Canon 400D lens advice for a new starter!

faris

faris

Messages
22
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Hello all,

After looking for a forum to join I have decided on this one :) I have recently got hold of a Canon 400D body as an upgrade from a IXUS750 compact, as I have decided to pick up photography as a 'hobby'. Now, I have done some research on lenses, and am now looking for some decent glass to play around with, as I did not purchase any kit lens after reading that there are better out there in the form of 3rd party items (Sigma / Tamron) I have decided to go with a 18-50 lens for now, and then upgrade to something with more zoom capability later on, say for example a 18-200 or just something around the ranges of 50-200 and swap them over when I need to.

What are peoples opinions on this type of lens to start off with:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-50...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1238162723&sr=8-2

Also, what is the difference between the one above, and this one:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-50...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1238162987&sr=1-2

?

Also, while we are on the subject of lenses, do you think that I will be ok without the OS? I am guessing so, as as far as I know, the kit lens that comes with the 400D has no IS.

I would be very grateful for any help you could give me. :)

Thanks,

Steve.
 
I'd get a Sigma 17-70, and afford yourself the extra zoom. The lack of a constant 2.8 aperture is not a big deal!

And welcome!! :D
 
Hi and Welcome :wave:

A 50mm 1.8 aka 'nifty fifty' is an absolute must. It's the first lens I bought for my 400D and is my favourite. Search the forum for 'nifty fifty' and you'll see how much praise they get. They're a prime lens (fixed focal length) so you will need other lenses too but they are sweet as a nut for the price. :thumbs:

Check out this link to a forum memeber that sells them at a really good price:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=119498&highlight=50mm
 
Welcome to the site!

faris said:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-50...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1238162723&sr=8-2

Also, what is the difference between the one above, and this one:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-18-50...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1238162987&sr=1-2
Click to expand...

The first one is designed for a Canon crop sensor body (like the 400D) and the second one is designed for a Sigma body so wouldn't fit on your 400D. Sigma's a good brand so you won't go wrong with it - depending your photography you might later want a wider aperture at the high end of the zoom but this is a good standard lens and is more-or-less the same spec as the 400D kit lens anyway.

faris said:
Also, while we are on the subject of lenses, do you think that I will be ok without the OS? I am guessing so, as as far as I know, the kit lens that comes with the 400D has no IS.
Click to expand...

You'll be fine without IS for short lenses - it's increasingly useful with longer zooms since the small movements translate into larger shakes, although it does help with indoor shots as well.
 
candlestick said:
I'd get a Sigma 17-70, and afford yourself the extra zoom. The lack of a constant 2.8 aperture is not a big deal!

And welcome!! :D
Click to expand...

faris isn't looking at the renown constant f2.8 version of lens. I wonder, faris, if you were meaning to look at the cheaper lens??
 
Aye, fair dos - Faris, to reiterate what Scraggs said, what's your budget - you'd maybe be better off with a 2nd hand 18-55 IS kit lens than that Sigma. The IS version is much better than 400D kit lens!
 
If you are new to this game I wouldn't write off the standard kit lens. They are not brilliant, but they are not that bad either and you can easily pick one up for £20-25 second hand. You could use this as a stop gap until you get a better feel for what type of photography you want to try. The 18-55 range is pretty good for starting.

However if you want to upgrade straight away try and consider what you will use it for - potraits, sport, landscapes etc.

The Sigma 17-70 is great - I have one and love it, but as noted above the f2.8 version will give you better low light handling. However this is 28-70mm in range and personally I reckon you will miss the 17-27 if you want to do landscapes (if not, get the 28-70)

Also I would not be without the nifty fifty (50mm f1.8 mkII). This is an absolute must for the money. Great wee lens at indoor use.

If you know your budget, folks here should be able to recommend better options for you.
 
Ok-first of all thankyou for all of the great advice and the warm welcome.

As far as a budget goes, I am looking for the best performance for as little money as possible, but I think thats what we are all looking for :) I think for my level, as a new starter 200 maximum is what I would consider paying, having paid out for the body already.

I think if I tell you the kinds of things I intend on shooting, you people will have a much better idea of what I need, but I think a 'general' purpose lens would suit me best for now at least, which is why im looking at the 18-50 range.

I do a lot of hill walking and scrambling, and so enjoy shooting landscape and also shots of my fellow climbers and so on. I like to travel, and this year will be China, and so again, some landscape shots, along with interesting street shots, temples, gardens and so on. Im sure you can imagine the types of things that I will be shooting.

So this is why im thinking a more general lens would be best for now, rather than buying anything specialist for landscape use. However, im not sure how much I would have to pay for something I could use for 'panoramic' use, which could come in handy for skyline or city shots, along with for use in the mountains.

Anyway, I like the suggestions guys. The 17-70 is probably a little expensive if im going to get anything with IS or OS. I was also thining that a single zoom lens would probably be ideal to save me taking multiple lenses around with me, although I have not written off the idea of the prime 50. So far I like the suggestion that Welsh Dan made with regard to the canon lens with the IS. Would this be much better than the standard kit lens?

As you can see, im in need of some help, and that is why I am here :) This lens business is very confusing indeed!

