Lens for Canon 50d

[black_bishop]

<p>Im thinking on buying a canon 50d, and i have tought of this lenses:<br />10-22, for wide angles,<br />100-400 for birds, and animals<br>

<br />and i have a hole there, im thinking also in the 24-105 is, but i have heard is definetely not worht the price, so, maybe i will buy the cheaper 28-135 is, wich i dont know how good it is, what do you think about these two ? and i fear that the 10-22 will cause too much distortion, maybe the 17-55 not so wide, but better in iq and less distortion ?<br>

<br />also i tought on the 18-200, but i have heard is not a pretty good lens. dont know if i would enjoy a prime, like a 50, 85 mm. i think i will miss something if i buy only the 24-105 or 28-135, anyway, wich lenses you recommend me to buy appart from the 2 i already choose ?<br>

<br />i shoot nature, all kind of animals, landscapes, and also architecture, i dont like sports<br />Any advices on the issue will be appreciated</p>

[robert_reiss]

<p>If you just want to fill a hole, buy the 50mm f1.8 for about $80 until you know better what you need.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Who told you that the 24-105/4 L isn't worth the price? It's a fabulous walkabout lens. You should also consider the 24-70/2.8 L, which is considered by many to be the finest standard zoom ever made.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Do you have any lenses now?<br>

For a zoom, I really like the 24-70 f2.8 L USM on my 50D. I find this range is where most of my shooting is done. The kit lens (28-135) will do a pretty decent job to start. I have the 18-200 which I use for work (I can't stop to change lenses). Considering its range, it does a great job, although it does have some barrel distortion at the wide end, and is just slightly soft when zoomed out to 200. In between, it's very decent.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I have the 50D and for birds/wildlife I use the 400mm F/5.6 prime and the 100-400mm zoom. Both lenses are excellent and very sharp. The prime focuses much faster, and is a bit sharper than the zoom. The zoom one has IS, and also focuses much closer.<br>

For wider shots I use the Tamron 28-75mm, which is another great lens for the price.</p>

<p>Whatever you do, don't buy cheap glass for the 50D.<br>

<br /> Good luck</p>

<p> </p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>10-22 and 100-400 for now. Use those for a while until you know what you want.</p>

[anthony_hicks]

<p>Thats one hell of a hole. It does of course depend on your shooting style and subject matter, but even if your main interests fall at the extremes of the focal length range as yours sound like they do, you need something to fill the gap. At least get a 'plastic fantastic' 50/1.8 as Robert suggests.</p>

<p>The 24-105L is great if you get a good one - despite being an 'L', in my experience they suffer from sample variation as much as any other lens (I have owned, borrowed or seen first hand results from six examples of it). Ditto the 28-135 - I have seen two, the first was good, the second was terrible away from the centre. If I was in your position I would think about pairing the 100-400 with a 17-55/2.8 first, and then decide if you really need something wider.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p>I have the 17-55/2.8 IS and think highly on it. Quite literally, there's no other lens like it, in any system: Sharp wide open, fast and stabilized. I traded a 24-105 for it and am not regretting this but a set of 10-22 and 24-105 is a very good walkaround set.</p>

<p>Look at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview">PZ</a>.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[davyjo]

<p>Is money no object?<br>

I'd go with the 10-22, 17-55 IS and then the 100-400mm. Perhaps throw in a 70-200 of your choice for a wicked good kit.<br>

The 10-22 is highly addictive, the 17-55 covers a lot of ground, my most used lens. The 70-200 is a great "feeder" lens for birds. The 100-400 lets you reach out and gab 'em.</p>

[black_bishop]

<p>thanks for the help, i have another question,i feel tempted for the 18-200, but the iq is just decent, or really good ? <br>

the people who has it, what does it think of quality of it ?it will be good for a 15 mp camera ? if not, i rather wait to buy a better lens</p>

<p> </p>

[anthony_hicks]

<p>Well I wouldn't.... a superzoom is never going to give the IQ of a 17-55, a 24-105, a 24-70, etc etc</p>

<p>Suggest you leave the 18-200 to those photters who want a "one lens solution" :o)</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p>Don't do it. Chances are you'll be very disappointed.<br>

 <br>

Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I own and have written a <a title="Canon Lens Reviews 24-105 100-400MM" href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/" title="Canon Lens Reviews 24-105 100-400MM">reviews of the Canon 24-105 and 100-400</a> . If you think birds will be the majority if your tele uses, consider a prime tele. The reasons are lighter weight and slighty sharper images.</p>