Which lens to buy first?

[swati nair]

<p>Hello,<br>

I am a beginner in photography and I bought my first DSLR last year. I have a Canon 400D and I have been reading up and practising and honing myself for some time and now I feel its time to invest in my first lens. This is where I am stuck. I read up a bit on an apt lens for a beginner and I am getting different answers. I mainly shoot landscapes and people. Not that I don't shoot birds and animals and flowers but I know they require different lenses so I am not focusing on them intensely right now since my first priority is landscapes. I read about the Canon EF 18-200mm lens and I had almost made up my mind that this is it. But then I found that its not a USM lens and I found that non-USM lens are a bit of a problem. Another lens I checked out was the Canon 70-200mm lens but that is only a zoom lens, it doesn't give me much of wide angle. I don't want to go for a Sigma because I know the quality comes nowhere near Canon. How about Tamron? I haven't checked it out much yet but I saw a couple of people recommend it. Ok so here are my basic queries, I will list them out for ease of answering.</p>

<p>1) First preference is a Canon lens. Please suggest one, which is flexible (zoom and wide-angle) and not overly expensive. My budget is around $600 to $700 so perhaps something within that if possible?</p>

<p>2) How is a Tamron? Please suggest good ones in that.</p>

<p>3) How about using an extender? Is it good? Expensive?</p>

<p>Please keep in mind to suggest something that a beginner like me can use. My website is <a href="http://silhouettes.shutterfly.com">Birdy's World</a> , please check it out for an idea of the pictures I take. It is still under construction and I am constantly updating it with pictures and things, so not all the pages are filled.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance! I hope I get an answer here!</p>

<p>Warm Regards</p>

<p>Swati</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

What lens(es) and camera do you have right now?

 

USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor, it's an autofocus motor. Lenses that have USM generally focus faster and more silently then non-USM ones. Since your mainly shoot landscape you don't need fast focusing, some folks even manually focus for landscape work.

 

Extenders are used to extend the reach of your telephoto lenses. For example 70-200mm f/4 + 1.4 ex = 98-280mm f/5.6

 

If you have a 1.6 crop camera like one of the Rebel/xxxD, or xxD cameras. Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.4-4.5 USM is a good choice (keep in mind 10-22mm in 1.6 crop = 16-35mm). Canon EF-S 18-200mm can be your do-all-in-one lens, it isn't wide like the 10-22 but wide enough at 18 (also keep in mind 18mm in 1.6 crop = 28.8mm)

 

If you have a fullframe camera like the 5D. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is a good choice

 

All 3 lenses are within your budget.

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Don't buy anything just yet. From your question I gather that you are asking us to decide for you. We can't do that. Wait until you have read more and taken more photographs with your (I assume) kit lens. You will be ready to buy a new lens when you can say to yourself "I simply must have this lens so I can take these kinds of pictures that I want to take".<br>

Until that moment comes you risk wasting your money.<br>

Neill</p>

[everheul]

<p>I agree with Neil except for one thing. The 50mm f1.8 is so cheap, yet has fantastic glass for such a chincy piece of plastic barrel, that you just have to get one. At less than 100 bucks, how could one be disappointed?</p>

[dan_sabin]

<p>Hi Swati...<br>

I'd highly recommend a Tamron SP AF 17 - 50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II. It's selling for about $450. I had one on my 400D and was extremely happy with it, I found it great for for landscapes and very pleased with image sharpness. Build was very good. It also has a 6 year warranty. Worth a look I think especially for a crop sensor, which you have. Good luck with whatever you choose.<br>

Dan</p>

[dogbert]

<p>What lens are you currently using?<br>

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX and Tamron 17-50 f2.8 are both good lenses within your budget. Canon don't really make anything in that price range apart from maybe the 17-40 f4L that is much of an improvement in value for moeny terms over the kit lens.<br>

Be aware that you pay a lot for incremental improvements over the kit lens. For some people this is worth it, for many others it is not.</p>

<p> </p>

[swati nair]

<p>Thanks for all the answers :) There seems to be some confusion on what lens am using now. The answer is none apart from the kit lens of 18-55mm. I found a lens, which I feel is right for me, Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. Its a great walkaround lens and perfect for first use. Please feel free to give me any more suggestions .... Thanks again!</p>

<p> </p>

[colin carron]

