm ccd size with high quality, pricy lenses (the 12-24 is around a grand, and the future 10.5mm fisheye seems to be in the same price range), Canon pulled out another plastic kit-lens for under $100. I'm a prime-guy myself, but it even so, the casual 300D shooter may only need the 18-55, atleast to begin with (I'd recommend the 17-40/4L + 50/1.4 + 70-200/4L).

Sleep? What's sleep?

I should probably add a link to my article here on using a fisheye lens for wide-angle shots and later perspective correction in PhotoShop, plus my 10D review which shows you can actually use a fisheye and NOT do any corrections and still end up with something that doesn't look distorted as long as you are careful.

However EF series fisheye lenses are expensive ($500 region) even from Sigma. You can get cheap Russian (Ukranian) manual focus fisheye lenses - but that might be getting a little complex for the new 300D owner since they need an adapter, manual focus, stopdown metering and probably exposure compensation. Hardly "point and shoot".

It's not yet clear if the 18-55 can be forced onto a 10D! The 18-55 is said to have some sort of rubber "band" which prevents mounting on a standard EF mount body not because the mount is different but because this rubber "band" hits something inside the camera. Maybe it can be removed and maybe the 10D mirror is small enough to clear it. Canon had to make it incompatible since anything you could put on a 10D you could put on an EOS-1v, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work on a 10D given a few minutes work with a hacksaw and a file...

Of course whether it's worth putting on a 10D (even if you could) we'll have to wait and see. None of Canon's other $100 lenses have really been worth using and the 18-55 is only 2mm shorter than the 20-35 which is an excellent lens.

While I'm plugging my own articles, might as well throw this one in there too: Canon 28-x Consumer Zooms. It addresses relative quality issues of the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM and a cheap 28-90 zoom. Since the tests were done on an EOS 10D, they should apply to performance on a 300D equally well.

Hi all,

I notice that the new EOS Rebel 300D has a different type of lenses from 10D or 1Ds. According to the product review, it uses a what is called a EF S lense type, the "S" I think stands for short back which can only mount onto a 300D camera due to it's smaller chip and other reasons. I think I may have read an article relate to this through dpreview.com. If anyone has any factual info on the 300D lense mount interchangeability with the regular EF mount cameras, let me know.

I've had a thought about the 18-55mm. As I understand this is its actual focal length; ie, the 300D will see it as a 29 - 88 or something like that. This means that the 300D sensor is only using the central part of the image.

One of the axes on MTF graphs is distance from the centre of the frame, and in general as this distance increases so resolution and contrast diminish. Thus even the 28-90 is pretty sharp in the centre of the frame, although performance falls away badly near the corners. In the case of the 18-55 because of the cropping point I make above, the corners are in practice closer to the centre, so this lens will only be using the 'better performance' area and maybe it won't experience as much fall-off. Perhaps we may end up thinking this is a better lens than we are expecting, maybe on a par with the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, or the 24-85.

Does Bob sleep any? This is a preventative measure so he can sleep once the 300D comes out!

Very well done article, Bob, which I think will be quite useful for beginners. You have really done a yeoman's job of adding useful static content lately. Thank you!

Bob, you just need at the top of the article a RTFM comment and another one down at the bottom! Great article, but I doubt most users will read it or search for it unless in continually posted on the list.

GS

The EF-S mount on the 300D is FULLY compatible with the EF mount. ALL EF lenses will mount on the 300D. The 300D can ALSO mount Canon's one and only EF-S lens, the 18-55/3.5-5.6. This lens will NOT mount on any other Canon EOS body. So you can put ANY EF lens on any EF or EF-S mount body, but you can only mount an EF-S lens (of which there is only one, the 18-55) on an EF-S body (of which there is only one, the 300D).

This article does not address RTFM issues. I guess we may need another article at some point on how to turn the camera on and which buttons to push in which order!

Tom - See my article comparing Canon's 28-x consumer zooms on a 10D.

Despite only using the central part of the image, it was very clear that the cheap 28-90 zoom was not as good as either the 28-105 or 28-135. Stopped down and at the shorter end it wasn't bad, but wide open and at the longer end it was struggling.

Perhaps the 18-55 will surprise us, but I doubt it. However when used stopped down at 18mm it might be pretty decent.

What about getting a 28mm prime lens as a sort of body and 50mm eq, starter set?

The 28/2.8 prime is a fine lens, but it's only $50 cheaper than the 28-105/3.5-4.5 and only 1/2 stop (actually 2/3 stop if you really believe the numbers) faster plus it isn't USM while the zoom is.

