Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JoshJosh117, Jun 16, 2009.
This one would help you most.
Keep saving, keep shooting... and, by the time you've got enough money for a spending spree, you should know what next to buy.
That is... don't buy what you think you're going to need; wait until you're sure. I'd suggest you try to see what the kit lens will do first...
I don't know. Which one do you need the most? They're completely different.
And I don't understand why you have the Canon 50 f/1.8 on the list. It's so cheap that you could get that lens plus either the 70-200 mm or 100 mm macro. Or you could just get the 50 mm f/1.8 today, and one of the other 2 lenses tomorrow.
What is a good "budget" (lower priced L/high end non-L) companion to the Canon 70-200mm L f/4? 70mm is way long on the 1.6x crop.
Go for the nifty fifty first, they can be had for 80 bucks or less. Yes, the speedlite 430EX would be a great companion to the T1i if you've got the dough.
Buy the 50mm f/1.8. You won't get to learn anything about depth of field if you buy a zoom lens, as zooms have very limited control over it. Also, the 50mm is a very sharp lens, and takes stunning photos. Many zooms are not quite as sharp. Finally, you'll learn more about framing if you have to move around with your feet to frame, rather than simply twisting a zoom. My suggestion to a beginner is to use a cheap prime (like the 50mm f/1.8) when trying to take "art" shots, but to use a zoom when taking casual photographs of friends, in which the image quality is less important. Also, a 70-200 zoom provides too much magnification for most applications. It's only really useful for taking photos of people on podiums, etc.
Double post, sorry
I just picked up the new Sigma 50mm, it's an excellent lens for the price (under 500). Using it on a 40D. I picked up the 70-200 2.8IS last weekend and couldn't be happier I am using it on the 40D as I wait for my 5Dmk2 to get here....and although it is long at about 115mm, it looks incredible. (Also, the tele end at over 300mm at 2.8 is incredible!!!!) The difference between it and my 70-300 Canon IS is night and day.
If you're on a budget, the Sigma and Tamron primes are worth a second look for primes. Stick with Canon L though for zoom.
I'd say the "high end non-L" companion with a wider range would be the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Outstanding optics, although the price could certainly be more "non-L." The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is also a phenomenal lens; it lacks the IS and has a slightly lesser range, but it's priced much more reasonably.
Dump the 50/1.8 for the 50/1.4, IMO. It's a vastly superior lens.
Canon makes a 17-40 f/4L that pairs nicely with the 70-200 f/4L. I'd like to see an f4/L complement to the 24-70 f/2.8L (my favorite lens), but I won't be holding my breath.
Ignore third-party lenses, IMO.
What are you shooting? How are your light conditions? What's your environment? What's your budget?
Generally, the shooters I know lean toward a basic kit of 3 or 4 lenses:
- Wide-angle to short-telephoto for a "walk-around" lens.
- Super-fast prime.
- Decent telephoto lens.
- A "specialty" lens, filling some other gap in their kit.
After 3 years of shooting on borrowed and rented glass, I settled on a four-lens kit (EF-S 10-22, EF 24-70 f/2.8 L, 50 f/1.4, and 70-200 f/2.8) that fits nearly every photographic need I have.
When I upgrade to a full-frame body in a few years, I'll dump the 10-22 and pick up a 16-35 f/2.8 L (or its replacement, if that happens) and keep the same focal lengths but improve image quality and aperture choices.
I'd like something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but I don't like third-party lenses. I'd also like to pick up a 1.4x or 2x EF extender to go with my 70-200, but I won't be buying them any time soon.
as doylem said, do NOT buy a second lens until you know what you want. for that matter, do NOT buy the 50/1.8 just because it's cheap. buy it because you like the focal length. tape your kit lens to ~30mm and go around taking pictures, then tape it to ~50mm and do the same. do it indoors and outdoors, and do it with whatever your usual subject matter will be.
if you find yourself taking pictures indoors a lot, a flash would be a good choice. stick with a 270ex or 430ex.
and before you get hounded by gearheads, no, you don't need L lenses for great optical quality.
how do you know?
your only choices are the Sigma 55-200 and Canon 55-250. hopefully someone will make a midrange 55-xxx telephoto sometime soon....
70mm shouldn't be too long unless your shorter zoom ends at 30 or 40mm.
He asked for a companion to the 70-200, not an alternative.
Hard to recommend something when we don't know what you shoot.
Get the 50mm because it is so cheap - then if you shoot macro get the macro. Or if its a good zoom range get the telephoto.
Like others have said, if you had to ask others which lens you should get from completely different set of lenses, you probably shouldn't buy any until you do.
I agree with trying the 50 / 1.8. It's so cheap and a lot of fun to use (albeit slightly limited on small sensors).
That covers a wide area also.
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro is a fantastic lens, ideal for both portrait and macro photography. But 100mm on T1i translates to 160mm focal length, which is far from wide angle photography.
In fact, none of the lenses you've mentioned are wide angle. EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is a pretty decent at wide angle, so I would just stick to that until your budget and experience expand.
As for EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, at 3.9 feet minimum focus distance and 0.21x max magnification (vs 1 foot and 1x for EF 100mm f/2.8 USM macro), it isn't quite the macro lens. But if you could live with that limitations, it is quite more versatile. That said, I would perhaps save up for the IS version. Although non-IS is a fine lens, IS is among the finest lens Canon has ever produced.
I think Doylem is 100% correct.
If you have to ask the question of which lens you should buy, you probably are not ready to buy another one.
Owning more stuff does not make you a better photographer. Trust me, I know, I've tried!
I agree with Doylem and toxic use the kit lens until you think your ready and sure what you like shooting with.
Kit lenses usually do a bit of macro (and wide angle), experiment with that and see if that's what you really want to do.
oh, whoops. in that case, there aren't any bad f/2.8 standard zooms...
your kit lens covers wide-angle. for macro, the 100/2.8 will do. for birds, you're better off saving for a 100-400 or similar Sigma lens (e.g. 150-500).
yup, I agree with the people who says stick with the kit lens first till know what lens to get next. Heck, I've seen too many people who just got into DSLR and spend a lot on the lenses and ended up selling all of em cause felt that a DSLR is too much for them.
Go/save for 70-200mm and add some extension tubes, shoot for a while and decide if you are liking macro style and than go for 100mm lens. When you will want some creative shots with shallow DOF buy 50mm 1.4 which you can reverse mount to you camera and have a nice manual focus macro lens...
I have those, except my "specialty lens", a Nikon 105 mm VR macro, acts as my telephoto. Usually, I don't need anything longer.
I also wanted to buy a Nikon 135 mm f/2 in the future, but they've just discontinued it recently.
Well, they have a stand in for that lens; it's the 24-105 f4L A marvelous lens, THE walk around lens of choice for all the 5D shooters I know. It's on my main camera 80% of the time.
You're exactly right. I somehow forgot about the 24-105. Thanks for the correction.