Newbie lens advice

tarby

tarby

Messages
53
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking to buy a couple of lenses one being a macro, so thinking of a 100 mm usm and also looking at a 17-40mm L. At the moment I am using a 400d but will be looking to upgrade to a 50d early next year.

Advice please on the above :thinking:
 
some more info required really. what do you want to shoot? and IIRC the 400D is 1.6 crop the 50D is 1.3 crop, which may affect your lens choice :)
 
The 50d is still 1.6, same as the xxxd's. It's only the 1d series with a 1.3 crop factor. :)
 
Rovers_Andy said:
some more info required really. what do you want to shoot? and IIRC the 400D is 1.6 crop the 50D is 1.3 crop, which may affect your lens choice :)
Click to expand...



Well as a complete newbie my interests will be macro flowers and landscapes, want to invest in a couple of half decent lenses now that will suit an upgrade body later. Starting a course in Jan so looking to get equipped now.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarbyteef/
 
sketch145 said:
The 50d is still 1.6, same as the xxxd's. It's only the 1d series with a 1.3 crop factor. :)
Click to expand...

:lol: shows how long it is since i had the 400D :thinking:

the 100mm macro you mention (from what i've heard) is pretty good as is the 60mm.

17-40mm L is superb, i've used it a lot in a studio and love it. I think it's also good for landscapes :)
 
Cheers Andy, from the research i've done they seem suitable, just seeing if there were any alternatives that I may of missed?
 
Could be worth you looking at the 24-70L or the 24-105L. Both cracking bits of kit.
 
17-40L is an EF lens designed for full frame. You are paying for coverage that you cannot use on a crop format camera. As a result, the range is limited, it is only f/4, and it has no IS.

Lens of choice for walkabout range is the very highly regarded EF-S 17-55. It has much more range, is f/2.8 throughout, and has IS. It is also optically superior but doesn't have quite the bulllet-proof build of an L lens.
 
Rovers_Andy said:
:lol: shows how long it is since i had the 400D :thinking:

the 100mm macro you mention (from what i've heard) is pretty good as is the 60mm.

17-40mm L is superb, i've used it a lot in a studio and love it. I think it's also good for landscapes :)
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't bother with the 60mm, though it's ok for flowers I suppose. It's a job to get near enough to anything alive with 60mm. :thinking:
 
I just got the 17-40mm L lens yesterday and was impressed straight off with the build quality and performance. Bare in mind this was my first "L" Lens. You cannot really go wrong with it. I use it on my 50d crop body which makes it more general use but its still a very great buy.
 
Ok, anygood recommendations then for a wide angle lens upto about £400 suitable for a cropped body?

Ahhh just noticed the sigma 10-20mm on another thread, is the canon version worth the extra cost? Apologies for all the questions but buying and then regretting is something i'm quite good at.
 
tarby said:
Ok, anygood recommendations then for a wide angle lens upto about £400 suitable for a cropped body?

Ahhh just noticed the sigma 10-20mm on another thread, is the canon version worth the extra cost? Apologies for all the questions but buying and then regretting is something i'm quite good at.
Click to expand...

I have the Canon 10-22, and so do a lot of others, who also think it is worth the extra. It is a better lens, no doubt about that, but whether or not it is worth the extra depends rather more on the individual, the kind of things you shoot, and the way you output them. If for example you like to shoot detailed landscapes with lots of fine detail right to the edges of a big print, then you are going to need a better lens than someone who just uses a super-wide for dramatic and dynamic perspective effects which are usually much less critical.

Many people are very happy with Sigma, and a couple of other cheaper options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top