Most 300D owners will be looking for a zoom, not an effective 45mm (in 35mm terms) f2.8 prime and would prefer USM to non-USM. They'd be happy to trade any slight increase in speed and marginal increases in image quality for coverage of the 29-105mm range!

So, yes, it's a fine lens, but it's not what most 300D users will be interested in.

Re: hacksaw and file

I don't think this will work. If the rear element of 18-55 could clear 10D's mirror, why would Canon not make this lens a regular EF lens compatible with ALL EF cameras? Many EOS users would love to buy a 18-55 lens for a mere $100!

I bet $1 that it's the rear optical element that gets in the way and only 300D with its sliding mirror can clear it. Hacksaw and file will make a nice piece of garbage from the lens you can't order separately.

I'm guessing that the mirror on the 10D is small, like the mirror on the 300D. It certainly looks much smaller than the mirror on my EOS film bodies. Whether it's larger than the 300D mirror I don't know since I don't have a 300D to compare it with, but my guess is it's the same size. The whole mirror/shutter/sensor assembly is probaly the same as in the 10D. That would make sense from an economic point of view. Less parts to mess with.

The reason why Canon didn't make the 18-55 fit the 10D is obvious. If it fit the 10D it would also fit the EOS-3, the EOS-1V and all the other bodies with large mirrors. Users with small brains would no doubt "try it just to see if it worked" and slam the mirror into the back of the lens. So Canon idiot proofed the system. Even it it would have been fine on the 10D, they couldn't take the risk of someone putting it on something else.

Since the 10D has a small mirror, it may not hit the lens, but you'll still need a hacksaw and file to make it fit onto the camera. Hopefuly you won't need duct tape.

BTW, standard disclaimer. Anyone attempting to mount an 18-55 on anything but at 300D is totally on their own. I've no idea if it can be done. Maybe, maybe not. If it costs you $100 or even $1000 to find out it can't be done, its your own fault. Don't blame me!

Thanks Bob for the series of articles related to the 10D/300D; they answer many questions not answered by the mfr specs. I'm pretty excited about a viable DSLR alternative. I have an elan IIe which has been largely ignored since I got my G3 earlier this year. The G3 and my laptop have revolutionized picture taking and viewing.

To the subject of lenses, I've been lusting after a 100-400 IS ever since I got my elan. Now I'm thinking my $1500 is much better spent on a 10D and use of my 75-300 a while longer. Ignoring for the moment that "the 75-300 is soft at 300 wide open" compared to the 100-400, the main improvement is 100 mm and two effective f stops of IS. Since the film I use in my elan is ASA 100 or less the review statements that the 10D, and presumably the 300D, is absolutely quiet up to ASA 800 gives an additional three stops to apply to shutter speed. The "Poor Man's IS", which I've always been too cheap to do with film, adds another f stop or so lattitude when you need it. Next, the 1.6 sensor magnification factor means that I can back the 75-300 off to 250 mm and effectively equal 400 mm. I'm thinking that I can get pretty close to the picture quality of a 100-400 with a lowly 75-300 and carry around two pounds less as well. Subjectively, my G3 images are far cleaner and sharper than the slides I've digitized. For someone considering a 300D, the inexpensive 75-300 is a worthwhile lens without IS.

Perhaps Canon should recognize this and optically tweak their 100-300 up to the level of their 100 mm macro so it adds more than just manual focus over the 75-300. And when do you expect they will come out with eye control on a DSLR? That seems the next logical step in the 30/60/10D series, considering what the elan is to the rebel.

An unrelated note for users of photoshop elements, I highly recommend Scott Kelby's _Photoshop Elements for Digital Photographers_. It gives step by step proceedures for performing many corrections to digital photographs. I've used photoshop for years to clean digitized slides and never figured half of these out.

Cheers and thanks again,

-Jeff

Well I've never liked ECF much so I don't miss it. My EOS-3 is always set for the center focus point. I've never found it limiting. Maybe the EOS-3D will use ECF? The center AF point is probably more accurate anyway!

