If you had £1000 to buy two or three lenses what would they be?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,347
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I am quite new to all this and have a Canon 450d, 18-55 is kit lens and a 50mm f1.8. I enjoy portrait photography as well as wildlife photography and was wondering if anyone would like to suggest 2 or 3 lenses that i could buy for roughly £1000. They can be third party, second hand whatever. In fact if you could think of 1 lens that could do it all reasonably well then feel free to mention this.

Thanks
 
sigma 30 f1.4 canon 85 f1.8 and I'm not sure about the third a 200 f2.8 would be nice but its a bit dear :p

most likely a sigma 30 f1.4 a canon 85 f1.8 and a 580exII
 
I'd get a 55-250mm IS - like a carry-on to the 18-55mm IS, I'd also get a 10-20mm Sigma or 10-22mm Canon for more wide shots and then maybe another nice prime - 85mm or 30mm?

But it depends on what you're in to. (y)
 
Another shout for the 'poor man's holy trinity' [I came up with that phrase myself, BTW:naughty:]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon 70-300mm IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 [one less to buy, too]

That leaves enough cash for something else - maybe some macro tubes, maybe a decent flash. I'm using the Nikon version of the above lenses, but I don't think there's a higher quality way to get from 17-300mm using zooms or primes for under £1000.
 
Canon EF 70-200 F4L
Canon EF-S 10-22

End of thread :)

Seriously, the IS kit lens is a decent bit of glass so I'd get the above two to extend your range dramatically and look at upgrading the kit lens at a later date.
 
I'd like to get a good Macro lens, I get the feeling I'm going to enjoy Macro.

Perhaps the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, I might want a longer Macro lens not sure yet.
 
70-200mm f4L, (sigma) 30mm 1.4 and put everything else towards a 24-70mm L somewhere in the future.

Well, that’s my plan for now :D
 
scottduffy said:
I am quite new to all this and have a Canon 450d, 18-55 is kit lens and a 50mm f1.8. I enjoy portrait photography as well as wildlife photography and was wondering if anyone would like to suggest 2 or 3 lenses that i could buy for roughly £1000. They can be third party, second hand whatever. In fact if you could think of 1 lens that could do it all reasonably well then feel free to mention this.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Sell the 18-55 and the 50mm/1.8
Replace them with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 100-400L.
Simplez (y)
 
+1 for 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM. This is my mainstay, end of story (24-70L stays on the shelf most of the time) - Good for action, portraits, flowers, stock photography, and even some landscapes.

Another great lens on budget is 70-200mm f/4L USM, and perhaps 10-22 or 17-40L if you see full frame in the future. 85/1.2 is another great lens.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Canon EF 70-200 F4L
Canon EF-S 10-22

End of thread :)

Seriously, the IS kit lens is a decent bit of glass so I'd get the above two to extend your range dramatically and look at upgrading the kit lens at a later date.
Click to expand...

I agree with the 70-200 but I'd get the EF 100mm macro just to give more options in things to photograph


trapper501 said:
I'd like to get a good Macro lens, I get the feeling I'm going to enjoy Macro.

Perhaps the Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, I might want a longer Macro lens not sure yet.
Click to expand...

Longer than 100mm for a Canon macro will be more than the £1000 budget :)


Mangelwurzel said:
Sell the 18-55 and the 50mm/1.8
Replace them with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 100-400L.
Simplez (y)
Click to expand...

Even better get the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS , but I'd defo get rid of the 50mm 1.8 anyway.
 
not sure on prices but 17-50 tamron, sigma 50-150 and a 70-300 vr
 
Or save like hell and get one lens to do it all Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 L IS USM :LOL:
 
there is only one choice and one lens to get
canon 24-105L this will cost all of 1k
everything else pales into insignificance.
 
mart77 said:
there is only one choice and one lens to get
canon 24-105L this will cost all of 1k
everything else pales into insignificance.
Click to expand...

or £650 2nd hand + 100mm macro = £1000 :LOL:. Sorry, I just don't see a point buying new, when you are careful and selective.
 
pchidell said:
I'd get a 55-250mm IS - like a carry-on to the 18-55mm IS, I'd also get a 10-20mm Sigma or 10-22mm Canon for more wide shots and then maybe another nice prime - 85mm or 30mm?

But it depends on what you're in to. (y)
Click to expand...

Given your current outfit, this is just what I'd do. But I'd get a decent flash ahead of the fast prime ;) Heck of a good outfit for not huge money.
 
Longer than 100mm for a Canon macro will be more than the £1000 budget

Not second hand, but i was thinking more of the Sigma one at the time.

