What lenses do you have?

[agentm]

Hey there

I am in the process of saving for a Canon EOS 10D after lots of reading and research. Buying lenses for the first time can be extremely overwhelming at first. :shock:

I want to do photography in these topics:
- People portraits in and outside the studio
- Landscapes e.g mountains....sun sets....trees in the fall....snow
- Architecture....buildings
- Maybe wildlife some day....zoom work on birds e.g
- Close up macro work

I did read a lot about lenses but I'm not sure what to buy first. I assume I will get the standard 50mm Canon lense and then add to this. I think I need a good zoom and wide angle lense added to this.

My question to you is:
- What photography do you do
- and what lenses do you use for it

Thanks to all and a happy new year :wink:
Henk

[Jim Larson]

If you are new to SLR photography, I would suggest starting with a prosumer zoom, then find out what you really like. You can then complement your first lens with either fast primes or "L" zooms. I never recommend the kit cheap zooms.

The Canon EF lens lineup can be broken down into five categories. The following is my quick summary of this lineup:

1) Kit zooms (18-55EF-s, 28-80, 28-90, 28-105/4.5-5.6): All cheap, with plastic mounts, about $100, all make good paperweights.

2) Prosumer zooms (28-105/3.5-4.5, 24-85, 28-135IS, 75-300 and 100-300 lens): Decent quality, with USM motors. Costs $150-$300 for the non-IS lenses, about $400 for the two IS lenses. The optics are generally very good, but the xx-300mm lenses grow “soft” beyond 200mm. These lenses are a clear step above the kit-zooms, and definitely worth the extra money.

A note about IS: Image stabilization is a tool like any other. It will stop your “camera shake” when you shoot a slow shutter in dim light. It will not stop the subject from moving. A 1/10th second shot with IS is fine for a landscape, but bad for a bride moving down an aisle.

3) "L" zooms: Creme de la creme. A full notch above the prosumer zooms but very pricey. The $1300 2.8 versions are generally on par (optically) to the $600 F4.0 versions. Built quality is also better.

With the zooms, it boils down to how much you want to pay. I would *never* recommend the kit lenses under any conditions. I have seen a few people question if the higher resolution of the "L" glass is visible (vs the prosumer zooms) on a 300D/10D sensor.

In the telephoto realm, all of the prosumer 75-300mm lenses are somewhat weak, and the 70-200/4L is an excellent lens. I can definitely see the difference on my 10D. Many would suggest skipping the xx-300 prosumer zooms and saving for the $575 70-200/4L as a photographer’s first “L” lens.

4) Cheap primes (24/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 ): Premium optics in cheap body lenses. Despite lack of USM motors, Full Time Manual Focusing, and in some cases metal lens mounts, the sharpness matches the $1300 F2.8L lenses. Flare resistance should be superior. Prices range from $70 for the 50/1.8 to $400 to the 20/2.8

5) "L" primes (24/1.4L, 50/1.0L, 300/2.8L): Fast glass! Expensive glass! For $1300+ you get top notch optics that you expect, and ALL the bells and whistles. The wide angles are reportedly not quite as sharp optically as the cheap primes. The telephoto primes are some of the best glass in the business.

My kit: 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, and 70-200/4L. Less commonly used stuff in my bag: 28-105/3.5-4.5, 75-300.

[defordphoto]

Here's a great resource for checking out lenses and they also have an awesome lens list for you to download:

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/

[Nolz]

thanks for the read jim!

as for me...im using a 300D as a step up from point and shoots for the last 4 years....

my lens kit includes a paper weight (EF-s 18-55)

a 75-300 usm, i bought this lens despite reading all the reports about it getting a little soft beyond 200mm because i figured at my level of photoraphy i wouldnt be able to notice. i am wrong, unfortunately ive been spoiled with the fantastic optics and flexibility (in terms of light availability) of my third lens.....

50mm f1.8 oooooh boy! for the money, its beyond anything i ever expected...and probably would not have bought it disregaurding it as being "too cheap to be good". thank god for this forum :D

next on my hit list is the 17-40mm and introduction to the world of L lenses...to replace my "paper weight" :D

[Jim Larson]

next on my hit list is the 17-40mm and introduction to the world of L lenses...to replace my "paper weight" :D

All depends on what you want. With what you have, either the 17-40/4L or 70-200/4L would be logical choices.

[agentm]

Thanks for the help so far guys.
I will continue with my research, but this post has helped me so far, especially you Jim.

Henk

[Nolz]

next on my hit list is the 17-40mm and introduction to the world of L lenses...to replace my "paper weight" :D

All depends on what you want. With what you have, either the 17-40/4L or 70-200/4L would be logical choices.

hey stop that!....you guys need to quit making all these expensive suggestions! :P

but you are spot on.....*sigh*

time to go get that lottoery ticket!