It's an interesting point about the 100-400 vs 100-300. I've used and tested both lenses. I actually owned a 100-400 but I sold it because I just wasn't happy with the sharpness at the long end. I'm not particularly happy with the 75-300 at 300 either, but then it cost $700 less, so I'm willing to live with it! At shorter focal lengths there wasn't all that much difference between the 75-300 and 100-400. The 100-400 was better at the edges, but the edges on digital (300D/10D) aren't all that far out, so differences between the lenses will be less than seen with a full frame images. The 75-300 was also a lot smaller and lighter, so that was my choice. There's no doubt the 100-400 was slightly better, but not $700 better and not (to me) worth the extra size and weight. Some people disagree and love the 100-400, which is great for them. If everyone agreed on lens choice, we'd end up with only 3 or 4 to pick from! If I want a longer lens I use a 300/4L and add a 1.4x if I want even longer. Sharper than the 100-400, or at least the 100-400 that I had. From a price/performance viewpoint, the 300/4L is probably the best telephoto lens Canon ever made.

Bob, I sure as heck hope you're getting paid for all these articles you're writing. As a writer myself, I have long agreed with Samuel Johnson's famous line, "no one but a fool ever wrote except for money."

IMO, ECF was/is nothing more than marketing gimmick that rather complicates picture taking than helps it compared to the "lock and recompose" technique. As a matter of fact, ECF was switched off in all my EOS cameras that had this feature.

You folks are probably right about ECF. I tend to use it on the elan but then I only have three choices, I still ususally have to recompose. The SLR that my habits were formed on was a spotmatic (1972-2000) so referencing the center is natural to me. Lack of ECF isn't a real issue.

A question relavent to "Focal Length" for current SLR users considering a 300/10D is the subjective effect the 1.6 magnification factor has on camera use. You probably see a dramatic change in using your fixed 300 for instance. I have three lenses that cover 100 mm, now I'll have three that cover 160 mm, lens selection will change. How has this transition been?

Thanks for the feedback.

The 1.6x factor can be a pain in the @ss at the wide end, but it's pretty much a non-issue everywhere else if you are using zooms or telephoto primes. With zooms you just zoom to whatever FOV you want. Most of the time whatever telephoto you have isn't long enough! I use a 300/4L because it's small and light. I'd much rather have a 500/4L of the same size and weight for 90% of the wildlife work I do. With a 10D or 300D I have an "effective" 480/4L which suits me just fine.

I suppose if I had an 85/1.2 for portrait work and I really liked the look of the 85mm lens it would be a problem. As it is my 50/1.8 is now an "effective" 80/1.8 portrait lens and much cheaper than the "real" 85/1.8 or 85/1.2.

So for me, for anything longer than the FOV of a 35mm lens, the cropping factor is a non-issue most of the time and a benefit the rest of the time. It's no benefit over a cropped full frame image of course, but a full frame image means $8000 for a 1Ds. Actually the 10D and 300D may be better than a cropped shot from a 1Ds since the pixel density is higher in the 10D and 300D.

The wide end is a pain though. My 20mm now looks like a 32mm on a full frame body. My solution has been to use a 16mm fisheye which gives me a view close to a 20mm lens on 35mm - but with some distortion. If you are very careful and you're not shooting architecture, the distortion can be handled and the shots look pretty normal. For those that don't there's always digital perspective correction. Since the 10D and 300D effectively crop the image, the most "distorted" part of the fisheye image is cropped out.

>> "The best higher end solution might be the 24-85/3.5-4.5 coupled with the 70-200/4L".

Why not 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 ? Because the 17-40/4 is more expensive than the 24-85/3.5-4.5 ? But we are talking about "The best higher end solution".

Because we're talking about the best highend solution for someone who won't spend more than $900 on a camera body! Sure the 17-40 is probably a better lens, but it's $800. If someone is prepared to spend $1600 on a 17-40/4 and a 70-200/4 (and that leaves a big hole from 40-70mm), I think they might be the sort of photographer who would spend an extra $500-$600 on a 10D rather than a Digital Rebel.

The average Rebel owner is very cost conscious. Even a $600 70-200/4L is probably too expensive for most. I presume this will spill over the digital Rebel, though there is probably some difference in attitude between thos spending $200 on a film Rebel body and $900 on a digital Rebel body.

I guess that Canon's future will be EF added by EF-S where useful. Useful means to build compact lenses with a short focal length like the well known 17-40/4 but with less weight and size. With the new lense mount it will be possible (easier) to build e.g. a 17-55/2.8 which would be a fine standard lense for a 10D or its successor.

Therefore I am sure that the successor of the 10D will come with the same lense mount like the EOS Rebel, certainly in a more robust version.

