Need some advice on my first (non kit) lens/es

T

tomp33

Junior Member
Messages
2
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,
I am an amateur photographer (to say the least) but I have decided the lens that came with my canon EOS 1100D isn't really doing it for me anymore!
I would ideally like a new lens that has a a good zoom, as I want to photograph some wildlife, but I have also been told I really need a prime lens.

These are my current thoughts.

OPTION 1
-
CanonEF 70-300mm f/4.0 - 5.6 IS USM Lens


OPTION 2
-CanonEF 50mm Lens-
-SigmaAF 70-300mm f4-5.6 DG APO Macro Canon Fit Lens
And some other kit I.e. a new flash or so on.



As you can see I have the option of either buying one more expensive lens, or two (possibly three if there is another one I spot) less expensive lens.

Any advice??

Many thanks
​
 
Well if you buy cheapish lenses you may regret it later & want to change it costing you more,i would go for the canon & wait for others later.:)
Welcome to the forum.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply, I will probably do that seeing as I will most likely also be able to afford a 50mm f1.8 in addition to the 70-300mm.
 
Hi

The Canon 50mm F1.8 is a great little lens and for the money (if your going to use it) it's worth getting - also worth thinking about is if you decide it's not for you, then you'll not loose much when you sell it on...

I've had the Canon 70-300IS previously and liked it a lot. Was a great lens, a very useful focus range, good build quality. I only sold it as I was upgrading and I'd certainly recommend looking at one.
 
This website a good source of pricing up equipment. http://www.camerapricebuster.com/
The Tamron 70-300mm VC a great lens, many members on here own one as an alternative to the more expensive canon 70-300mm IS.
 
Keep your kit lens so you don't lose the short end and look into the above tamron. It's a great lens for the price.

Why have you been told you NEED a prime. Surely only you know what you need as your using it not them.

Look at what sort of shots you want to take then go from there. What sort of wildlife shots would it be? Look at the focal length the shots were taken at and see if it would be enough, but remember to take into account the crop factor for your camera, so the tamron 70-300 would be equivalent to about 112-480mm on a full frame camera
 
I would say go for the Canon 50mm 1.8. Firstly it's a great lens optically for the price and also because it's got a wide maximum aperture compared to the kit lens it really allows you to get completely different kinds of shots.

And as other have said of you do find put you don't like it then you'll not loose a huge amount selling it on :)
 
+1 for the Tamron 70-300mm VC, definitely worth a look if already considering the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0 - 5.6 IS USM Lens.

Be careful with the 50mm prime. The 50mm 1.8 is popular because of the high IQ and 1.8 aperture it provides at such low cost, however 50mm on a crop sensor is often considered to be a less useful focal length for general use.

More expensive but still relatively cheap for a prime the EF-S 24mm 2.8 pancake might be more useful as a walk around lens for example although not as fast as the 50mm 1.8 and you won't get as short a depth of field. It depends what you want to get out of your prime.

Depending on what you want to get out of a prime, it could be worth looking at the shots you've taken with your kit lens to see which focal lengths you use most.
 
You have stated that you want to photograph some wildlife but what type are we talking, bigger animals like deer or small birds such as robins?
I wanted to get decent photos of a kingfisher at an RSPB conservation and because it would never perch close to the hide, even the canon 100-400mm never had enough reach to get a good shot.
I went from a Tamron 18-270 (thinking it would be a good ideal all around lens including small birds) then a Canon 70-200L IS f4 (thinking if I nailed the shot I could crop down and still keep the image quality up) and even though it really is fantastic lens, the focal range was still too short and then I ended up with a Canon 100-400L IS which again really is a fantastic lens but as I stated, it limited me trying to shoot the kingfisher.
After a few years away from photography, I am slowly coming back to it but I will be going for a zoom lens with a 500-600mm reach as I now realise this is what I will need to get the shots I want.

I'm not trying to encourage you from spending a lot more money that you intend to just trying to help you avoid what I did because in the long term it will save you money, if you do get hooked on wildlife photpgraphy you will soon be yearning for more reach if small birds appeal to you :D
 
Last edited:
Do you need 300 would coax you towards a 70-200 f4 from the classifieds if not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top