<p>A good lens to go with your 18-55 is the canon EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 IS. It is sharper than the 28-135 IS which is generally thought to be an 'OK' lens while the 55-250 IS normlly rated a 'Good' or 'Very Good'.<br />However if you like wide angle landscapes the other alternative is to go for the canon EF-S 10-22mm. This will give you very much wider shots thanthe 18-55 and works very well indeed.<br />You say of Sigma lenses that 'the quality comes nowhere near Canon'. In fact most major lens manufacturers (including Canon and Nikon)make lenses in broadly three categories :<br />Cheap lenses built down to a price such as kit lenses. These can be dire or quite good but especially avoid the cheap lenses with long zoom ranges. These are in my experience a false economy and rarely perform well.<br />Mid-range lenses - designed for the amateur. These again vary quite a bit but the better ones yield excellent results. Yo can get a good idea about performance from such sites as Fredmiranda.com (user reviews) and Photozone.de. (technical reviews).<br />Professional standard lenses (for Canon this means L' lenses plus most of the primes and specialist lenses) The equivalent Pro Sigma range is the 'EX' range. I have found these are very good lenses which give Canon L lenses a run for their money and are cheaper.</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>Hi swati<br>

If you want to go for a landscape the 10-22 (canon or sigma both are good) will be the good choice<br>

for portrait 55-250 is perfect (according to my expr.)<br>

and if you want a combo of them then tamron 17-50 f2.8 sounds good...<br>

happy shooting<br>

prasad</p>

[zeb_lisik]

<p>i second the purchase of the 50mm 1.8. ive never heard of anyone regretting that lens purchase<br>

being new myself I remember my first lens, the 50mm f1.8 and it helped me understand the limitations of the kit lens and thus helped me pick out future lenses.<br>

As to the 3rd part makers (sigma, tamron, tokina) their current gen lenses are high quality. of course all lenses have their sweet spots and particular quirks, some lenses more than others and cannon is no exception. so i'd say not to discount those 3 makers out of hand.<br>

i currently own a tamron 90mm macro (non di) and am pleased with it. from the looks of some of your shots youre not only interested in landscapes but perhaps also macro?</p>

<p> </p>

[jhammond]

<p>Hi Swati.<br>

I'll have to echo the positive remarks about the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 and the 'fantastic plastic' Canon 50 F/1.8 above. I bought my Tamron a few months ago and recieved the Canon 50 as a gift this Christmas. Given your budget, you'd be able to pick both up new if you so desired. </p>

[clgriffin]

<p>I played with a new 55-250 and 50D out of the box (but I had to give it back to its new owner) and there was nothing wrong with the lens. USM makes a lens quicker and quieter and more expensive, but the new kit and EF-S lenses from Canon focus quickly enough for all purposes except some low-light sports.<br>

Until you are experienced enough with what you have, hold off on buying any new lenses--unless you want to do some animal or bird shots--then, even the 55-250 won't be long enough for some shots.</p>

 

[alan_myers]

<p>Hi Swati,</p>

<p>I'm going to commit heresy and suggest you not buy the 50/1.8... or the 17-50.</p>

<p>The 50 is a good value and useful for portraiture, but you can probably work with the other lenses for a while and add the 50mm pretty painlessly later if you want to do more portrait work. Personally I like the build and image quality of the more expensive ($300+) 50/1.4 better, but that's entirely up to you.</p>

<p>I don't see the point of the 17-50, since you have an 18-55 now.</p>

<p>The 28-135 IS is a great walk-around lens and actually long enough on a crop body for some bird and animal shots. If you are in the U.S. there are a ton of essentially unused or very minimally used copies of this particular lens available second hand for between $250 and $300, because they are being sold in kit on the 40D and 50D and many buyers already have a lens in this range.</p>

<p>I've shot a lot with the 28-135 and it's image quality is really good. It's Canon "mid-grade" build quality and I eventually replaced it with the 24-70/2.8 for better dust sealing and the f2.8 aperture, but at 3X the cost. Get the optional lens hood for this or any other Canon lens that doesn't include it, too. It's the best protection for any lens when in use.</p>

<p>Pair that lens up with either a very wide Tokina 12-24/4 (I just bought one last month for $450 including shipping) or a Tamron 10-24 ($500) if you want an ultra-wide view, and can find one (this Tammy is a brand new model and they are just now being released.</p>

<p>These two lenses (28-135 along with 12-24 or 10-24) would effectively give you a wider range of focal lengths than most 35mm film shooters ever owned in their entire lives. You can add portrait, macro and more telephoto lenses later, when you wish and your budget allows.</p>