Up to now I have hesitated to buy a digital SLR. But I am sure that in a few months Canon will introduce a new digital body which will definitely be a future-proof investment (able to use EF and EF-S).

Oliver

For wide angle shots, you need the larger sensor / film area anyway (IMHO). The larger formats dominate wide angle landscape and architectural photography in publications, and so basically we're used to that kind of quality and expect it from wide angle shots. I'm never quite happy with my 35 mm wide landscapes, although architecture shots are usually just fine. Usually, to get a natural-looking image, a wide shot needs to be enlarged to a larger size than a tele shot. And the larger print needs the detail of a large sensor or piece of film. So you might as well buy the 1Ds or use film to get a 20 mm FOV. What I would really like is that they figured out how to make 60 mm x 60 mm sensors so that you'd get good wide angles in medium format. I wouldn't be able to buy that kind of a digital back, but the 24x36 mm sensors would probably go down in price! :-)

I cannot to agree with author. Both 24-85 and 28-135 are good for standard 35mm farame, but not for 1.6x cropped sensors. 45mm wide angle is not convenient for indoor and architectural shooting.

I tried most of mentioned lens with my 10D, and my choice is couple of 17-40/4 as standard and 70-200/4 as optional telephoto.

Sorry for grammar in advance :-)

Bob, I have to take issue with your statement that the 100-400IS is in the same optical league as the 75-300. Having owned both, and so disgusted with the softness and lack of contrast of the 75-300 that I won't even give it away, I can absolutely state that I have gotten crisp, high contrast, and sharp bird images over the full focal length range. Maybe I got a lemon 75-300, but lots of other have echoed my comments.

Dan Barthel

Oops Bob, I misread your 100-300 as 100-400. I still stand by my comments on the 75-300, though. Absolute rubbish.

Dan

This is a great article with lots of insightful replies. The profile fits me perfectly – new to photography, considering Digital Rebel or 10D, and wondering what lenses to buy.

I am considering the following:

17-55mm (EF-S) – if I went with Rebel

28-135mm IS – maybe defer for a while with Rebel

50mm prime

70-200/2.8 IS

2x adapter

I think I would use the 70-200mm quite a lot, and with the 2x adapter, get a 35mm equivalent of 640mm lens (with IS) when I need it. I had also considered the 70-200/4 with 1.4x adapter, but no IS and slower – not sure I’d be nearly as happy. Going with the Rebel over 10D pays for a lot of the delta. I AM worried about the weight.

I have done some close-up/macro photography with my point and shoot but would like to be able to get tighter shots. (I can capture a butterfly very well, but can’t capture just his body or head). What lens would enable me to take this type of photography while staying on a budget? Would closeup add-on lenses work well with something like 28-135 IS in macro mode?

Thanks for any comments or advice.

I'm maybe going to buy the 300D. I want to photo stuff like frogs, flowers etc. (macro) wich lenses should I get for that (as cheap as possible)? I would also like take photos from things like swans, birds etc. that are pretty far way, but I don't want to buy really expensive lenses. I would also like to take street photos. I'm going to buy the lens that comes with the 300D. Can I photo some of these things with it? Please help me.

If I have film and digital bodies strap on my neck both im considering getting

28-135 IS USM becomes 45-216 on DSLR plus you got IS Yummy ;P

50 1.8

17-135 f4L

You already got range 28-70 and 45-216 for your DSLR and for your film a very wide 17-40 and all around 28-135 and load some b/w films because are not good in black and white right?

Very Ideal for wedding photography i think

What about non-AF lenses? Are there any decent and inexpensive wide lenses out there? Can you recommend any?

I think a the most important point has not been hit.

Most of the people who are going to buy the digital rebel are already Canon shooters. Probably, traditional film shooters, who now have a reasonable option to start in digital. They arent going to have to buy lenses because they already have many(or at least one.) I read in a brochure that the digital rebel can use about 50 of the eos lenses. is that all of the lenses or are there lenses the 300 cant use?

Yakim Peled wrote:

>> "The best higher end solution might be the 24-85/3.5-4.5 coupled with the 70-200/4L".

> Why not 17-40/4 + 70-200/4 ? Because the 17-40/4 is more expensive than the 24-85/3.5-4.5 ? But we are talking about "The best higher end solution".

I second Yakim's suggestion.

Bob, your response that DR buyers aren't going to spend the money to get good lenses is probably true. However, the kit lens is definitely inferior to the 17-40, and the 17-40, at least at f/4, compares pretty doggone well to my Sony F717 lens. (I think the 17-40 is a tad better, but not by much.)

