Best Price Telephoto Lens Deals

I was so surprised how light is the T3i, (in comparison to 7D /50D or 60D) with its 18.0 mega pixel the CMOS sensor captures superb image quality with low noise and natural color The EOS T3i, positioned between the EOS T2i and EOS 60D, features scene intelligent auto, 3-inch vari-angle clear view LCD and a selection of five creative filters including the new fish eye effect (which is awesome!!) honestly, once you get this camera, no need for Photoshop. I initially purchased the 7DCanon EOS 7D 18 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-inch LCD (Body Only), but then I returned it due to the more complicated usage, and the post-photo processing/ editing necessary for making pictures look better. T3i comes with an instructional guide built in, like the Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens. The guide tells beginners (or rusty intermediates) how to set the camera to get specific types of shots. For instance, if you dial up macro mode, it says "for closeups of small objects such as flowers, shoot as close as possible." the T3i gives me all I want, clear and hassle free pictures, ready to upload/print. it uses normal SD cards, no need for the expensive CF flash cards. longer battery life, and low consumption. Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS SLR Lens comes with the camera, and it is a great lens for beginners, and gives a great opportunity to practice Manual Focus! Do not invest in expensive lenses from the start, you might like…

This is a very good lens given its price. Like with any lens selection there are compromises, and a more expensive lens is not necessarily better in all respects. These are the main considerations for me: * The lens comes with an excellent IS. One could probably save a hundred bucks buying a non-IS lens in this focal range which may even be a bit better optically. However, long range shots without IS are difficult, especially in low light. The IS on this lens works very well, better compared to my Canon 28-135 IS and even compared to the 100-400L. The IS really makes a lot of hand held shots possible that one could not do with a non-IS lens. * The lens is fairly cheaply built and has a plastic mount. However, the trade-off is that it is also fairly small and light (the small size is also due to the fact that it is a EF-S lens). My other tele-zoom is a 100-400L lens which is built like tank, but it is also huge and weighs 3 pounds. In many cases one does not want to carry that much weight around, and that is where this lens comes in really handy. * Image quality: No, it cannot quite match the 100-400L, but it comes surprisingly close. Of course, the 100-400L costs 5 times as much. Lack of good color saturation is the most notable deficiency. On the other hand images are very sharp. For outdoors one should get a hood, there is quite a bit of glare in shots with frontal sunlight. * Zoom range: the 55-250mm range makes the lens quite versatile. 250mm is long enough for most outdoor…

First, I have an extensive background in both photography and video. I was looking for a smaller camera to carry around that could also shoot video. When I heard about this one I thought it would be perfect and it is good, very good BUT its does have its issues... I will try to keep this short and to the point. Pros: 1. Superb image quality in both photos and video. You can expect image quality comparable to a Canon Pro DSLR. And I am not just saying that. I actually did compare it to our 1Ds MkII. This camera can produces usable images up to ISO 3200. Noise is there but they do a good job of controlling it. With this said, it would be noted that there really isn't that much difference between a Canon 20D and the most expensive DSLR for photos that will be displayed on the web or in regular size prints. If you don't really need video then you can save yourself a lot of money and just get a used 20D :) I actually still have my original 20D as a backup. 2. Amazingly, the 18-55 kit lens turned out to be remarkably good. How good? Well, within the center area of the frame it would give the more expensive lens a run for their money :) Where it begins to break down is in corner detail but this is to be expected. The focusing is also too noisy to use for video, IF you are recording sound. UPDATE: if you are looking to upgrade the lens, I can recommended the Canon 15-85 IS. 3. The built in mic is also very good. Even on regular video cameras this is almost a universal weakness. If you…

I'd just got into SLR photography and the first few months with the 35-90 lens that came with the Canon Rebel 2000 were outstanding. I never realised there was SO much difference between a point-and-shoot and an SLR. After reading p on some of the books about photography, I reaslied an important point was getting the right framing and getting close to the subject. So I set out to look for a cost effective zoom lens that would give me that flexibility. I tried the cheeper rip off lens in the loal camera store and found their mechanisms stiff and slow focussing. I stuck my neck out for a canon make lens, and this one jumped out at me. It's perfect, the shot are crystal clear, the zoom is smooth and the autofocus is just as good as with the smaller lens. How do they make these lenses so cheap when competing lenses are more that twice the price? highly recommended for a novice like myself whodoesn't want to sped too much for telephoto zoom capability. I'm now looking for a canon 2x teleconverter to add to my range.