<p>An alternative combination, you could keep using your 18-55 IS, although if it's wide angle enough (it's not very), and just add a 55-250 IS (under $300 I think) or the 70-200/4L non-IS (over $700, and you are right, it's not at all wide angle... it's strictly telephoto and a pretty long one at that). These two are not typical landscape lenses, though. And, I really like IS on any lens longer than about 100mm, if at all possible (there's a 70-200/4 with IS available, but it's more expensive).</p>

<p>Extenders are what Canon calls their teleconverters. They make two: a 1.4X and a 2X. These "multiply" the focal length of the lens they are fitted to, so are mostly used for wildlife and birds at a distance. Really, all teleconverters are designed to be used with telephoto lenses. Extenders are used to keep costs down, and for their relative small size, compared with a large telephoto lens.</p>

<p>Of the lenses discussed above, most actually cannot be fitted with the Canon teleconverters at all. The only lens I'd use one with would be the 70-200, and that would only be the 1.4X Extender. That combination would work fine. (Might be okay on the 55-250, but that longer lens might not really, and because I've never tried it I have no idea if the image quality would hold up, plus you might lose autofocus capability with the combo.)</p>

<p>If you wanted to keep your 18-55, but still wanted something wider, you could also go with the Tokina 11-16/2.8. It's a fine lens and a relatively new design, but it's a little pricey and it has a pretty narrow zoom range, both because of it's fast f2.8 aperture. Now, in truth a faster aperture is usually not all that important for landscape work, and not all that beneficial for a wide angle unless shooting a lot of low light building interiors, etc.</p>

<p>The Canon 10-22 is fine, but pretty expensive at nearly $750 by the time you add the optional, but important lens hood. It's the most expensive lens we are discussing here, except possibly for the 70-200/4L (which includes the hood buy the way, all Canon L-Series do).</p>

<p>The Sigma 10-20 is pretty good, too but is now the oldest design of all the ultrawides mentioned, and also the second most expensive wide angle at about $580. It does have HSM, which is Sigma's version of Canon's USM. The Tamron and Tokina don't.</p>

<p>But frankly, on an ultrawide lens, USM (or HSM) is less important, mainly because the lens doesn't need to move the focusing group of elements very much, so it's pretty fast even without it. But, I try to stick with USM lenses almost exclusively, too. Telephotos in particular that have it are simply faster and quieter.</p>

<p>I've never been a fan of "super zoom" lenses like the 18-200, that try to "do it all" . They have to compromise too much on image quality, in order to cover such an extreme range. In other words, they "do it all, but none of it particularly well". That's been my experience with them in the past. Now, I haven't personally tried Canon's current model, so maybe more recent ones are better. Still, I'm pretty skeptical.</p>

<p>In summary, if it were me I'd probably either:</p>

<p>1. Get the 28-135 and either the 12-24 or 10-24, selling or trading the 18-55.... or</p>

<p>2. Keep shooting with the 18-55 and add either the 55-250 or 70-200.</p>

<p>After all, this probably won't be your last lens purchase!</p>

<p> </p>

[kent_j]

<p>I think you should <strong>very</strong> seriously consider the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 10-22 lenses. For your landscapes, either will do nicely, and these are the only two consumer grade lenses I have seen that have received high marks for image quality. You should be able to get either one in the $700 price range you mentioned, and unlike cheaper lenses, they hold their value well for when its time to move on. You can always save a bit by buying a used one from a reputable dealer like Adorama or B&W. I have lots of used lenses. Cheap lenses will dissapoint and lose most of their value before you even open the box.</p>

<p>The 10-22 will probably be more fun, but the IS and 2.8 will likely help you get more keepers. A 70-200L should probably stay on the back burner considering your current subject matter and level of expertice. You are correct, its not wide enough for what you want, but when you're ready, it would be a great next step, and its quality will surprise you.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Kent, that 17-55 2.8 IS is going to be closer to $1000-1100...add in a hood that Canon <strong>failed to include at that price</strong> (I'm not bitter), and you're pushing $1100-1200 USD. I did see a used one at a local shop for $850 (no hood). It is a great lens though!</p>

[swati nair]

<p>Thanks y'all! Thanks especially to Alan Myers - I am keeping my 18-55 am not at all planning to sell it. I have made up my mind about the 28-135 after I tested a lot of lenses in the Canon lounge nearby... As you said I was thinking to add the 55-250 sometime later... The 28-135 has got amazing reviews all round and its a great all-purpose lens I feel after testing it out.... Thanks again all of you!</p>