I'd also suggest that if folks are tempted to buy a dSLR and put cheap lenses on it that they go back and reread Phil's article on building an SLR system. They also might consider buying a high end P&S instead.

There are people like me who own Minolta stuff, and are moving to Canon (since Minolta has shown no interest in Digital SLR...). For me, this discussion is useful, as I'm willing to put some $$ into lenses.

FWIW, I went with the packaged lens and then the 75-300 IS. (The latter is due in this week once B&H comes back from holidays :-). I'm still thinking about a prime lens, and thinking about something in the 20-30mm range (to get good wide angle performance, since most of my shooting is wide angle...)

dave

p.s. anyone interested in a Nikon 995 and wide-angle and 2x adapters, or a Minota XTSi and lenses (including a Sigma 28-70 f2.8)?? (I'm mentioning this to give you an idea of what I'm replacing with my new Canon :-)

I picked up a 300D last week and took it with me on a vacation this past weekend for some family / scenery photos. I picked up the 18-55mm lens with the body and the 75-300 USM lens without IS. I knew about the 1.6x pre-cropping before picking up the lens but figured I could handle the effective length of the lens. I was wrong.

The lens' softness at 300mm combined with the camera's light weight makes for an image that's not really clear. It's not horrible, and with some care to get stable before shooting and opening it up a bit to trade for any shutter speed I can get, I'm liking the lens just fine for the price I paid. The easiest solution is just to take 2-3 exposures for each shot when I'm at or close to 300mm and one of them normally turns out ok. I just wish I would have spent the extra cash and got the IS lens, I'm sure it would have added the little bit of stability that this lens needs to go from an acceptable lens to a good lens on the 300D.

For the 18-55, it really lacks enough range for me in "lazy mode" where I just want to stand in one spot and point-and-click away. I think I'll have to pick up either the 28-105 or 28-135 as my next lens. The 28-135 with IS sounds like a nice combo with this camera.

So while I'm not terribly impressed with the two lenses, I do like the camera quite a bit. It's simple enough to use as a point-and-click, but with a twist of the dial you can move to one of the modes that gives you more control.

You might consider a lightweight tripod. At 300mm (420mm with the multiplier) and considering you might want to stop the lens down to f8 to get a little extra sharpness, a tripod will give you a lot more stability then IS will, plus a tripod is a lot cheaper than the extra you'll pay for the IS lens!

I know carrying a tripod can be a pain, but even a very lightweight tripod may be as good as or better than IS. I have a tripod I bought for under $20 and which weighs 1lb that I carry when I want to travel very light.

I'm considering buying a DSLR as my first SLR. Although I like the D300, I'll probably wait a couple months to see how the other brands react on it.

Also, it's going to cost me, as I definitely want a wide-angle zoom. And because here in Belgium bodies and lenses are more expensive then in the US.

As far as I know Canon has not yet a wide-angle zoom for their DSLR's EOS-10D/300D. But Sigma has, nl. the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical. It's price is around 1,000 EUR here in Belgium. Hopefully Canon will react on this. Nikon doesn't have to, as they have already their AFS DX 12-24 f/4G at around 1,400 EUR.

But don't worry, I'm not going to spend just like that 3,000 EUR on a first SLR. I just like to do my research before getting into something. Also wide-angle zooms (or fixed focal's) are always expensive. And as I'll have to learn a lot, paying the extra price for going digital will be worth it compared to the costs of film and development with a classic SLR.

As a Minolta 700si to Canon 10D convert, I really like the 10D and the 28-135 IS lens. The 100-400 L IS is a heavy lens, on the Minolta I gave up on the Sigma 135-400 because of weight and not particularly good images. I replaced the Sigma lens and a Tamron 28-200 XR with a Tamron 28-300XR, and found it a really good lens (much better than the 28-200 XR) with and without a 2xconverter. Does anyone know of its performance with the 10D - or I guess any Canon EOS?

Hi all, at the photostore/lab where I work we have been outputting 10"x12" from the Canon 300D with 18-55 when we got the camera. Output was on a Frontier 370. No real surprises here; the 18-55 is a cheap lens, literally. Standard comment from customers has been, "well it's not bad" instead of "wow - looks great!" The average consumer who looks at the enlargement think it looks good with the occasional "yeay", but when we produce a side by side with a better lens (or even an old analog print) there is little to no contest.

