Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
Iceberg May 27th 2008I've been thinking seriously about getting a camera now and felt like thinking even farther ahead. I plan on taking lots of landscape photos (which means a wide-angle lens, right?) as well as up-close nature shots (probably Macro?) and was wondering what specific brand/model of lenses I should be looking at. I've browsed around Sigma and some other companies, but I often find those lenses to be incredibly pricey. Are there any "starter" lenses with moderate prices out there?
-
MikeWilson
May 27th 2008
Mostly the ones that your camera supports directly, like their stock lenses, if you find one with a plastic brace rather than metal, that drops the price (but also increases the chance of breakage) something without electrical vibration/image stabilization. -
Fredrik
May 27th 2008
What's "moderate" prices for you? I mean Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have some lenses I would absolutely say were moderately/low priced. If you give me some idea of what we're talking about here price wise I can give you some examples of great "starting kits" of lenses. If you're looking more at either Canon or Nikon is another great factor for us to know, since they both have some great low priced lenses. -
MikeWilson
May 27th 2008
Honestly, if you cashed out a cool grand on a camera, you really shouldn't cheap out on the lenses, those are what make the images! Same with Filters, if you have a $800.00 lens, why cheap out with a $20.00 filter.
-
Iceberg May 27th 2008Well in terms of prices, I'd be willing to spend up to about $700 for a "beginner lens." That would be a while after I get my camera and learn how to really shoot.
-
Fredrik
May 27th 2008 edited
Well, you're saying that you're thinking about getting this a while after you've bought the camera - so I assume you intend to buy a camera with a kit lens. Depending on what camera you buy that kit might vary so it's a bit hard to give advice since I don't know what you already have when you're going to do this next purchase, but here are a few different lenses you might look at:
Package 1 ($660)
A great walk around lens and a cheap low-light/macro combination
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($400)
Canon 50 f/1.8 ($90)
Kenko extension tubes ($170)
Package 2 ($580)
One of the best macro lenses on the market, also great for portrait and somewhat sports, and a low light solution (assumes that you keep your kit lens that is wide angle)
Canon 100 f/2.8 Macro ($490)
Canon 50 f/1.8 ($90)
Package 3 ($690)
One of the best telephoto lenses you can buy without selling your car + a low light solution (still assuming you have a decent kit lens)
Canon 70-200 f/4 L ($600)
Canon 50 f/1.8 ($90)
Package 4 ($700)
Just one lens, but a very good walk around lens
Canon 17-40 f/4 L
Package 5 ($800)
100 bucks over budget, but a good walk around lens and a good macro lens
Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS ($400)
Sigma 105 f/2.8 Macro ($400)
Okay, so after checking around a bit, this is what I would advice you to do. (I'm just assuming you're picking Canon since that's where I have the most experience and it's easier for me to sort through their line-up knowing what's price worthy).
Don't buy the camera with a kit lens if it's like the Canon 18-55 and instead buy the $400 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's both sharper and 2 stops faster than the Canon @ 50mm.
Then after you've had some experience and have the basics down you know what you like to photograph the most - go for either upgrading the wide angle if that's what you're satisfied with, or buy a macro lens which will double as a portrait lens and some sports, or buy a telephoto lens that will give you a full coverage from wide angle to telephoto.
My pick; if you like macro the Canon 100 f/2.8 is amazing, throw in the extra 50 f/1.8 for $90 and you have a great line up. That's just my choice, and I'm quite sure I've missed some great lenses. If you're happy with your wide angle lens (kit lens) it's better to spend the money to get something else, like macro or telephoto.
Side note, I've not looked at the cheapest lenses from either brands, since I think you will appreciate it more to save a few more buck to get better quality and your budget seems to agree. But still, the most expensive lenses will probably leave you thinking that you've spent way to much — it's all about finding the happy medium =) -
Iceberg May 27th 2008 editedWow that's a lot of info. Thanks Fredrik so much for your help! And since I have friends with beginner DSLR cameras, they've told me they barely use their kit lens. Taking that and your great advice into account, I'll just get the camera body and buy a better lens right off the bat.
By the way, which of these lens packages works well for landscape shots?
Also, would the Canon 50 f/1.8 replace the standard kit lens if I choose to buy the camera body only?
(P.S. Yes, I'm going for the Canon :D) -
Fredrik
May 27th 2008 edited
First off, kit lenses are cheap - that's why they are included in the deal, to give people a lens but not raise the price to much. But the kit lenses do have a rather bad name to them that I personally don't think they deserve. Check my website (Silverglimth.com) and as of right now, all the wide angle shots are taken with my 18-55 kit lens. Sure I have rather small photo sizes on my site, but I've printed many of them at fairly large sizes and they look great.
But yeah, if you have the money from the beginning to just buy the camera body and pick a wide angle zoom yourself, go for it!
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is my advice to purchase, I've honestly never used it myself but I've heard nothing but positive comments about it.
I personally find that a telephoto lens can be great to have with landscape photography as well, so pick up one of those when you have the money. The 100mm macro can be on the short end of tele, but it's so freaking sharp and also has true macro ability (1:1 lifesize) which is a big plus if you like that. (I've actually heard many people advice not to use that lens for portraits because it's too sharp and you'll see every pore and wrinkle etc — I find that to be a good thing that could be altered in post-production if needed. i.e. I'd rather start with a super sharp photo and soften it up then the other way around.)
Another alternative would be to buy the 70-200 f/4 L lens, it will give you added versatility of a zoom but it's 1 stop slower and doesn't do macro and a bit more expensive. Dave has the IS (image stabilizer) version and I think he only has good things to say about it.
I always advice people to buy a 50mm prime since it's a great lens in low light conditions and it's cheap. Sure the Canon 50 f/1.8 has some problems, but the 1.4 is much more expensive, so for beginners I think it's best to go with the cheaper alternative to be honest. I mean a f/1.8 lens for $90, why not pick up a copy? -
Iceberg May 30th 2008 editedSorry to bother you again Fredrik...
But I've decided on getting the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for my Digital Rebel XSi and was wondering if it's worth getting a filter for it. I really like the outcomes of polarizing filters but am not sure if it would be compatible with lots of future lenses I may buy (i.e. the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens)
If I buy a certain type of filter will I be able to mount it on most of my other lenses, or does that depend on the size of the lenses I have? How do the sizes of the filters correspond to lens sizes? -
Fredrik
May 30th 2008
The 50mm f/1.8 has a filter size of 52mm in diameter, this is the size you need filters in to mount on this lens.
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 has a filter size of 67mm, so no, the filters will not be able to fit both. You can buy step-up rings for the 50mm, but going from 52->67mm is not a good solution.
I wouldn't buy a UV filter for the 50mm at least, the lens is so cheap and the front element of the lens is already rather deep into the lens so to speak. But yeah, polarizing filters is a different story. I have a step-up ring on my 50mm f/1.8 from 52->58mm since most of my other lenses have 58mm filter sizes. The best solution for you would be to have two different filters, one for each size since they differ so much, but it's up to you if you think it's worth that much. If you can only afford one I would definitely put the filter on the 17-50 since it's usually more useful in wide angle situations.
I realize that I've missed this part in my tutorial on filters and will add some information about filter sizes asap.
And Iceberg, don't worry about being a bother, I love writing about photography and to be able to help people =)