50-250mm or 70-300mm for 2nd lense?

[flyinion]

Looking at buying a new DSLR here and it will come with the usual 18-55mm kit lense. I'm seeing a number of package deals that also include either a 50-250 or 70-300 and I'm not sure which would be a better choice. Logically I'd assume 50-250 so I have a "full range" of coverage but maybe I'm way off there. My current setup is the non-US version of a Canon EOS Rebel SII which has a 35-80mm kit lense and is my only lense. Point being, I have no experience with extra lenses so that's why I'm not sure which one would be the better choice. I just understand that I'll already lose some of the zoom capability I have with my film camera when I get the digital unless I get a 2nd lense.

[A.M.D.A.]

What will you be shooting more -- wide-angle, telephoto, or macro? Maybe all, but which do you think more often? Also, will you be using the camera only for "casual" stuff, or are you planning on becoming serious about taking pictures?

If you are planning to become serious about taking pictures, then I'd suggest to get a good lens for the application which you want to practise most (i.e. birds / wildlife, kid's sports, landscape, etc.), and then get a lower-end lens for the other applications which you don't plan to do much photographing of.

For example, a primarily wildlife photographer:

Canon 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM (Wildlife, main application)
Canon 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS (Casual shooting of wide-angles, standard length)
Canon 50mm F1.8 (Occasional low-light situations, portrait)

If you really can stretch the budget, consider getting an even better lens instead of the 70-300mm -- for example a prime 300mm F4. Whether the expense is worth it depends on how serious you will be about that type of subjects.

A landscape shooter might want to skip the 18-55mm and get a 17-40mm F4L instead. Sports shooters will probably consider skipping 70-300mm and getting, say, 200mm F2.8L (under $900 USD) or 70-200mm F2.8L (under $1,300 USD, with IS, under $1,750 USD).

I just understand that I'll already lose some of the zoom capability I have with my film camera when I get the digital

Zoom stays the same. Only effective field-of-view of the lens changes. Multiply the focal length number of your lens by 1.6x for most Canons to get an "equivalent" of what you would get on full-frame digital or film.

There are "full-frame DSLRS which have a muliplier of 0.0x, which means the sensor is the same size as a 35mm piece of film. 35-80mm stays with field of view of 35-80mm.

[CaraRose]

I do have to say the IS 55-200mm is a pretty nice lens for the price.

That said I'm dying to get a 300mm zoom to get a little extra distance.

[flyinion]

Thanks for the replies, makes a little more sense. Definitely amateur for now, in the future who knows though . I see myself playing with a mix of landscape, wildlife, and some macro at least until I get hooked by a particular subject type. I'm planning on most likely buying the Canon XSi so I know it doesn't have the full size sensor. It sounds like I probably want the higher 300mm. Your focal length comment makes sense. For some weird reason I thought my film Canon was a 1.6 focal length too, but maybe I pulled that idea out of thin air

[OldClicker]

Thanks for the replies, makes a little more sense. Definitely amateur for now, in the future who knows though . I see myself playing with a mix of landscape, wildlife, and some macro at least until I get hooked by a particular subject type. I'm planning on most likely buying the Canon XSi so I know it doesn't have the full size sensor. It sounds like I probably want the higher 300mm. Your focal length comment makes sense. For some weird reason I thought my film Canon was a 1.6 focal length too, but maybe I pulled that idea out of thin air

If your film camera is a 24mm Advanced Photo System (APS) with film cartridges, then it is about 1.6. - TF

[flyinion]

If your film camera is a 24mm Advanced Photo System (APS) with film cartridges, then it is about 1.6. - TF

Nope it's standard 35mm film rolls. Camera is from the early 90's, something like the 2nd generation of Rebel film SLR's that came out. Yeah I went and looked just now and no mention of focal length so I don't know why I thought it was a 1.6.

[Franglais]

..I just understand that I'll already lose some of the zoom capability I have with my film camera when I get the digital unless I get a 2nd lense.

The 18-55 is the equivalent of a 29-88mm on a film camera (on a Canon DSLR) so you will have more zoom than on your film camera (wider wide-angle and more tele telephoto).

The obvious choice for a second lens would be a 55-200. You have no break in your focal lengths and 200mm is already a pretty long tele (equivalent to a 320mm in film terms). Nikon do kits with camera, 18-55 and 55-200 that are excellent value and I imagine Canon do too. (If not - well you could always change brands)

[Martin Brazil]

I shoot a lot of wildlife stuff and I love my 70-300mm. Actually I want a bit more reach and have been checking out the various options and their prices so for this reason I would have found the 50-200mm a bit too short.
I think you can work around your gap in focal lengths with your kit lens and a 70-300 by just moving forwards or backwards but that extra 100mm of reach the 300 has over the 200 is not something you can usually get past.
That said I borrowed a 55-200 for a month and while I had it I never changed lenses as it covers most situations (except wildlife) really well and is easy to carry around being significantly smaller than the 300.
As people have said it all depends what you want to do with your camera.