which lens??

S

skingy

Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
i just got me a EOS 450d with 18-55mm kit lens.my first slr.
but looking at all the different lenses is a nightmare.
im looking for some advice as to what i should be aiming towards please.i want a decent zoom lens as i go to airshows quite often and also could be used for animal/wildlife shots but i also like landscapes and even pictures of my girlfriend.obviously i dont wanna spend mega money until i know which type of photography i will get into seriously so has anybody got any suggestions??is the kit lens any good at all or will i need a couple of different lenses??
thanks in advance and for being patient with all the newbie questions!!!
 
Whats your budget - the obvious choice is something like the 75-300mm Canon, all depends hoe deep your pockets are:(
 
percymon means the 70-300 mm canon (the 75-300 USM was a complete dog, I had one it was poo). They go for about £200 if you can stretch to the USM it's much quicker and quieter.

Dont snif at the 55-200 USM IS AFS that is a very good "kit" zoom and is very well priced at about £250

They dont come close to the L lenses , 70-200 f4 IS or similar, but then you start need ing seriously deep pockets (I should know)
 
You'll use anything up to the 24mm to 200mm range regardless of the type of photography you go for in the end, so if you are convinced that photography is the hobby for you, spend as much as you can afford on good glass somewhere in this range.

My main two lenses are the 24-70 and the 70-200mm, that covers my range well - I have a 100mm macro for the close up shots, and a 10-22mm ultra wide angle, but they rarely get used (the latter can only be used on some bodies).

Given you have the wide angle end of the range covered, I'd do for a medium telephoto (up to the 200mm range).

Also, you may want to consider the 50mm f1.8 (the nifty fifty) too. It's a prime lens (ie. it does not zoom), and very plastic feeling, but it's only around £80 and it's as sharp as a tack for portraits, and quite fast too.
 
oldgit said:
the 75-300 USM was a complete dog, I had one it was poo.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh oldgit - 75-300 USM is a good 'budget' zoom/telephoto lens. I've had some pretty good results with mine :shrug:. Good for moon shots too :).

Ideal for the OP's situation of not wanting to spend loads at the moment I would have thought.

Neil
 
It really comes down to budget...... unfortunately you won't have 1 lens that can do both.

Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is a good lens at the budget end, will work at airshows in the main, but 300mm abit short for wildlife.

Sigma 100-300mm f4 another good lens, but we move up the budget scale.

Sigma do a range of zoom's 120-400/500mm etc which they have just releast last years, you'll have to do abit more research into these, these won't be great performers, but in good light you'll get some good images. They have the bigma (50-500mm) it's heavy, will struggle in low light, but affordable and will work well as a wildlife lens with a 500mm reach.

Then we come to the canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6, probably the affordable lens of choice for a large number of airshow photographers, but we're about the £1000 mark now.

Then you have the 300mm + primes, but we won't go there, mortgage time mega $$$$$$$'s.

As for a landscape lens, do you want one thats a general walkabout lens as well like canon's 17-55mm f2.8, tamron's 17-50mm f2.8 or canon 17-40mm f4, all these are reasonable options.

Peter
 
thanx alot for all the advice guys.i think il stick with the kit lens for landscapes and such for now but it looks like il be wanting at least 200mm for airshow and stuff then.im thinkin of spending around £300 so not mega money yet as im only just startin out.
 
pete.rush said:
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS is a good lens at the budget end ...
Click to expand...
:plus1:
You say you want a "decent" budget zoom, so this is the one to go for. Forget the non-IS 70ish-300s, and the 55-200 isn't as good as this one (nor as long, obviously).

This lens is one of Bob Atkin's "Outstanding picks (without breaking the bank)" (see last section, 5th entry from the bottom), and Kerso's price is quite compelling (unless it's gone up in the last fortnight) - I'm sure I paid quite a bit more than that 3 years ago (when it first came out).

Stroller.
 
skingy said:
thanx alot for all the advice guys.i think il stick with the kit lens for landscapes and such for now but it looks like il be wanting at least 200mm for airshow and stuff then.im thinkin of spending around £300 so not mega money yet as im only just startin out.
Click to expand...


Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS it is then, unfortunately you've picked about the worse time to buy any photographic equipment, especially lenses, the prices have rocketed, this time last year, this lens was about £300 - 350, now £400

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod60.html
 
There's one in the classifieds here for c £300, which I thought very good value, but I checked Kerno's pricelist & it was very little more. Of course that edition is 3 weeks old, so his prices also may have risen, but I would check him before buying new elsewhere.
 
oldgit said:
percymon means the 70-300 mm canon (the 75-300 USM was a complete dog, I had one it was poo).
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - i always get them mixed up.

Although its tempting to go for the cheaper and inferior 75-300, you'll soon yearn for that bit extra whether it be the IS function or slightly better glass quality.
 
percymon said:
Although its tempting to go for the cheaper and inferior 75-300, you'll soon yearn for that bit extra whether it be the IS function or slightly better glass quality.
Click to expand...
The glass quality of the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is significantly better than any of the 75-300mm models, as ultra-low dispersion glass has been used for one of the lens elements. You will surely be able to see the difference between these lenses in the results they give. I believe that previously this kind of glass was almost (??) exclusive to the "L" range, although I see the later EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS has it, too.

I was confused in making my earlier comment by old git's mention of a "55-200 USM IS AFS". I don't know if that's maybe a Stigma, or something, because Canon make a EF 55-200mm non-IS and a EF-S 55-250mm IS (which is what I had in mind earlier).

IMO the 70-300mm IS is more than 50% better than the 55-250mm IS (i.e. worth the extra money).

Stroller.
 
Just to add - don't mistake the 75-300mm IS for the 70-300mm IS. Their appearance is quite similar but the 75-300mm IS is older technology and nowhere near as good. It was among Canon's first IS lenses, released in 1995 and was superseded 10 years later by the 70-300mm IS.

I have just been surprised to see one of the 75-300mm ISs on the classifieds for silly money - I had better not give an opinion on its value, but would advise anyone to do plenty of homework before putting an offer in on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top