Conclusion; a cheaply constructed lens is a cheaply constructed lens / you pay for what you get. I don't think that just because it happens to be a cheap lens it is a good reason to buy it - the lacklustre photos it produces is a hold back for any photographer. Bite the bullet and buy the better lenses - it is the only option for the discerning photographer. It's a shame that Canon rushed out such a low grade lens. If you stop it down you can almost read the "please recycle" in the corners of the image ;-).

The camera itself is a very welcome addition to the digital scene, good features, relatively sturdy and decent user interface at an affordable price.

What about the discontinued Canon models, still plentiful on the used market ?

I'm thinking in particular of the 35/105, which was made in USM and pre-USM models.

I'm not impressed with the 18-55 lens at all. I really wish I had just skipped it and picked up the the 50mm for about the same price.

@Bob A.

You favour the 75-300mm IS as "your favorite" lightweight telezoom, instead of the 100-400mm IS. Yet, I read in various reader comments (here & other pages) that the lens is not very sharp beyond the 200mm setting. Are you using the 75-300mm IS beyond 200mm for your purposes and is it possible to produce publishable images with this lens?

I agree with Mike’s comments re. the included 18-55 lens. The 300D is my first SLR camera, so I opted for the “lens kit” package (I have no other lenses). Using the included 18-55 lens, my photos were soft and mostly disappointing. I almost returned the camera. But before I did that, decided to try Canon's 50mm 1.8 II lens -and what a difference it made. Beautiful, sharp pictures every time.

Thanks Bob for the great info

After reading this and other sites, I chose the kit lens, 50/1.8 and 28-135 and have been mainly using the 50 and 28-135, but the kit lens means I can do reasonably wide angle shots when I need.

What I find hard is the telephoto choice - I can afford a 70-200/f4 but I would like the IS of the 75-300. Both are nice and light and not too expensive (I set myself a 1.5lb limit and a US$750 limit). If I understand you correctly, the 75-300 is probably sharp enough up to 200 at least and gives me IS, but I lose out on the light gathering of the 70-200.

I just wish Canon made a good 150-300 with IS to match the 28-135! Hmm, maybe I should consider a 200/2.8 instead of trying to find a zoom?

I borrowed a EOS 300D from a friend including the 18-55 mm lens. I did some tests with this lens and many other lenses. This sample of the EF 18-55 mm lens had weird problem. The performance in the center and on the left side of the image was quite o.k. - of course not as good as some old prime lenses I also tested but quite usable. But the right side of the image was just really bad (low contrast and blurry).

I posted a thread on www.dpreview.com for this topic, and there you can find the links to the test pictures and further explanations.

Roland

P.S.: The link is listed on the bottom of the page under Related Links.

After a fair amount of studying, I selected the following package to use with my Digital Rebel: 28 1.8 USM (44.8mm "standard") 50 1.4 USM (80mm equivalent) 28-105 3.5-4.5 (inexpensive, highly regarded, and compact!) I disliked the 300D indoors with the 18-55 because the built-in flash frequently SLAPS up to aid with focus. I went with fast primes to solve that issue, and it works. I really like the 28 on the 300D. When 1-lens Point-n-Shoot is convenient and easy, I can drop on a $220 zoom. All are 58mm ring size so they all share 1 ND and 1 Circ-Polar filter. Recognizing that the 300D is light, I selected lenses that would balance well on the compact body. We have to wait for Canon to introduce a suitable, quality wide-angle option for the 1.6x DSLRs. Until then, I will keep the 18-55 for wide angle shots - its not too bad stopped down a bit. Next, I'm considering a 100, but can't decide between the macro and the 2.0 USM - a super-fast 160mm equivalent is long enough for my long needs!

Thanks for a very helpful article. I have a 10D and am considering buying a 300D for my wife. I am looking for a fairly wide-angle lens that I can use on both cameras. My question concerns the "Angle of View" specifications that Canon lists on its website. The angle of view for the 18-55 is 75 to 27 degrees; for the 24-85 it is 84 to 28 degrees (rounded numbers). Does this mean that the 24-85 provides a wider field of view than the 18-55 even though it has a longer minimum focal length? Thanks.

Speaking of wide angle lenses, are there any 10d or 300d owners out there using the new sigma 12-24mm? I'd love to see an EOS lens with that range, but in the meantime the sigma lens may have to do.

The closest I can find in the eos lineup are the 14mm f/2.8 L or the 16-35mm f/2.8 L, both are out of my price range, and neither go as wide as 12mm. As I'm sure you all know, every mm makes a big difference at that end of the scale.

