where dose the lens quality start ? I own a Canon 600D a EF-S 18-55mm IS II (crap) canon a EF 75-300mm USM III (rubbish) canon a EF 100mm Macro IS USM L series (love it) canon Now this...

TJ Loc: Austraila, Toowoomba.

I own a Canon 600D a EF-S 18-55mm IS II (crap) canon
a EF 75-300mm USM III (rubbish) canon
a EF 100mm Macro IS USM L series (love it) canon

Now this is my first DSLR and i know already that the first two len's on my list are not good enough.

So my question is, do i have to spend L series money to get a good quality lens or dose the lens quailty start at a lower price braket?

And just to satisfy others curiosity I brought the L series because it's a high end lens that dose landscape,portrate,macro and will stay with me and my cameras till the end(the 600D is my first not my last)

notnoBuddha

Not really sure what the question is, maybe "is there a lens between the L seris and EF series, As far as Canon I would say no -your only choice would be a third party brand. Some brand loyalists would insist that you should have bought a Nikon or some other brand. Since you have decided what does not work I would not try to change your mind but I will tell you on some recent visits to rather well known photo shows I saw numerous prize winning photos taken with several brands of camera and model of lenses.

TJ Loc: Austraila, Toowoomba.

Yes there is but dose the lens quality match the L series? is what im hoping to find out before i spend.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

tj wrote:

I own a Canon 600D a EF-S 18-55mm IS II (crap) br ... (show quote)

When it comes to new lens purchases I recommend getting a versatile wide range zoom with Image Stabilization. In the case of my Nikon I bought a 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 VRII. It cost me $800 but covers a super wide range of useful lenses and takes very high quality images up and down its entire focal range. From there I bought two additional lenses for specialty situations. My 50mm F/1.4 fixed focal length lens is useful for general shooting and especially in really low light situations. It has no VR/IS but it's incredibly sharp photos are not difficult to take. It gives photos with great depth of field focus control because of the wide aperture. It's not cheap at over $400 but if that's a deal breaker the F/1.8 version is about $125 and will do a good job. Finally I bought an 85mm F/3.5 VRII Micro for close up work where VR(Vibration Reduction or Canon's IS Image Stabilization) will benefit me greatly. Price $489.

TJ Loc: Austraila, Toowoomba.

bobmielke wrote:

quote=tj I own a Canon 600D a EF-S 18-55mm IS II ... (show quote)

Thanks an 18 to 200mm seems good advice, i spose whats missing from my question is when i say lens i mean glass quailty(lens)but you understood that.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

tj wrote:

I own a Canon 600D a EF-S 18-55mm IS II (crap) canon
a EF 75-300mm USM III (rubbish) canon
a EF 100mm Macro IS USM L series (love it) canon

Now this is my first DSLR and i know already that the first two len's on my list are not good enough.

Actually, the new version 18-55 with IS is not a bad lens, for the money. If you keep it in the f/8 to f/16 range it can be pretty sharp. I've seen pictures taken with it on Flickr that are quite good, so like anything else, talent can make mediocre hardware perform better.

The 70-300 is, as you've noticed, not one of Canon's better efforts, but then, I'd have to say there are few consumer zooms with that much range that offer really decent optics. It's just too wide a range to do successfully at that price point.

With a few notable exceptions, you do get what you pay for with quality glass. There's just no way the optical quality of a $200 lens can compare with that of a $2000 lens.

TJ Loc: Austraila, Toowoomba.

JimH wrote:

quote=tj I own a Canon 600D a EF-S 18-55mm IS II ... (show quote)

Mmmm seems it's all said and done then, high end high end high end. Oh well better get to work then, Thanks.

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

You need to check a few review sites (like www.dpreview.com or
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews ) and see what they say. Not all your lenses need be "L" quality glass. I use an EF-S 15-85mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM that can show good results. Sure and we'd all like to afford nothing but-top-of-the-line; but it ain't gonna happen now is it :-) ? Decide what your needs are, then search for lenses that meet those needs. Reason you may not find specific answers is everyone's taste is different. What they look for in a lens may differ from what you're looking for.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Exactly what problems are you having with the 18-55?
I find it to be rather good for a kit lens and have not yet replaced it.
IF you check the larger photo store adds, no names but I am in NYC, Canon has a better lens in that range without going into the L series. The only annoyance I see with the kit lens is the rotating front element, and years ago I taught myself to find shooting positions where I did not get sun on the lens eliminating lens shades.

Dolmen

Canon's 70-300 is capable of very good results,trouble is,people are unable to master it,too slow shutter speed being the most common cause of bad results.So get to know your equipment,& stop whining.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

My kids are string players. One time one of them was at a Maasters class and played for a famous violinest. He would take the students violins and make them sound like his Strad. He made the comment that with the cheap insturments you needed to work a little harder to get the sound you want and when you got the best sound out of the insturment you had it was time to look at a better one. Perhaps we need to do the same thing with our lenses. = dave

Dolmen

Great point Dave.Well said.

Gregory Loc: Clinton, Iowa

"does"

Hiskid.58 Loc: Erie, PA

Some pretty good points made by all. I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", sort of. Most things are overpriced in my opinion,but that's another topic. I have found Sigma lenses to be quite good if you buy the better Sigma lenses, and they are much cheaper than the Canon/Nikon lenses. I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and love it. I also have the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 That is also a great lens. There are a couple good independent web sites that test lenses and put up their technical scores, here are some links:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php
Unless your independently wealthy or a pro, I see no need to spend thousands of $$$$ for Canon or Nikon lenses. I do weddings with my Sigmas and I've never heard anyone complain.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

Dolmen wrote:

Canon's 70-300 is capable of very good results,trouble is,people are unable to master it,too slow shutter speed being the most common cause of bad results.So get to know your equipment,& stop whining.

Please take this poster's comments with a grain of salt. He has posted no photographs and has listed his location as "In Hiding". When confronted in a private message about his antagonistic approach his response was that he "likes to shake up the weenies on this forum".