When I worked as a photojournalist many years ago, 50mm was the "standard" lens in that it came closest to a real world perspective, especially for street photography. That is no longer always true because of the field-of-view crop of many cameras. Canon's popular digital Rebel and its successors, for example, have a 1.6X view that turns a 50mm lens into an 80mm lens. The 1D MARK II has a 1.3X view that makes it a 65mm lens. So, if you're looking for a standard lens today, 35mm probably is closer to the mark on those cameras. And Canon has a couple of options there - a 35 f/1.4 that is great and expensive and a 35 f/2 that is a good value at about $250. If you're still looking for a 50mm, however, there now are four options from Canon: 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 50/2.5. Here are the pros and cons of each: 50/1.2 is the newest, fastest and the most expensive at about $1,600. It is an "L" lens, which means it is more durably constructed than any of the others. The image quality is a cut above all of the others, especially at wider apertures. If money is no object, you'll probably want this one. But most of the rest of us have to ask the question whether it's 5X better than the 1.4. 50/1.4 is maligned by some for the softness of its images at f/1.4, but for me its a good, compact, low-light lens at a terrific price ($325). And the lens gets sharp quickly as you stop it down. It's sharp at f/2 and very sharp by f/2.8 with good contrast and colors. 50/1.8 is a…

Like you, I'm guessing, I debated back and fourth about whether to buy this lens or go with another less costly option. I'd read the reviews both here and online at the various sites. Already owned a 100 Macro IS L and 135mm f2 L and 200mm F2.8L II. All, by the way, are outstanding lenses! I even had the 70-200 f4 IS L that is considerably smaller and lighter than this lens. But I was never crazy about the "bokeh" the f4 L IS version gave me. So I sold it and just shot my primes. No question, the primes I own are truly great optics. Even the often forgotten 200mm 2.8L II produces spectacular results. But I had few recent shoots, where my subjects were constantly moving and I found myself not able to reposition myself, get closer or further away quickly enough when needed and inevitably missed some key shots because I could not change lenses quickly enough. Did what I could afterwords in Photoshop, but results could have been better. That frustrated me. So came here, and would read, reread the user reviews and almost click "Add to Cart" several times. Finally gave in and just did it. Figured the worst scenario was I'd test it against my current lenses and if it didn't hold up, I'd neatly pack it back into the box and return it. As soon as I go the lens, unpacked it and after being thoroughly impressed with the build quality, the nice lens case and hood, I got out my tripod and other prime L glass and shot it against this 70-200 IS L II. To put it in a nutshell…

I bought this camera upgrading from a PowerShot S95 and was a little skeptical about it because I typically like to get the 'higher-end' type items, like the S95 to the PowerShot series, but in the world of DSLRS that puts you in the range of $1000+ just for the starter kit lens and body. Some online reviews also nit pick this camera because it doesn't feel professional and lacks a super detailed screen. While these are completely valid points, I find the fact that this camera out performs any short comings when in the hands of a beginner. I am producing amazing results and am blown away with the flexibility of the options once I dig a little deeper into how to use them (P, Tv, Av) I am finding myself becoming obsessed and always thinking about photography now that I have this tool to introduce me to this new world. There is no contest in the pictures the S95 takes and this. The battery life is ridiculous- I used it all afternoon shooting continuous high shutter speed in Av for about 600 shots and 7 minutes of HD video and its still showing that I haven't dented the remaining battery life. I also picked up a 55-250MM IS lens which has made my zoom range cover a good distance so I'm able to take pictures at sporting events from the stands. The kit lens is more than adequate for simple portraits and landscapes. Definitely get a flash though, the flash range on this one is pretty much a joke. I can safely recommend this camera to anyone looking to step up to a DSLR but doesn't want…

