Beginner Lens advice for Canon 400D

SarahMarie

SarahMarie

Messages
66
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I'm looking to buy a new lens for my Canon 400D. My smallest lens at the moment is my kit lens which is the Canon 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 II.

I am keen on nature photography and hopefully would like to get into astrophotography too if possible. Am I right in thinking that a Canon 50mm f1.8 would be a good lens to get, so that I'd get a shallow DoF for the nature part and then lots of light coming in on night time shots? If so, there seems to be a few versions out there...do I go for the I, the II or the STM version? ;) Are Canon ones better or does anyone ever go for brands like Yongnuo or something similar?

Thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
Others are a lot more knowledgable than me, but first thought - is the 50mm setting on your 18-55 the only one you use? If it's not you may find the 50mm f1.8 isn't wide enough for a crop sensor. I use the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on my 550D. It's leagues better than the 18-55 kit lens. I've used it for astrophotography with good results too. There are two versions, with and without VC. I bought the one without VC as it spends 97% of its time on the tripod and there was no point paying extra for something I didn't need. Just something you may like to consider.
 
If you want the nifty 50 go for the STM, it's the best bang for buck by miles.

But it's not much use for astrophotography (too long) and too short by a long way for nature / bird photography.
 
Jannyfox said:
Others are a lot more knowledgable than me, but first thought - is the 50mm setting on your 18-55 the only one you use? If it's not you may find the 50mm f1.8 isn't wide enough for a crop sensor. I use the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on my 550D. It's leagues better than the 18-55 kit lens. I've used it for astrophotography with good results too. There are two versions, with and without VC. I bought the one without VC as it spends 97% of its time on the tripod and there was no point paying extra for something I didn't need. Just something you may like to consider.
Click to expand...

To be honest Jannyfox...I'm not sure I'm thinking of the right lens at all. I just heard its a good general lens to have but I am possibly very wrong lol. At the moment, I don't often use my kit lens as I do have a Tamron zoom which is a 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 so it covers everything the kit lens can do and more so in my eyes, why bother using the other?

What I do know though is the lowest aperture at f3.5 didn't seem brilliant when I tried to take some Milky Way photos once. I think I know that I need one with a smaller aperture but I don't really know which? I'll certainly look up the one that you have mentioned though...thank you!
 
Phil V said:
If you want the nifty 50 go for the STM, it's the best bang for buck by miles.

But it's not much use for astrophotography (too long) and too short by a long way for nature / bird photography.
Click to expand...

Ah, so the nifty 50 is better for say portraits of people then? I see what you mean about it being too long for astro (but that aperture would be ok?) and yes, I guess I'd need to be like Mary Poppins with birds on my arms if I wanted it for nature! :confused: Feel a bit silly asking all these questions but I am taking note and learning...honestly!
 
Whoa-Slow Down

You were on here the other day asking some basic questions and you got a lot of very good advice which from your feedback you found very helpful.
I appreciate that you are anxious to proceed but please slow down a bit before you start spending money on what may turn out to be the wrong thing.
Take lots of pics, post them on here and get lots more help. Then after while you will have got an idea of the direction you want to follow and will have access to the classifieds where you will get some decent kit at reasonable prices.
BTW in shorthand its called GAS-Gear Acquisition Syndrome- we all suffer from it and eventually ( well most do) calm down and buy what we actually need rather than what we think we need.
 
Hi Sarah, when I got my 1100D a few years ago, it came with the kit lens plus a 75-300mm, I made do with that till I got the 70D plus other lenses that will now cover every range for me, I will now learn using each and every lens that I have. It can be a great feeling buying all the lens you need, but have a good think first before you jump, hope this helps.
 
troutfisher said:
Whoa-Slow Down

You were on here the other day asking some basic questions and you got a lot of very good advice which from your feedback you found very helpful.
I appreciate that you are anxious to proceed but please slow down a bit before you start spending money on what may turn out to be the wrong thing.
Take lots of pics, post them on here and get lots more help. Then after while you will have got an idea of the direction you want to follow and will have access to the classifieds where you will get some decent kit at reasonable prices.
BTW in shorthand its called GAS-Gear Acquisition Syndrome- we all suffer from it and eventually ( well most do) calm down and buy what we actually need rather than what we think we need.
Click to expand...

I definitely appreciated all the advice that was given to me yesterday and I've taken it on board. I just know that I love 3 types of photography, nature, landscape and astro. Its not a hasty decision, I've loved those areas for years but I've never had the equipment to take photos of all three whenever I have felt like it. I have my kit lens, I have my zoom and I just thought if I could add a lens with a smaller aperture to my collection for the astro then I would be sorted for quite a while.
 
