Jump to content

Which lenses would you recommend?


Recommended Posts

<p>Hello :)<br>

Having spent weeks and weeks trawling through online reviews of cameras and lenses, I've decided to purchase the Canon 550d dslr. Despite some damning reviews (lol), I've decided to purchase the camera with the 18-55mm kit lens. I've read some great reviews for the 50mm f/1.8 II lens too and so I'm going to give that a go as well. </p>

<p>As a third lens, should I purchase one of the other kit lenses, either the 18-135 or the 55-250mm?</p>

<p>I like taking macro shots/people/landscape etc...</p>

<p>Oh and I'm planning to enrol in a photography class to help me make the most of my new investment. </p>

<p>Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>...., I've decided to purchase the camera with the 18-55mm kit lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope you meant the 18-55mm IS lens, and NOT the first version which is non IS! There is a big difference betwen those two.<br /> <br /> As for the other lenses you have selected, I know the 50mm and the 55-250mm and, you will not be dissapointed! I don't know the other one.</p>

<p>Welcome to photo.net too!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Claire, why not just use the two lenses you're going to get for awhile before you decide on other lenses? It just doesn't make sense to me to have <em>two </em>kit lenses, given the compromises in optical and build quality that they entail.</p>

<p>As for your intended applications (macro, portrait, and landscape), they optimally require different lenses. For example, while the 50/1.8 would make a fine portrait lens on your 550D, you'll have to use extension tubes in order to get sufficient magnification to use it for macro.</p>

<p>It's a great idea to take a photography class. I'd also recommend that you pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's invaluable book, <em>Understanding Exposure.</em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's one thing to capture some good images using your new gear, it's another to get the most out of them in postprocessing, especially if you are shooting RAW. </p>

<p>I suggest you save enough money to buy Adobe Lightroom so you can optimize your photos, develop a logical filing/keyword system, and print them without issues.</p>

<p>You can download a demo copy at www.adobe.com, and search the net for an easy to use workflow to apply to each image.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first four years Canon's free Digital Photo Professional is quite enough for post processing RAW files.

 

(after that paint.net and Gimp, both free, are worth a look)

 

But other tools can of course be bought and used.

 

Back on topic: if you expect to shoot distant or small(ish) subjects the 55-250 will be a good addition to what you have.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 18-135 doesn't seem to make sense as a second lens to the 18-55, seeing that it would duplicate the entire range of focal lengths. On the other hand, the 55-250 is an ideal complement. Canon designed it to be that way. With those two lenses you will be covered for pretty much any photographic situation.</p>

<p>A completely free and very capable alternative to Abobe Lightroom and Adobe Potoshop his GIMP (www.gimp.org).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd get the 18-55 IS and the 55-250IS and the 50 1.8. With that set you can get a feel for a huge focal length range and learn what more expensive lenses you do or do not want in the future. The 50 1.8 will allow you to get a feel for lower light and shallow depth of field. You'll not have anything near real macro (1:1), but the 55-250 IS will allow you good tight shots of medium to large size flowers (about 1:3). When you want to get into closer macro, you can add a set of kenko tubes. The only other advice would be to get a 430EXII and a way to get it off camera as soon as you can afford it.</p>

<p>Definitely take the photography class. Also, the "Learning" tab above has some very helpful information as well.</p>

<p>DS Meador</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't bother with the 50mm prime right out of the gate. You'll already have 50mm with your zoom, and if after shooting the zoom for a while you feel that you really need to duplicate the short telephoto focal length with a prime you can still do so.</p>

<p>Do you know why some people recommend the 50mm prime? There are basically two underlying reasons that this recommendation sticks around, long past the life expectancy that it should have.</p>

<ol>

<li>It is a very inexpensive lens, and for an inexpensive lens it performs pretty well... if you actually need a 50mm prime... which you probably don't. Unless you actually need a 50mm prime lens in addition to your zoom, it is still an expense that you don't need to have.</li>

<li>Back in the good old days of 35mm film SLR cameras, a 50mm prime lens was the normal starting lens. This notion dates all the way back to a time when zoom lenses were not really available to buyers like you. The advice was to start with the 50mm prime and <em>shoot with it for a while before going out and buying more lenses</em>.</li>

