Hey guys this is probably the most frequently asked question by noobs in the world of photography.. *says in an annoying voice* "what lens shall I buy?" I've searched high and low on line, but am still torn between 3 options... but before I give you those... my kit and requirements are: Camera - Canon EOS 500D + kit lens (18-55mm, f3.5-5.6) + tripod + remote Skill level - Noob photographer - have done a basic course in light, speed, time etc... and have experimented a bit with different combinations for differing effects - but I would still say I'm a noob. Since the basic course - I mainly use the camera in full manual mode. Requirements - General photography when out and about with the Mrs (i.e. holiday photos). I will be taking photos of large historical sites/buildings from near and a-far, a few landscape shots. I might get roped into taking some casual snaps at my cousins wedding in addition to the pro photographer's photos. I will not be doing sports photography or wildlife photography specifically. Some night time/low light shots. Want something convenient for 'on the move' photography when travelling. If I take a nice enough shot, I might get it enlarged and printed. I do not yet have a flash gun. So my three options (and thoughts) are: a) Canon 18-200mm f3.5 - 5.6 new @ approx 380 I like the idea of a flexible lens, wide angle and a decent telephoto range without having to swap lenses... But I'm not keep on the mediocre reviews and poor clarity when zoomed into a subjet. I'm also a little concerned about the image distortion/ballooning when zoomed fully in/out... b) Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 - 4.5 new @ approx 300 I like the idea of the faster lens, with a bit more zoom capability than the kit. But then think... am I spending 300 for not much more? And then for telephoto purposes (in the future - if req) I'll still need to get an additional lens. c) dont buy anything and stick with the kit lens for now - save the 300 What are your thoughts... If I go for the Sigma, will I be spending 300 for not much more? Will I still feel short in the telephoto area? If I go for the Canon, will I just be gaining additional zoom capability but not gain anything in clarity?
It really depends. I have a all canon lenses, but have had sigma lenses in the past. I do like them and I do like their build quality. Its useful to have a zoom lens to go with the kit lens. Have you looked at the sigma 70-300? Link Its one of the better, more affordable sigma lenses and I can't fault that lens at all. It very affordable too. I used to have one until I swapped it for a 70-200 L series. The Canon 18-200mm f3.5 - 5.6 is an Ok lens, and will give you a lot fair amount of scope! I'd probably not go for the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 - 4.5, however it is faster but you are not gaining that much.
Ah - cheers buddy. I'll have a look into the Sigma 70-300. Price wise it sounds like it could be worth a shot without too much price point pain! Only thing is how I get on swapping lenses on the move/on hoilday when I find I need the extra telephoto capability of the 70-300. Has the f-stop range of f4-5.6 on the Sigma ever presented any challenges in clarity/speed?
IMO a 55 - 200 will be just as useful as 70 - 300. 200 to 300 doesn't make that much difference, but 55 gives more flexibilty. Cheap teles are all bright day lenses really, although stability systems are very useful if your subject is not moving. Fast teles are loadsa wonga! Swapping lenses is a nightmare, and cheap 18 - 200's are rubbish in my experience. A second body with the tele is by far the best technical option IMO.
I would upgrade your kit lens to a 17-85mm lens... Should be on eBay for 100-150 quid. That lens is far better than your kit lens and you'll get loads of use out of it. Rich
It really isn't. Given that plenty of us still shoot almost exclusively on primes, changing lenses isn't exactly a hardship. Carrying, powering and editing on the move with two camera bodies is more 'hassle', imo. Not to mention the cost of the second body. The right-sized lens pouch(es) sitting on your waist can make it a quick, easy and clean operation. Have a look at ThinkTank Lens Changers http://www.thinktankphoto.com/categories/modular-systems/lens-pouches.aspx
Cheers for the input guys.. but I think I've done a full circle - I've gone for the Canon 18-200. I'm going to be travelling in some pretty dusty environments so dont want to risk swapping lenses, plus I dont want to lug two lenses. From a security aspect, I hate being in risky foreign places and be messing around with expensive kit (or my wallet).. so the convenience of the 18-200 fits on this occasion. The kit lens has been serving me well to date (as a beginner), the main reason for the change is I quite often find myself wishing I could zoom in closer. I might later get some better or prime lenses for use when I have the capacity to carry and swap lenses etc.
My Dad has the 18-200mm hooked up to his 550D and gets some good results, he has been a photographer for 40 odd years and finds it does everything he wants these days. Also its a good step you can now sell your kit lens and start saving for a L lens
I have Punjabi blood running through my veins... I'll never sell anything I have spare lol. I'll keep the 18-55mm "just in case" lol. I think it is going to be a very very long time before I will need/have any desire to spend the big bucks on an L series lens! I need to improve my photography skills and start to utilise the full technical capabilities of the camera/lens before I can justify the mega expensive kit. In the same way that me getting lessons from a professional race instructor will probably be more effective at improving lap times/driving consistency than going out any buying a better car etc. And considering I rarely find time to play with the camera... I think its going to be a very very long time before I think of an L-series lens!
Good choice. I've bought a couple of other make lenses second-hand - both a Sigma and a Tamron. Although they are OK, they cannot touch the Nikon lenses for sharpness. If/when I can afford another lens or two new, they will definitely be Nikon. I expect the Canon lenses are the same. Both Nikon and Canon lenses almost always come out best in comparitive reviews, (always followed by a comment about their cost!)
I work for a media production company and have many professional video and some still lenses to care for. In my youth I worked in the still camera industry and the most important things I have learnt are to prepare the composition, assess the depth of field, plan for the best light conditions and have some neutral density filtlers on hand as well and buy the best tripod you can afford. More often than not when shooting motorsport you want very shallow depth of field as you arent shooting landscape and the subject matter is usually moving. Panning the lens and using a 1/200 shutter will create background and wheel movement to add to the effect. Use exposure locks with bright backgrounds, manually focus to a point that highlights details and underexpose more than over, photoshop can work with under but once the pixels are blown out, it's just white!