Dave70D said:
Hi Sarah, when I got my 1100D a few years ago, it came with the kit lens plus a 75-300mm, I made do with that till I got the 70D plus other lenses that will now cover every range for me, I will now learn using each and every lens that I have. It can be a great feeling buying all the lens you need, but have a good think first before you jump, hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks David, yes it does help :) I just thought I was perhaps limited with what I had but perhaps its not the case after all.
 
SarahMarie said:
Ah, so the nifty 50 is better for say portraits of people then? I see what you mean about it being too long for astro (but that aperture would be ok?) and yes, I guess I'd need to be like Mary Poppins with birds on my arms if I wanted it for nature! :confused: Feel a bit silly asking all these questions but I am taking note and learning...honestly!
Click to expand...
Not really long enough for portraits IMHO

In fact, I rarely used my 50 on crop, it's not really long enough for portraits and too long for a walkabout lens.

Some people do think it's long enough for portraits, but I'm not one of them.
 
^^ Same as Phil. I'm still a beginner and have a crop sensor camera. I bought a 50mm 1.8 because it was cheap and just wanted to give it a try. I have to say, it's hardly ever been used. I had a go using it as a walk around lens and found it too long.
 
I read 'nature' in the OP for 'landscape' for some reason............ I'll blame being out all day and trying to image process, watch TV and use a forum at the same time.
No, for nature, ie wildlife, a short lens will be useless. Stick with the 18-200 till you're getting the sort of quality of images that justify a step up. It's longer than the one I started wildlife with.
 
Durbs said:
So 'astro' (or at least startrails) are possible with the kit lens, it's more versatile than you'd think!
Click to expand...

I like your star trails Durbs :) Yes, I guess more is possible than I am thinking. I'll stick with what I have and try to make myself better, rather than trying to improve the equipment. I do have my first and only astro shot to hand somewhere so I'll upload it.
 
Just to complete my camera history, as you may find it interesting.

I started with the 1000D and kit lens. added the nifty fifty, then a 70-300, then a 10-20.
Then upgraded to a 7D, added a 100mm macro and 35mm f/1.4, two flashes, remote controls and a battery grip.
So ended up with a large heavy camera, seven lenses and two flashes.

I still couldn't reliably take a good photo - though did luck out occasionally ;)

I then sold everything and bought a Sony A7 with a single 35mm lens and personally have found my photography has improved, or at least my understanding of when (or more often, when not) to take a shot.

Point being, as people have said above - it really isn't about the gear :D
 
Durbs said:
Just to complete my camera history, as you may find it interesting.

I started with the 1000D and kit lens. added the nifty fifty, then a 70-300, then a 10-20.
Then upgraded to a 7D, added a 100mm macro and 35mm f/1.4, two flashes, remote controls and a battery grip.
So ended up with a large heavy camera, seven lenses and two flashes.

I still couldn't reliably take a good photo - though did luck out occasionally ;)

I then sold everything and bought a Sony A7 with a single 35mm lens and personally have found my photography has improved, or at least my understanding of when (or more often, when not) to take a shot.

Point being, as people have said above - it really isn't about the gear :D
Click to expand...

I see what you mean Durbs...that's an awful lot of kit to have! The most important thing is the person that is taking the photos then. I guess the equipment is only as good (or as bad) as the person behind the lens? :rolleyes:
 
It took me a lot of money and 1000's of photographs to learn what Phil V tells everyone in the beginners section. Though I learnt a lot along the way...

In fairness, a lot of the lenses I bought were specialist lenses, and no amount of skill will let you shoot a 1:1 macro shot of a bee in flight with a kit lens, nor catch an action shot of a climber falling in low-light without flashes, or a distant animal with a kit lens.

What cinched it for me was buying the 35mm prime. It was a delicious lens, and the fact I couldn't zoom make me really analyse each shot before taking it, and it rarely left the camera, except when I was taking macro or landscape shots.

So whilst I'm definitely not saying don't buy a new lens (personally I just enjoy saving up and buying stuff... much the other halves' annoyance), I'd only now buy a lens which enables me to take a shot I otherwise couldn't.
Whether this is focal length (wide or long) or fast apertures for shallow DOF or low-light stuff.
 
Your kit lens will be fine for astroshots. I use mine at 18mm, f3.5, 20s and an ISO of 3200 or 6400. A wide aperture lens would be better but a kit lens will certainly give some reasonable photos.

After a tripod the essential for star shots is a really dark site; camera sensor are, unfortunately, brilliant at picking up light pollution.

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