</ol>

<p>Part of the "get that 50mm lens and shoot with it before buying more lenses" advice is not longer valid. Part of it is.</p>

<p><em>The part that makes no sense</em> today on your camera is the odd idea that you need 50mm or that you need a prime. 50mm was "normal" for a 35mm film camera - but you have a cropped sensor DSLR. If 50mm was the ideal focal length on those film cameras,<em> the equivalent would bet a 31mm lens on your camera</em>, not a 50mm lens. Also keep in mind that <em>in the era from which that old school advice originated, quality and affordable zoom lenses did not exist</em>. In other words a prime was the only realistic starting point for a new photographer using a 35mm film camera. Today zooms that are far more flexible and, arguably, in some ways better than the primes of that era are readily available.</p>

<p>The <em>part of the advice that does make sense</em> is the part that recommended getting one lens at first and then shooting a lot with it before buying more lenses. Get that fine little EFS 18-55mm IS kit lens and shoot the heck out of it. After you shoot a few thousand frames you will develop a much better and cleared idea of whether you need more lenses or not and of what specific lens features will be right for you photography.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thank you all for your advice and welcoming me to the forum.<br>

I also appreciate your recommendations for books and post processing software. I'm still undecided as to whether I should get the 50mm or 55-250mm to accompany the 18-55mm lens. Although I do accept your point that it doesn't make sense to buy two kit lenses, given the compromise in quality. <br>

This is very confusing business :) Any other opinions out there to help inform my decision, keep them coming.<br>

Thanks again for your help!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Keep in mind that lens upgrades or changes are not as expensive as you might think. There is a very active market for used Canon gear on Ebay. I started out with the 18-55mm kit lens on my T1i. Eventually I decided I wanted better optical quality and a faster lens for low light work so I bought the 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S USM. Is the lens faster and the image quality better? Absolutely. Did it cost 6 times as much as the kit lens. Absolutely! Did I sell my 18-55mm kit lens on Ebay for $120. Absolutely. By the way, I still have the 55-250mm I bought as my second lens. It is a very good lens for the money.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You are going to find all sorts of extra "Features" on lenses as you learn more. Do you want or need Full Time Manual Focus? Non Rotating Front Element for use with polarizers? Do you really love Macro more than birds outside your window and wish you got the 100mm Macro instead of the 55-250?</p>

<p>I guess what I'm getting at is there is no need to rush into a full kit until you get a better feel for what you want\need\enjoy. If you know you'll get good mileage out of the lenses and that you won't have the budget for something else later, that's one thing. But if you are undecided, just start with the kit and work your way into the others.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am going to disagree with Dan on the 50mm prime (something i generally do not do) and suggest that you get it as well as a kit lens. There is no "right answer" to this, but my thinking differs from Dan's in the following way.<br>

While it does duplicate the same range as the kit lens it is a much better quality and faster optic for only another $100 or so. It will give you some experience of the advantages and disadvantages of a prime. If you take lots of people / portrait shots the effective 80mm angle of view of the 50mm lens on your APS-C body gives you a classic portrait shot. If you had a full frame body then I might be more in agreement with Dan. The 50 F1.8 is a real bargain with fast speed and good optical quality - it is a cheap way for you to see if you are more inclined to look at primes or zooms and the benefit of fast lenses which will help when you make future purchases. It also allows you to experiment with shallow depth of field at a low price.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would also suggest getting the 50mm. See where your eye leads you and make your future lens decisions based on your own experience. Also, don't get too caught up with the term "kit lens", there's really no such animal.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The 50 F1.8 is a real bargain with fast speed and good optical quality - it is a cheap way for you to see if you are more inclined to look at primes or zooms and the benefit of fast lenses which will help when you make future purchases. It also allows you to experiment with shallow depth of field at a low price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Philip's endorsement of the 50/1.8 <em>contra </em>G Dan's assessment of 50mm primes. Consider G Dan's claims:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is a very inexpensive lens, and for an inexpensive lens it performs pretty well... if you actually need a 50mm prime... which you probably don't. Unless you actually need a 50mm prime lens in addition to your zoom, it is still an expense that you don't need to have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On what grounds does G Dan presume that Claire probably doesn't need a 50mm prime? How is Claire (or anyone else) to know whether she needs one until she's used one? And what better, cheaper way to use one than to get a 50/1.8?</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...