What do people use for wide wide angle shots? Right now I'm using the kit lens for wide angle, and it's just not wide enough.

Thanks to Bob and Phil for all the great stuff on this site!

Glen

I assume Canon are giving the specs on the 18-55 taking the sensor size into account, since it can't be used on a full frame canera. For the 24-85 I assume they are giving values for a full frame sensor. The 18-55 has the wider angle of view (at the wide end of course!).

Bob, Thanks for the response. I think I chose a poor example with the 18-55. Here is a better one. Canon reports the Angle of View of their 20-35 as 94 to 63 degrees; for the 17-40 it is 74 to 29 degrees. Does that mean the 20-35 goes wider than the 17-40?! Glen

Hold on a minute - I am taking these Angle of View figures from Canon's Lens Chart Download table:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/spec.pdf

but when I check some of these numbers against the specs for individual lenses available from the dropdown list on:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/

I find some discrepancies, presumably errors on the table since those are the numbers that make less sense. The Angle of View of the 17-40 on the dropdown list is 104 to 57 degress, which does makes more sense than 75 to 29. There is also a discrepancy in the Angle of View numbers for the 28-80.

But I can still find an example where a longer lens has a wider field: the 24-85 is listed (both places) as 84 to 28 degrees while the all of the zooms that start at 28mm have angles at the wide end of 75 degrees, except the 28-80, which is 65 degrees.

I am fairly new to photography and don't know much about lens design, but do know that in binoculars, field of view is only loosely correlated with magnification (focal length) -- designs can be tweaked to produce a wider or narrower field for a given magnification. Is that is what is going with these lenses? Thanks. Glen

The shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view for any given negative/sensor size and any rectilinear (non-fisheye) lens. Period. There's no wiggle room here, it's a basic fact of optics.

When you read angle of view figures you have to make sure you know what they are. Sometimes they are the diagonal field of view, sometimes they are the horizontal field of view.

The angles of view listed on the Canon site are diagonal. If angle of view is determined by focal length, I don't understand how some lenses can can have wider fields than other lenses with shorter focal lengths. Does it have something to do with the fact that these are zoom lenses with more complex optics? Does the direct relationship between focal length and angle of view that you refer to apply more to prime lenses? Glen

I wondered if anyone try the EF22-55mm on the 300D. The 22-55 is rare, and most user found this lens no good for 135 format (cause it was tailored for APS) but I think it will make a cheap alternative for both 300D and other EOS SLR. Anyone can leave some comemnt?

Since the prime lens offereings from Canon are much faster, isn't there still a place for this type of lens in the digital world? I know it's more cumbersome to change lenses but, isn't the quality of the result, including the speed, worth it?

I am used to a manual rangefinder camera with a couple of fast, short and compact prime lenses. I would not mind to change over to a multimode AE and AF SLR for the sake of getting digital. I even would not mind plastic bodies over zinc and brass since the weight is indeed a burden. I mainly travel on business and thus carry a laptop anyway, so digital would be nice. Playing with downloaded images and with Photoshop in the evening would be a nice alternative to watching TV in the hotel.

Whilst a 1.4/50 translates into a very affordable, compact and light short tele lens, it is very sad that the makers of such great DSLRs ignore the opportunity to offer some compact and fast standard and wide angle lenses which are truly optimized for the format. A 1.8 or even a 1.4/20 should not be bulkier than the 1.4/50. Sigma offers a choice of fairly fast (f1.8) 20, 24 and 28mm lenses which are surprisingly affordable (Euro 300 to 400). A 10D with 1.4/50 and 1.8/20 would make a great travel package, but the 1.8/20’s bulk is at least for me totally unacceptable, even putting aside image quality. Indeed, on 35mm film the 35mm lens I use most of the time, so I really would want a fast and well performing equivalent for digital. Downsizing wideangle and standard lenses to fit the smaller sensor may not lead to lower prices. Possibly the contrary has to be expected, given the lower production numbers and the need to recover R&D.

Looking at the multitude of zoom lenses on the market with, at least in my opinion, overlapping zoom ranges, makes the gap even more frustrating, as if Canon (and Sigma) do not really believe in the 15x25mm CMOS sensor becoming a standard for anything longer than a transition period. Indeed the existence of other digital image sensors with 1.3 (Canon, Nikon) or 1.7 (Sigma) cropping factors makes decision making for lens makers not easy.