I like that the Canon 100 is internal focussing so nothing outside moves, which isn't the case with third party offerings, but there have been good reviews on third party macro lenses.
 
Best thing I ever did was buy a second hand 17-40L. Stunning lens that spends the most time on my camera. Look for either a second hand 70-200 2.8 or 4 L. I smile everytime I see the results from mine! Not sure what change that would leave you, but perhaps enough for a macro or third party 28-70? If you're not going to delve into the wide angle side of life then second hand 70-200 with a 2x tc should do the job on a crop sensor.
 
Id go for a 100-400, should be avaliable 2nd hand for less. portraits wise you have the kit lens and a fifty, if enough left over though perhaps a tamron 17-50 or a 24/28-70 sigma/tamron
 
70-200mm F4L IS and a flash.

Or maybe the non-IS and a new laptop and photoshop.
 
It's all well and good teling the OP to get what you have, but the requirements are wildlife AND portraits.

Wildlife I'd go for the 100-400L and portraits something like the 85f1.8 although I think you'd have to get one or both second hand to meet the budget.
 
My advice would be to get one quality lens rather than splitting the budget and getting a couple (or three) mediocre ones.

Bob
 
Well if you have the nifty fifty on a crop sensor, that'll be an effective focal length of 80mm on your 450D, so ideal for portraits.

If you like wildlife, you need the most reach you can afford, which is a common muttering amongst wildlifers. I'd therefore suggest the 100-400 as it's very good IQ (not awesome but very good :LOL:) and has quite a focal range, so good on versatility.

For landscapes, your kit lens should be wide enough for now, though Sigma do make a 10-20mm lens for cropped cameras (16-32mm effective focal length).

100-400mm gets my vote, as it's definately worth getting one decent lens than 2 or 3, when you have the other ranges covered, except between 55 and 100mm
 
Definitely need the 10-20mm Sigma because its always good to have that extra wide angle! You never know when you may need it, particularly for buildings and huge landscapes.

I am quite a Sigma man so I would also suggest the 18-200mm OS Sigma, which covers a wide range and has excellent reviews.

If you want 3 lenses for £1000 then Sigma's will most likely fit your price range. They are well priced and roughly 80% of their kit exceeds expectations on quality. I rarely read a bad review about Sigma lenses.
 
danbroad said:
Another shout for the 'poor man's holy trinity' [I came up with that phrase myself, BTW:naughty:]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon 70-300mm IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 [one less to buy, too]

That leaves enough cash for something else - maybe some macro tubes, maybe a decent flash. I'm using the Nikon version of the above lenses, but I don't think there's a higher quality way to get from 17-300mm using zooms or primes for under £1000.
Click to expand...

another vote
for wildlife you want at least 300mm unless you're a camo expert.
400 mm might be better but costs more.
you could try a sigma alternative but I like the canon and perhaps a 1.4x extender. that would improve your reach
the tamron is a great lens for the money. very versitile.
for portraits then the 50mm prime is a winner I think at a budget and the f2.8 on the tamron will do you proud.
also a flash, 430ex or the sigma £150 unit is cracking apparently
One great amazing L glass lens might be nice for £1000. but then you're stuck with just one focal length. if you were a wedding pro...fine. For a hobbyist, I don't rate that. a bit of variety is nice.
oh and don't get cheap cards. waste of money and frustrating to use
 
A (used) 300 f/4 (IS?) and a 1.4x TC along with a 100/105mm macro.

You may even be able to add the Tamron 17-50 in there too (if the non IS 300 f/4 was bought), or a shorter prime, say 30 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8.

With that setup wou would have one of the best (reasonably affordable) wildlife lenses, that could reach up to 420mm and something to cover the middle ground between that and the kit lens, which could be used for closer wildlife and portraits.
 
There's no doubt a 300mm prime would give you great image quality at 300mm, but there's a huge gap between that and the 50mm. I sometimes regret selling my 300mm prime, but everytime I get the 'seller's blues', I remember that I sold it for a reason.

Have you considered the 70mm f/4 IS USM?

Now there's a great lens. A highly regarded 70mm f/4 lens that happens to outresolve a 12MP sensor in terms of sharpness and fine detail, and that gives you a very useful focal length for portraiture on DX. It's also full frame compatible, making it 'futureproof' if you upgrade camera bodies.

...It just happens to be at the short end of the Canon 70-300 IS. If that same lens also offered a decent, image stabilised 300mm setting [which photozone, probably one of the most repected lens review sites] referred to as 'hidden L lens quality', aswell as every focal length inbetween, then I think sometimes folks lust after the exotics without realising what a good thing we have right in front of us.

JM2C...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top