which lens should I invest on?

[seigfred_m]

Hello,

 

I have a 300D kit and happy with the lens that came with it but I

would like to get a better lens that is reasonably priced but can

work as an all around lens, I would like to use it in nature

photography, studio/portrait pictures and maybe airshows. My brother

told me Sigma is my best bet but I have no idea on what size I

should get and what kind, don't even know if there's a specific

model for digital slr's. I know for a fact that I can't go over $300

coz I still have to have my flash power pack serviced. Any

suggestions guys? by the way which internet store can I get camera

accessories cheap and also secure?

thanks in advance.

[eoghan]

Nature.. what are you shooting? Big animals, mice, couple of trees and a river?

 

Airshow.. no experience but i'd guess a at least 200mm.

 

Portrait.. typically 85-135mm, or otherwise depending on your style.

 

You should probably do a lot more research, or shoot a lot more until you know what you want. Most will agree you can't get much for $300. I personally would only go with tamron if i weren't buying canon, because of compatibility in the future. The lens you have is a prefectly good 'all-round' lens, so i presume you want something with more reach. If you 'have' to get something else, and for under $300, just get a used 75-300. Plenty of them out there, just remember there's a reason for that.

[cfimages]

Firstly, which internet store. Choose one of the links off photo.net's homepage, that way, pnet make a few dollars (and you know you won't get ripped off).

 

Now, as to lenses. It's generally best if you can stick to Canon lenses as you have a Canon body. Sigma et al have to reverse engineer their EF lenses, so there's no guarantee that a lens you buy today will work with a body you buy tomorrow.

 

As for recommendations - the 50mm f1.8 is a great and cheap lens ($70). On a 300D, it'd act like an 80mm lens, which would give you a great portrait lens at a cheap price.

 

For $300, you probably won't find a decent quality tele lens that would be useful at an airshow. Maybe a 70-300 USM stopped down to f8 or so would give you a chance of getting some keepers.

 

That's about all I can suggest for your budget - perhaps others can chime in with more ideas.

 

Cheers,

 

Craig

[citizensmith1664875108]

Lets cover this stuff one part at a time.

Nature photography would either be a wide lens (like your 18-55) for landscapes, or a long lens (70-300) for wildlife. Potrait on a 300D an a budget would definetly be the 50 f/1.8. Airshows, back to a long lens again.

 

Sigma could be your best bet in that they do offer the best value for money in the budget end. There is an occasional and generally overstated incompatibility problem with older lenses and newer canon bodies, but if you buy new you'll probably avoid that.

 

Yes there are specific lines for digital bodies. For instance the EF-S lenses from Canon. These are generally smaller and lighter as they are designed just to cover the smaller sensor (relative to film) of the digital SLRs. However, all the normal lenses also work on a DSLR so you are not restricted to just using the digital specific versions.

 

Any of the stores linked from this site are good (B&H, Adorama, etc). There are plenty of cheaper deals out there but these often come from untrustworthy places that will just screw you around and end up costing more in the long run.

 

So, my recommendation. Get a Canon 50 f/1.8 as it will give you a decent studio/portrait lens and something good for low light. Then, spend the rest of the best tele-zoom you can afford. Just don't expect too much from it. Most are slow, and fuzzy at the extremes of their ranges. You'd have a better time if you could track down something like a used Canon 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 as it is better than the average consumer telezoom.

[bob_bell]

If you are talking about an investment, $300 really won't get you anything outstanding. There is no reason why a lens owned by an amatuer or semi pro cant last for 10 years or longer. For $600 you can get a 70-200/4 that will give you some length for nature although its not long enough for dangerous animals. Most ppl saying 85-135 is "the" portrait length and this will cover it. Also, it will get you part way to taking airshow shots and so forth. You can add a 1.4x TC later on to give you 280mm @f5.6. Even quality zooms from Tamron and Tokina will set you back over $300.

 

If you are really capped at $300 and cannot wait a month or two, you are going to be stuck with a lens that is really only good at f5.6, f8, f11 which might significantly limit how much you use it.

[tommyinca]

Bob Atkins has a good article on beginning Nature Photography

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/guide.html

 

On internet store, If you go to the front page of photo.net. On the right hand side there is a link to number of camera store. Use "the link" to buy your equipment and you can help support this site at the same time.

 

Personally, I uses B&H and Adorama. They have fair price and speedy D.

[danny_lee2]

My empty wallet next to me is telling me that photography is not cheap for a hobby. A pro can justify lenses in the thousands of dollars because they get paid to do photography. but yet, to fully appreciate photography you need something better than the cheap consumer lenses out there on the market. Almost any lens worth using is over 300 dollars, and most are double and triple that amount. the EFS 55 you have is a good lens, stopped down at F8 or F11 and with the drebles adjustable iso that shouldnt be too limiting. but what you really want is something 28 - 70 with a f2.8 then something 70 - 200 with also F2.8 or F4 , that alone would be a thousand dollars right there. I think that if you cant go over 300 dollars today, save up your money because those cheap zooms would ruin your love for the art and the you'll get fustrated and raged and THEN you'll end up kicking the dog and beating the cat. Not a pretty sight.

[jimstrutz]

At the moment, for under $300, the Sigma 18-125 is probably the best option for getting one lens that can be used for everything you want for a 300D. For sure, it is a compromise in many areas, but early reports are that this is a sharp, well made lens, and well worth the price. It's actually better than the lens that came with your camera.

 

Personally, I would keep using the 18-55 that you have and buy an additional lens, like a 50-200 or 70-300. Why have an interchangable lens camera if you don't plan on ever changing lenses?

[yakim_peled1]

<p> From what I <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009oEP">read</a> it seems that anything less than 400mm is useless for air-shows. </p>

<p>As far as I understand, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is possibly the best 3rd party mid-range zoom. It's a very good lens. A friend of mine uses it on the EOS3. He says it is very good. He tested it against the 28-70/2.8 USM L and says the results are very close. <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008T9j">Here</a> is a user which compared it to the 1300$ 24-70/2.8 USM L and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008SgU">here</a> is a comparison to the 1600$ 70-200/2.8 USM L IS. If you ask me, it has <b>very</b> impressive performance for a 300$ lens.<p>

<p> Alas, quality lenses are either <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#expensive">expensive</a> or <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml">extremely expensive</a> </p>.

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[andrew_c2]

A 50/1.4. Between this and the kit lens, you should be in 'all-around' territory.

[cs chua]

Siegfred,

When I purchased the 300D more than a year ago I had no hesitation in getting a 55-200mm at the same time. This combination provided me a range from 18 to 200mm.

[seigfred_m]

Thanks for all the feedback guys.... really appreciate it.