Thus, for the moment, I compromise with a Canon G2, obtained cheaply as an outdated demo model for which I paid less than the expected price drop from the 300D to the next model.

Ultimately Canon must follow Nikon with equivalents to the DX 17-55 and 12-24, plus preferrably a 4-5.6/18-85 IS and a 1.4/20. However, Nikon has standardized their complete range of DSLRs to a small digital sensor with 1.5 cropping factor. Not all users of high-end DSLRs are sports photographers or paparazzi who only need long lenses. So Nikon certainly must offer 2.8/28-70 (and shorter) equivalents for their range of “professional” DSLRs.

Ironically the EOS 1Ds (with full size sensor) puts Canon into a dilemma. There is no need to supply 1Ds users with special lenses. These are only necessary for the more cost-conscious 10D users, and eventually for 300D or 1D users. And these are trapped in between hoping for a availability of cheaper full size sensors, or waitng for new, special lenses.

I purchased Canon's 28-135 IS and a secondhand 100-400 L IS and a 2xextender II. I found the 28-135 great, but the 100-400 awkward to use when handheld and not exactly wonderful with the extender added on a tripod. I have now sold the 100-400 and replaced it with the 300f4 which I find much easier to use handheld (even with a 1.4 x extender II in place to give an AF 420mm lens). Having done away with the zoom capabilities of the 100-400, I purchased a Tamron 28-300XR as a lightweight carry anywhere lens. I also bought a Tamron 19-35 for my relatively occasional indoor photography. I find both these lenses produce good results. So in general I use 300f4+1.4x for bird photography; 28-135 for insects; 19-35 for buildings; 28-300 when nothing specific planned, not in a position to carry multiple lenses, or the 300f4 is just too bulky. I should add that I am an amateur and do not have aspirations to produce perfect pictures.

The following link gives a very different view of some of these lenses: In particular, there's a thread on vignetting in the 24-85 and 28-105:

-- Curio Allocchio, August 17, 1999 I can't understand why so may people are praising this lens. I find its performanse below average. Yes the 24-85 is very convinient and easy to travel but its quality .... Maybe I am spoiled by my EF 28-70L USM and my EF 20mm USM. In quest for amature exchellense ( without the profesional know-how) I would stick to prime lenses and yes because the zoom feature is convenient maybe the EF 28-70L for travels and the EF 70-200L to capture your childrens precious activities.

Thanks for the original article and those who add comments, it is the basis on which I made my original decisions, I therefore rate it as great. My Last SLR was a Olympus OM4, now I have my Digital Rebel, so it will go to my camera museum. After reading everything I could the various lens,the line-up I decided on is: 17-40MM 4.0L, 28-135MM IS & 70-300MM IS DO.I tried the 75-300MM IS but fould it too slow and was dissapointed at the light level the AF would start to hunt, so took it back for the 70-300MM. If I find a requirement, the 50MM 1.8 can be added later. Everything has to fit in my LowePro Street & Field backpack. I am staying with lens which can be used with any camera and sensor size. This means I can up-grade the camera body without having to substantially changing my lens package. Robin

Update: 2 new EF-S lenses available with launch of 20D

With the launch of the new 20D, Canon has also launched 2 new EF-S lenses (that will only work on the 300D and 20D):

EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM and EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

According to Canon, these two lenses have better optical characteristics and build and are also priced considerably above the 18-55 'kit lens'.

See more information at http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/efs/efs_lenses

I have the 20D (and used to have the 300D), and I highly recommend the new Sigma 18-50/2.8 zoom lens. I have found that it compares quite well with my Canon 28mm/2.8 prime lens, and is much better than the Canon 18-55 EFS lens.

I get very good color saturation, contrast, and very little aberration from this lens. It is too bad that it doesn't have full-time manual focus, but at least the AF/MF switch is large enough that it is easy to use with your thumb.

I used to have the 28-135 IS lens, and I liked it a lot, but I have found that I need the 18mm wide end, and I also like the 2.8 more than I need the image stabilization. I would still like to have the 28-135 for the telephoto 135mm shots, but I can't justify owning both lenses at the same time at the moment (in fact, given some extra $$ I would probably go for the 135/2 prime at this point).

Matts post is dead on. I had the same problem with the 18-55, and am hoping it is not there with the new body/lens that is coming. Everyone acted like I was crazy or needing some classes. Mine did EXACTLY the same thing. These things ARE NOT dreamed up. chris

Awesome guide. Very helpful.