dlinquist

I am a beginnner, and I have the introductory Cannon T3 cammera. I have been taking photo classes at an art school. I have a cannon75-300mm lens and am thinking about upgrading this lens. Any recommendations? I was looking at the cannon 70-300 with image stable. or the Tammeron 18-270 with image stable.

dasloaf

Go to Lens giant and rent the lens, you want to try out before you but. They have a large selection of canon lens and try out the one you like before you buy it. Lens are very expensive and trying them out first makes more sense then buying them. cheaper too.

dlinquist

Thanks good idea...

dasloaf

I have tried out numerous lens and found that I can spend 45-150 bucks to se if it is worth spend 600-2000 dollars. Hard to get your money back, on the used lens market!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

You haven't mentioned the Canon 100-400L lens. It's pricey but great glass. If you shoot wildlife at all, this would come in handy.

dlinquist

Thanks for the suggestion...thats what I am looking for I will check it out! Does it have good image quality?

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

I agree rent first (I do) nothing worse than dropping $1000+ on a lens that you saved to find out the lens isn't what you were hoping for. I thought I really wanted the 35L rented it and found out it wasn't what I wanted, rented the 24-70L and fell in love.

Before I can recommend lenses to look at I do have to ask:
what are you looking to take pictures of mostly?
and of course what is your budget?

dlinquist

Thanks I think I will do that, I just dont like the cannon lens I have now 70-300....I use it on a tri-pod, but when I dont....shake....no IS, image stabilizer, and the photos do not seem so crisp. I tried that Tammeron, and I liked it...just wondered if anyone else has it and if they do or dont like it. I will be using it for portraits, sports, family events, etc.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

The 100-400L (L is top of the Canon line). A friend of mine has one and I'd love to be able to shoot with it on my Nikon. You'd be very happy with it.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

Not sure I'd rec the 100-400 for portraits and family stuff, especially hung on the T3. Just not the right mix. The 1-4 is great to shoot that wildebeest half a mile away in the bush, or the turkey buzzard peering down at you, looking like he hopes you have cholera, but for sports, (unless WELL LIT) it's not really a good fit.

A few posts back you indicated an interest in wildlife photos, now you say portraits/family/sport. The two styles are not always overlapping. Which do you REALLY do most often?

Family stuff usually means a normal to wide angle thing, fast (for low light) and versatile.

Portraits usually call for a good prime in the (for your APS-C camera) 85-135mm range.

Sport, you want zoom, and low-light capability for indoor junk like sumo wrestling, girls volleyball, and tiddlywinks.

Wildlife can never have enough zoom. Low light capability is not that important, because you don't shoot much W/L at night. At night, you're not a photographer, you're dinner.

If you want ONE lens that can do a LOT, but not everything, for a reasonable price (e.g. <$500) look at Canon's 18-135 EF-S or 28-135 EF, or similar ranges from Sigma and Tamron. 18-24mm at the low end gives you a half decent wide angle, and getting to 135 is a decent zoom. Keep the 75-300 for when you need more reach, and practice with it.

If ya got money to burn, try the 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 with IS from Canon. It's a gem. Buy it with the 24-70L and the 100-400L and you've got a threesome even Charlie Sheen would be jealous of.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

To respond to JimH. One reason we use DSLR's is so we can use more than one lens. I have the Nikkon 28-300 lens which is excellent and covers just about everything I shoot, but I also have a Tamron 10-28 wide angle lens which I use on vacation and quite a few other shots as well as a 50mm 1.8. If you purchase the 100-400L you have to realize that with the the 1.5 multiplier (or 1.6 as it may be), the lens on your camera will start out practically as a 150mm lens. It is an outstanding telephoto lens, but you will need another lens to cover your other needs. It's not a bad idea to invest in glass first, however.

judy 2011 Loc: Northern Utah

I am Steve's friend with the 100-400 lens and I LOVE it. I take all my wildlife photos with it. I also have the Tamron 18-270 and love it. For me....the 300 wasn't enough reach. I wanted more. so got the 400 and now.....I want more. You can go to my Flickr site and see what the 100-400 does. those were taken with the 100-400 or the Tamron 18-270.

dlinquist

WOW....Beautiful pictures....thank you for sharing. I am really leaning toward the Tameron, as it seems to have more of a range....I have the kit lens 18-55 and a prime 50mm 1.8. My son plays lacrosse so I may need that reach like you said.....decisions, decisions.

alienmurphy Loc: Alaska

I have the Canon - 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS - camera and this lens is too heavy for me and I have to turn off the IS and use on a tripod. I do like the lens. I used to have the 75-300mm. Hated it and sold it on Craigslist.

[quotIe=dlinquist]I am a beginnner, and I have the introductory Cannon T3 cammera. I have been taking photo classes at an art school. I have a cannon75-300mm lens and am thinking about upgrading this lens. Any recommendations? I was looking at the cannon 70-300 with image stable. or the Tammeron 18-270 with image stable.[/quote]

Iduno Loc: Near Tampa Florida

I just rented the Canon 70-200 2.8 L and quickly determined it wasn't for me. Saved a bundle (or at least redirected my spending to some other toy). I heartily agree with the "rent" suggestion. For what it's worth, the Tamron 18-270 with IS looks very attractive.