What lenses? some recommendations please

[grant4]

I have recently acquired a 30D. For an individual wishing to learn

(teach themselves photography) what 3 lenses would be recommended.

Three is only a random number and perhaps this is not a realistic

expectation. Cost is obviously a factor (my mid life crisis did not

extend to a large motor cycle) so I would be looking for some

general purpose lenses. My interests are primarily sports (field

hockey and cricket with perhaps some rugby), landscapes, and when I

am overseas wild life. However I would be willing to try anything...

 

grant

[grant g]

Why not start cheap...I'd suggest just two: the kit 18-55 (~$140 new) and a 50/1.8 (~$80 new)

 

Then figure out what you need from there.

 

If you HAVE TO add a telephoto (for the sports) the best value for the money IMO is the 200/2.8 (for about $660 - $50 Canon rebate = $610)

 

Good luck shopping!

 

Grant

[marknagel]

What is your price budget? A large motorcycle can cover a huge range. If you have the cash, Canon 16-35/2.8 or 10-22efs, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8is. This set up will set you back $4000-$5000. Otherwise a more budet lens package could be anything. I found the 100mm Macro opened up a whole new world.

 

M

[grant4]

Dont know what happened to my previous response. Perhaps it is still in cyberspace.

 

The maximum amount I could probably spend over a period of time would be about $6000. Any more than that would perhaps have me looking for a new residence unless of course I could say that I had always had them.

 

Grant

[david_wu6]

With a 30D already in hand and $6K to spend, the solution is trivial:

70-200 F2.8 IS (~$1800);

24-70 2.8 (~$700) or 18-55 2.8 (~$1200);

10-22 (~$600);

A tripod ($500);

580 EX ($400);

A few filters (avg. $100/piece);

A 1.4X TC ($350).

 

However, since you seems indicating you just started (teach yourself), you may just start with 24-105 F4 and play for a while before moving into the 3-lens set.

[mendel_leisk]

My threesome (all Canon): 10-22, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 IS.

[steve santikarn]

Sports and wild life means long lens. The 70-200 f2.8 IS and 1.4x is good if you have strong arms and lots of luggage allowance when you fly. Cheaper and lighter (but not as good) alternative is the 70-300 USM IS. The 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 IS L lens to cover the middle ranges, can't go wrong with either one. And the 17-40 f4 or the new 17-55 f2.8 IS EF-S to cover the landscape wide end. Don't forget the 580EX flash, momory cards, camera bag, fast pc with lots of hard-drive spaces, good inkjet, lots of inks, glossy print papers, Photoshop CS2, and a decent tripod as well. Might be cheaper to go with the motorbike option!

[pto189]

Use B&H special code "psmar" to buy immediately two of the Canon f/2.8L lenses: 24-70 and 70-200 IS. You can't buy cheaper than thoses prices: $1099-$50 and $1599-$50. I would skip the 10-22 and 17-40 but get the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L instead. You still have $3000 to burn on three Canon prime lenses: 100mm Macro, 200 f/2.8L and 300 f/4L IS plus 1.4x II TC. Play these six lenses with your 30D for a while. Do not rush to the 5D too soon. Canon will introduce two or three new full frame DSLRs within two years that will make all current DSLRs history. <p>Don't bother to touch EF-S lenses. Do not listen to those who suggest the 24-105 over the 24-70. You will buy either only 24-70 or both 24-70 and 24-105. However, the 17-40 is worth to consider, but the 16-35 is still better. Do not buy the 70-200 f/4L. Stick with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

[kin_lau]

It's always lots of fun to spend other people's money :).

 

I would suggest starting a bit more simply, an EF-S 17-85 IS and work with that for a while.

 

For field hockey, cricket and rugby and later wild life, you'll need much longer lenses. I personally use a Sigma 50-500 which is very good even at the long end, but it's _heavy_. If you can find a shop that'll rent longer lenses, then do that first, to get a sense of what you need/want. Try a 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 and 300/4, 100-400mm, 400/5.6, even a 500. Lug one or a few of those around for a weekend, and you'll have a much better idea of what you'd be willing to put up with.

[pjmeade]

Hello Grant one of the Canon 70-200 lenses will be an excellent choice for many situations and will certainly be long enough for field hockey. Depending on the length of boundary, a 70-200 may need the 1.4 converter. The MCC young cricket photographer uses a Nikon 100-400 zoom on his 1.5 crop camera for games at Lords, so the Canon 100-400 may be a good option on your 1.6 crop camera.

 

I like the 24-105/f4, but the 24-70/f2.8 will be just as good an option. For a wide angle, the Canon options are 10-22, 16-35 and 17-40. Most people who own one of those rate them highly.

 

Another lens that is not expensive at all is the 50mm/f1.8.

 

I took this shot with the 70-200/f4 from about 80-100 yards out:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3404759

 

Hope this helps

[willem_leenen]

My advice too is: start cheap. Only when you feel the pain of the limitations of your lense, an extra purchase can be considered. You consider yourself 'a beginner', so the bottleneck will not be in your equipment for some time. ( Why this rant? I have seen many beginners who can't resist the fun of shopping and also think they need expensive equipment to make good photo's. And during photo-evaluations, I have never heard the remark: "a pity you didn't have a better lens for this photo" )

Off the soapbox now. Try to outgrow this first: the kitlens, the 50mm 1.8 (around $80) and a good 200mm f2.8 prime.(around $500)

[grant4]

To all of you have responded so prompltly many thanks for the great advice. It is always great to spend others money ....

 

I look forward to having some almost decent photos to place on the site shortly.

 

Again thanks.

 

grant

[wuyeah]

Amoung all Canon lens i will buy:

 

50mm f1.4, 35mm F1.4L, 85mm f1.2L, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 28-135mm f3.5, 135mm f2 L,

16-35mm L, 24-70mm L, 70-200mm L.

 

100mm f2.8 i feel is must buy. Super satisfy. all other L lens, they charge you so much,

better be good right!

[willem_leenen]

Correction on my previous post:

"a good 200mm f2.8 prime.(around $500)"

 

This must be : "a good 100mm f2.8 prime.(around $500)"

 

Regards,

Willem

[sidaths]

So far almost all the responses have been collections of lenses that would be at home in a professional's collection. I would suggest that you don't burn so much money on lenses when you are still just investigating.

 

I live in the UK and suggest that you get the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 f4L* to start off with. I got both of them from eBay and they came to under ﾣ1000 with hoods and LowePro lens cases (the lens cases were not bought on eBay). These two lenses work very well, and unlike all the others that have been mentioned, they are a lot lighter and more useable than the f2.8 lenses. They both can be used quite easily handheld as well.

 

The advantage is that you can take these lenses quite easily with you on your bike (which is one of the most ideal vehicles for photography when you have a light lens load).

 

Since then I have augmented my collection with the 10-22 and the 100 macro (all Canon).

 

Once you have a better idea of the focal lengths that you find yourself shooting at you can then shell out the big cash on the bigger lenses. Once you do, these two initial suggestions will still be useful for travel and the 17-85 IS is an excellent lens for everyday use.

 

I hope this helps, mate :)

Sid

 

* The f4 will be fine for cricket, but might require you to up your ISO for rugby (which works fine for me btw).