Thanks again,

Steve.
 
The 18-55 IS is a shaper lens, plus its got IS. Its not the 'normal' 18-55 with IS bolted on.
 
If it's mainly for travel, landscape and tourist shots, IS may not be needed. Getting a faster lens, such as a f2.8 constant can help with getting fast shutter speeds in low light situations so don't discount a lens because it doesn't have IS.

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 seems to be a cracking lens and would probably do you well. I had it on my short list with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 and ended up going with the Sigma because I liked the little bit of extra reach (although it is not much) and I know it would fit in my future plan of lenses, as a 70-200L and 70-300 IS are fighting it out in my telephoto shopping. If you are willing to go secondhand for your lens then you should be able to get either in your budget, or just a bit over - I got my Sigma for quite a bit under £200 in the classified ads here on the forum. I would probably keep my eye out for the Tamron though, as I think it will suit your needs quite well.
 
For £200 I would go with getting the Sigma 17-70, you will definately get a second hand one for around that money, otherwise, get a kit lens for £25 and then put the rest to a 55-250. This will give you a range of 18-250, which give you great scope for playing around with. I don't think the 55 will be enough for you when shooting other walkers unless you want to get real close.

The 55-250, has IS and will give you more scope.


WARNING - Be preapred to get bitten by the bug and constantly want better kit.
 
So the Sigma 17-70 would be the non-os model? I get the feeling a few of you see OS or IS as something that I could get away with not having?

I have still not made a decision, as I am reading all of this advise, while also looking at the second hand options on Ebay etc.

Cheers,

Steve
 
faris said:
So the Sigma 17-70 would be the non-os model? I get the feeling a few of you see OS or IS as something that I could get away with not having?

I have still not made a decision, as I am reading all of this advise, while also looking at the second hand options on Ebay etc.

Cheers,

Steve
Click to expand...


For sure, the 17-70 is a good lens, as you will be shooting mostly outdoors and possible with a tripod (essential for landscape) you should have enough light to play with. I only recently purchased an IS lens, and there has been only a few cases when i wish I had one. The thing to remember with camera gear is that it holds its value very well, so if you get a lens and find that it is not quite what you need, you will nearly always make most if not all of your money back. So you can take a gamble, but go for a lens that gives you the reach.

If you want a bigger range, also look at the 18-200, then after a while you will know what range you use most, rather than buying something that is too short or too long. But with landscape the wider the better.
 
There is no OS model of the Sigma 17-70 as far as I'm aware. The 18-200 is a good suggestion as well, especially if you find yourself needing the extra reach that you didn't think you needed. It is a bit of a compromise as far as image quality, but you gain the versatility of a wide angle and telephoto without having to switch lenses - handy for traveling. If you find yourself shooting in a certain range after a while then you can look at getting a better lens that covers that range further down the road. There are so many choices available and so it is hard to find that "perfect" lens.
 
Tell me about it! Haha! Well this is the lens that i was looking at in the first place. The 18-200 sigma one, as a friend has one with the OS. However, the OS model is over £300 and I just cant bear to throw that kind of money it it straight away.. if I was more skilled, then maybe.

So, im starting to think that the Canon 18-50 IS lens would be a good start, for now. I can always sell this one on ebay and get something better as I progress, or even just get something from 50+ to give me some zoom when I need it. Do you think this would make a good start? Im watching a few lenses on Ebay, so I will see how those auctions go, and if there I am not going to save much, then I will buy new.

Steve.
 
If you really want the Sigma 18-200 OS you might want to check the classified ads here. Euan has one for sale for £250: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=121743 .

However, the 18-55 IS isn't a bad start either and it would save you some coin as you should be able to pick one up pretty cheap. You can probably get one for £60-70 I am thinking. That will leave you some money for all the other things you will end up needing such as memory, a bag, cleaning supplies, filters and a tripod maybe. You can even add a Sigma 55-200 for some reach for about the same price - I picked one up for £55 delivered used - giving you some lenses to play with and see what you use the most before dishing out some serious money on a lens.
 
Also the EF 50mm 1.8 is a very good lens, I wish I got mine earlier! You can pick up a new one for circa £80 and its a right little cracker for the money, you can get quite creative with it and I found it surprisingly versatile. I find it good for portraits, landscapes and fairly close stuff.
 
The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, I have one in my kit, but I don't think I would have it as my only lens to start with.
 
Thanks for all of the help guys, I have bought Euan's lens, so I look forward to playing around with my new toy as soon as it arrives :D
 
I got the Sigma 17-70 lens as my first on the 400D, Im totally glad I made that choice, I still use it all the time as it is just great.

Just did a studio shoot and im still impressed even after a year and 4 months of using it.

Not sure which lens you got but im sure you will be fine with all the suggestions on here. Good luck and welcome.
 
He picked up the Sigma 18-200 OS.
 
Thats right, I did go for a Sigma in the end :)

Thanks again for all of the help and the warm welcomes guys. Once I have had a good play around with the camera, and learn a little, im sure you will get to see some of my fledgling photography! Im sure I can get any help I need from you lot. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top