I've just acquired a Canon 40D.
I have also just bought a 50mm 1.8 Prime that was too good to refuse - £57.60 delivered.
I'm probably going to go for the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II Lens
But, am confused with regards to which short Zoom I should go for, for Beginners money.
The Canon EF-S Zoom Lens 18 mm - 55 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS MK II
or
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
Confused?
Because I've been told/read that the Canon is a good lens even for a kit.
That the Sigma is better build quality, comes with a Hood & the end element doesn't rotate like the Canon & thus allows the simple use of a Polarising Filter.
Then, someone else says, go for a Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR VC Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
But it's double the price and a bit more.
Times are hard and I'm only starting my Image Capturing journey..
if noob to photography stick with inexpensive primes and zoom with your feet. every weekend use only ONE lens and shoot everything with that one lens. practice technique, exposure, framing and PP. then consider expensive investments.
i recommend this because if you don't enjoy the craft, doing the above will point that out very quickly. but to get the most out of your investment you need to understand the craft intimately.
if just a noob to dslr's with a good grasp of technique don't skimp on lenses. you almost always get what you pay for.
15Bit wrote:
Its worth pointing out that lenses, especially well regarded ones, hold their value quite well. It is enitrely possible to buy a second hand lens, keep it a couple of years and sell it for pretty much the same as you paid for it. Ownership of better lenses is thus not "expensive", it just ties up capital.
I confess i was not aware that "tog" was so etymologically interesting. As it is obviously a potentially offensive difference we have in definition, I propose that we merge our definitions to give:
Tog: (noun) - a person who takes photographs in houses of ill repute ...Show more →
i bought my 17-40L the day it was released. 2003 i believe. was $800
the price has since risen to 900. i sold it a month ago for 700.
motorcycles and studio lighting are the same way sold my lighting for 98% of what i bought it for 9 years ago. the number of offers i got at that price was astounding.
Ramkat wrote:
One piece of advice I wished somebody had given me - bodies come and go - lenses are forever, buy the fastest and best you can afford - I eventually got to Canon originals via Sigma and Tamron
Are you serious? Mirror Lock Up is used when you want to shoot long exposure ON A TRIPOD. It's NOT for handheld shooting.
@WannaTakePix
Go buy a book on photography first to learn the basic because as you can see here, getting an "advice" from forum can get you even more confused... Or worse, you get misinformation like that MLU stuff.
I personally prefer a constant f/2.8 lens like that Tamron. The problem with Image Stabilisation is that even when you can hold your camera for 1 second without shaking, you'll still get blurry photos if there's something moving in the frame, eg. a moving person.
I have the Canon kit lens, but it's mostly sitting in the cabinet while I use the Tamron 17-50mm. If I had known about the Tamron, I wouldn't have bought the kit lens in the first place.
Now there are 2 school of thoughts regarding zoom vs prime lens. The pro-prime says you learn better composition by forcing you to move to frame the shot. I personally don't have a problem moving on my own to get a better angle using a zoom because I'm not lazy to begin with. Plus zoom lens gives me more freedom when I actually don't have the room to move, eg. in a museum, and it's more useful in many situations, eg. when you're walking around or in a family gathering.
In other word, I don't see the point in limiting myself too much with a prime lens.
In the end it doesn't matter what you get. If you are new to photography you probably have got a lot to learn. Any lens will be a good starting point, since no lens can do it all. You'll run into the limitations of a particular lens at a certain point in time. Then you want to try other lenses, which is fine. It is the benefit of a DSLR system that you have many different lenses suitable for different tasks. You'll figure it out along the way
Having said that... I still think it will be most beneficial to get a 2.8 fixed zoom.
Daan B wrote:
In the end it doesn't matter what you get. If you are new to photography you probably have got a lot to learn. Any lens will be a good starting point, since no lens can do it all. You'll run into the limitations of a particular lens at a certain point in time. Then you want to try other lenses, which is fine. It is the benefit of a DSLR system that you have many different lenses suitable for different tasks. You'll figure it out along the way
+1
Get capability before quality:
Get a range of focal points, a 1.4x teleconverter, a simple tripod, a remote release, a bag that will allow you to take everything everywhere, a decent basic flash, a polarizing filter, a neutral density filter or two.
Then as you get your footing and your enthusiasm grows and as you find what genres and ways of making photos you enjoy most, you can upgrade for quality, for wider apertures, for robustness, and for specialized capabilities.
^^ That seems like an expensive way to start. Of those i would only recommend the bag to someone starting up. The filters and teleconverter i would judge to be a total waste of money at this point.
I agree with Dan on this - start slowly, and learn your equipment and photographic interests before splashing out a lot of money.
15Bit wrote:
^^ That seems like an expensive way to start. Of those i would only recommend the bag to someone starting up. The filters and teleconverter i would judge to be a total waste of money at this point. I agree with Dan on this - start slowly, and learn your equipment and photographic interests before splashing out a lot of money.
When learning you need capability more than quality. It's not expensive. You can get a wide range of focal lengths for not too much money (which will have to be replaced if the photographer gets hooked by capability). There are inexpensive teleconverters (which will have to be replaced if the photographer gets hooked by capability). There are cheap tripods (which will have to be replaced if the photographer gets hooked by capability). Sure, don't get the filters the first week, but get them soon. You don't have to splash out a lot of money to get your feet completely wet.
You can't learn if telephoto work and subjects are in your photographic interests without having a telephoto or two.
You can't learn if wide angle work and subjects are in your photographic interests without having a wide angle.
You can't learn if night photography or HDR or the other things you can do with tripods are in your photographic interests without having a tripod.
You can't learn what happens when you apply polarizer and ND filters without having them.
Get in there with beginner enthusiasm and learn and above all have fun. Get hooked first and then upgrade to the top-notch top-dollar gear later.
Develop the physical ability to hand hold the 500 f/4L IS for shooting birds and sports if your interests take you there…also the required bank account…
Monito wrote:
When learning you need capability more than quality. It's not expensive.
But you don't need the capability all at once. And it *is* expensive. I don't think he has the budget that you have for this stuff - The OP is asking about lenses that cost in the region of £100-150 and you are suggesting accessories that will cost easily more than that. I don't disagree that he might want them at some point, but not all together at the start. I know from personal experience that i bought grad ND's very early on and i never use them. They were a complete waste of money, and have next to no resale value. I bought a polariser too - i use it maybe once a year. For now i would recommend to stay clear of accessories, get basic lenses and figure out what is interesting. Then go shopping.
sold my lighting for 98% of what i bought it for 9 years ago. the number of offers i got at that price was astounding.
~£350