 Jeffrey L. Harwell |
Choosing my first Lens Ok, so I'm pretty sure (97%) that I am going to go with the Canon EOS Rebel XSi (450D) camera - but I've been reading that the kit lens (18-55mm IS) and the base telephoto lens (55-250mm IS) aren't THAT good. I'm thinking of just getting the body and then a different image stabilized lens. Has anyone used the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF or Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC AF lenses? I'm not rich, but I also don't want to buy bottom of the line gear just to say I have it either. I like shooting nature photography and macro photography, so I was thinking of going with one of the above lenses for my main lens, and then getting a decent macro lens (Canon EF-S f/2.8 macro USM) also. Any help would be appreciated. Also, if anyone has an opinion on the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lenses I would appreciate any, and all, input..lol.. Thanks for bearing with me!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
If you are a beginner, I would opt for the kit lenses until you get the hang of things. once you are comfortable, I would consider better. Have fun and keep shooting,
|
|
|
|
||
|
David Van Camp |
I don't agree with Mark's comments... getting a longer zoom range to start with can be very nice, as you are considering. However, I don't believe either of the lenses you noted are are image stabilized, as you said you want ... did you check? Anyway, I suggest you google for in-depth comparative reviews of any lens you might be considering. A good place to start: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
- Carlton Ward Contact Carlton Ward Carlton Ward's Gallery |
Hi Jeff, The 1st 2 lenses I bought after buying my 1st 20D were a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 & a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L lens. You can get both of these for less than $1000 and they will cover a lot of ground. The 70-200 f/4L (non IS version) may be the very best lenses you can get for less than $600. The Tamron is not as tack sharp as my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L but it is 1/3 of the price and it is a sharp enough lens with nice coloration and a great deal for about $350. I have never used the Sigma or Tamron 28-300 so I cant give feedback for these. I do also have the Canon 100mm Macro lens and with a ringlight. Good luck with your decision - Carlton
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeffrey L. Harwell |
Thanks for the info guys!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Debra Booth |
I got the Canon EF-S 17-85mm with my first digital SLR, a 20D. It served me well for several years, but then I really felt the limitations of its speed, quality issues (purple halos in landscapes), and range. It is also not sealed well, and a lot of dust has gotten inside the lens. I recently upgraded to the Canon 24-105mm and I love it for the type of photos I shoot. I also have the Canon 100mm 2.8, and love it for macro work. I added a set of Kenko extension tubes, and get even more out of it. If it's possible in your area, I'd recommend that you rent the lens you are interested in so that you can try it out before you spend the money on it. That's what I did before I got the 24-105, and I had no doubt when I bought it that it was the lens I wanted. Good luck to you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeffrey L. Harwell |
Ok, cool. Thank you for the info Debra. I think the rental idea is a really good one. I actually read that in a magazine or book, too. Thanks again!! :O)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeffrey L. Harwell |
Ok, so has anyone on here used the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM? I'm looking at that lens as my first lens, also.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christine Gardner |
The 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS are ok lenses. I have the 55-250 and am really enjoying it. It produces excellent images. I've paired it with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 because this particular length suits me better than a wider lens, but I've tested the 18-55 IS and was impressed with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeffrey L. Harwell |
Ok, thank you Christine. I'm close to going with the 24-105mm f/4 IS USM - but no one has it in stock..lol..
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||