I had the 55-200mm non VR version for about 5 months, sold it to essentally recover my cost, and bought the VR version as a replacement. The non VR version was very compact and light, and produced excellent photos, but the slightly larger VR version is so much more usable I don't miss the other lens at all. The VR works as advertised and allows me to take pictures at 3 times or more lower shutter speeds than the non VR version. While I would love the 18-200mm VR for the convenience, I will never be able to justify the $750 price, so my 18-55mm kit lens and this lens will likely cover my needs as long as I own my camera. I also seriously considered the 70-300mm VR, but couldn't accept twice the price for only 50% more reach. And at twice the length of the 55-200mm non VR version, it would be too awkward for me to carry around. I am very satisfied with this 55-200mm VR lens and if you are considering it, please give it a try. You will not be dissapointed.

I owned the original 18-200 VR lens and adored it. It was the only lens I ever really needed to take with me on my photo shoots and personal travel. My only real issue with the lens related to lens-creep. As an active person who is accustom to slinging the camera around my neck and taking off - the original model lens would extend itself (a minor annoyance). The 18-200 VR II has a cam lock to prevent such. This is a phenomenal lens that takes great photographs throughout the zoom range and it has VR so there's no need for a tripod - just buy it and never worry about carrying around 2 or 3 lenses. Check out Ken Rockwell's review - he knows his stuff and has been reviewing equipment for years! Help support his site too! You'll have to google his namd as Amazon seems to remove the link when I attach it.

I have been very impressed with this lens over the past 3 months. There was a special on Amazon that gave you some $ off if you purchased a Nikon d5100 and this lens as a pair so I jumped on it. The lens has already been with me to 3 countries and has been great. Build: Yes, this lens has a lot of plastic. This saves you a lot of weight and money. If you want it to be made of metal spend 3x as much buying a pro Nikon lens. Don't buy this one and then complain it feels cheap. The mount is metal which I believe is an upgrade over the 55-200mm Nikon. Optics: Really can't complain here. Shooting at around f/6-f/8 has produced great images at any zoom. The colors are great, distortion is small and easily correctable, and are sharp. Focus: The focus is pretty much silent and has been fast for me. I don't know if those who complain about slow focus or inability to focus just got a dud or what. VR: Has been a lifesaver. Trying to shoot this at 300mm handheld without VR isn't fun. I have been very impressed with how well this works and always have it on. Zoom: You can really reach out there with this thing (i guess a 450mm equiv will do that). One thing with my lens, when I first got it the zoom mechanism was a little sticky going from 200 to 300mm. One night I just sat with it on the couch and zoomed it in and out fully and now it's very smooth. If you experience this, just play with it for awhile and it'll loosen up. One last thing I'll say. I hate when people give bad reviews to things…

The 50mm/f1.4 and 50mm/f1.8 are the BEST PORTRAIT LENSES that Canon offers. I own a Canon Rebel 2000 and Digital Rebel XT and have used both these lenses for several months. Pictures have been outstanding and my professional customers frequently cite the sharpness, light balance, depth of field, color reproduction, and "bokeh" (intentional blurring of background in portraits) from these lenses. Some people question the usefulness of a 50mm lens on digital SLRs with a 1.6x crop factor (i.e., 50mm lens = 80mm on a dSLR like the Digital Rebel XT)... I can vouch that the range is beautiful and relevant, focusing more closely on key subjects in portraits. WHAT DO THESE LENSES HAVE IN COMMON? They are both fast (the f1.4 is blazing fast - dSLR can hardly keep up!), details are incredibly sharp (you can see individual hair strands), virtually no chromatic (color) aberration, no dithering or shadows in the corners, focusing is rapid and quiet (thanks to Canon's patented Ultrasonic USM technology) and photo quality parallels even my professional Canon "L" lenses. These fixed aperture lenses also provide superior pictures than telephoto lenses at 50mm because of better glass and aspherical elements. HOW ARE THESE LENSES DIFFERENT? Having tested both lenses across 1500+ pictures, there are 5 key factors that make the f1.4 superior (justifying the $300+ price tag). 1) FASTER ESPECIALLY IN LOW LIGHT: Extra f-stop makes the f/1.4 better for indoor photos or low light. Great…