Need help with a lens combo for 350XT

I'm asking this for a co-worker/friend who recently purchased a Canon Xt

camera. I too, have an Xt and a group of lenses that I told him about, but

would like to ask for your advice as well. He did get the kit lens(18-55 non-

IS) with the camera. He's got $750 to play with, but no more. His interests

seem to be in: animals/nature, family and his kid's sports, general (one -lens)

walkaround, vacations/tours, and limited landscapes. I suggested him selling

his 18-55, but this might only yield $75 at best, giving him $825-ish to spend

on any/all lenses. Maybe we can develop some sort of consensus here with a few

responses. I'll pass on any and all suggestions. Thanks for your help.

My advice to him would be to keep the kit lens (it is really not THAT bad - I have friends who use it all the time and their results are great - esp. stopped down some) and to get the 70-300mm IS lens - it's all will within his budget and he could even get a 430EX on top of that. In all reality - that's more and better than what 95% of folks need and use. I don;t want to sound elitist, but the truth of the matter is that most people use their DSLRs as P&S cameras, they don't even use 10% of the capabilities of these sophisiticated machines.

The 18-55 will yield more like $50 at best, but still...

 

For what you describe, either keep the kit lens or get the IS version of same, and a 28-135 IS. This will still leave a couple of hundred dollars to get a tripod and head, e.g. Bogen 3001Pro and a 486 ballhead. He'll evenutally want those for portraits, landscape etc.

 

I used the 28-135 for years as my main lens, and was very pleased. with the results

I third the 18-55.... it's not that bad. I used the non-IS version for 2 years when I first got my rebel, and I have some fantastic landscape shots taken with it (f8, 18mm, ISO 100) and even some nice portraits.

 

If he's really looking to spend some money, why not a 50 1.4 or a 85 1.8? Both of these are excellent ways to start fine tuning a particular style of shooting. Both of these lenses would likely hold their value well, and are no more than $300 or $400 each (although I wouldn't suggest both at once). If he does a lot of 'people' photography, a 430EX flash is a great option as well. ($250)

 

If he is more into landscape photography, investing in a quality tripod will make a big difference.. maybe a cokin P holder and a couple Hi-tech GND filters or a polarizer.

 

There are lots of options out there to help you spend money on things that might help you improve photography skills (or learn new ones), not just the sharpness of your 11x17 prints.

So, he's interested in wildlife, portraits , sports, travel, and landscape photography? I think the only think you are missing is macro. So, the only sure thing I can say is don't tell him to buy a macro lens.

 

This same question, in various wording, comes up quite a bit. Boiled down to it's simplest form, it's like this: "I have $xxx that I want to spend on camera equipment, but I don't know what I want, or what I want to do with it. What should I buy?"

 

If he doesn't know himself what he wants, I don't know how you are going to figure it out for him.

 

But, if he really wants to get rid of his money that bad, I'd recommend the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 IS III. And, I also believe that the kit lens is a good value and not that bad optically. He'd be better of focusing on wasting his money first on other lenses that he doesn't know he needs.

If your friend is new to this, a good starting strategy is to keep the money in the bank for

awhile and shoot a bunch of photos with the kit lens. After doing this your friend will have a

much better idea of: whether the kit lens may be sufficient for his particular needs, what

things he really wants to do that the kit lens can't accomplish, what specific features of other

lenses might best suit his photography.

 

Dan

Like the previous posters, I agree to keep the kit lens or get the <abbr title="Image Stabilization">IS</abbr> version. This pretty much covers the wide angle side. Else Aaron mirrors my thoughts, any additional lens may or may not be fine for your friend, but with

<p>

Here are a couple of nice pieces of equipment that are never wrong to own: an EF 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 USM) for <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=783085">portraiture</a></b> and a Speedlite 420EX (for all flash applications). There are tons of other great lenses available, and since it's not my money we're spending, how about an used EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM for some limited telephotography (e.g., sports and wildlife). Or he could buy a ultra-wide zoom, or a mid-range telezoom, or a super-fast prime, or fast medium tele...

That should read: [...] but with no further information about his desired focal lengths or more specific applications or lens preferences all we gonna offer is guesswork.

I second the "keep the money, shoot a LOT of photos with the kit lens, then figure out what I'm lacking in my lens" school of thought.

 

Such a general question is going to elicit a wide range of responses.

 

If it were me, I'd sell a kidney and get the 17-55/2.8 -- which I just did.

 

Er, I didn't have to sell the kidney, at least. :-)

 

--Jon

My friend is not "dying" to spend some money here. If he can get what he feels he would like/need for less, he certainly will do so. I'll suggest maybe using the kit lens until he feels a real "need" for something more. This is certainly the most prudent advice.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 HSM, Canon EF 50 f1.8 and a second hand Canon 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM or Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 IS would pretty much cover all your friend's need within the budget.

 

With respect to the latter two lenses the 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM will be better for action (very fast autofocus) whereas the 55-250 f4-5.6 IS is better for hand held static shots, including in low light.