good starter lens

[c0ntr0lz]

which would be a good starter lens
i'm really in to close ups and macros

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Lens $150

Canon Zoom Normal-Telephoto EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM II Autofocus Lens
$209

Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Autofocus Lens
$279

not really concered with price just looking for a good starting lens

[daaaveman]

My 2 cents. The best you could do is the Canon 24-70L at about $1,300 or a used 28-70L at about $700 if you can find one. If that price scares you off, look at the Tamron 28-75 XR DI ($300 or so) or the Canon 28-135 IS (a little over $400). Both are good lenses. The Tamron is considered sharper but much less rugged that it's L counterparts. The 28-135 gives you the extra reach and the IS which are both bonus'. If you really want to shoot macro, the Canon 100mm Macro is your best bet at around $500. Good luck. Have fun.

[Mr.B]

a good starter lens would be a 50mm 1.8 at around $70.00 anything else, I would spend a bit to get something quality that you really like.

Something that works well for your shooting style, the 100mm macro would be nice. for a walk around, look into the 28-135mm IS.

That's what I would recommend looking at.

[CyberDyneSystems]

You'll find about 3.8 billino recomandations for the 28-135mm IS on this site.... :)

[c0ntr0lz]

great thanks guys
i will prob get the 50mm i will get without a doubt

forgot to say that i'll be getting the digital rebel

[Olegis]

If you're into macro and closeups - why not get one of the macro lens (1:1 magnification) ? The Tamron 90mm, the Canon 100mm and the Sigma 105mm are wonderful lenses - very good optically and not that expensive.
On the other hand you can get the 50mm f/1.8 and some extension tubes - it'll help to focus closer on the subject.

[c0ntr0lz]

i shall look at those
thanks

[vvizard]

great thanks guys
i will prob get the 50mm i will get without a doubt

forgot to say that i'll be getting the digital rebel

I can also recommend the 50mm. Got the 50 1.4 as my first lens, and it's great. The low-light possibilities are a life-saver sometime. With a 10D the crop-factor (which is the same as the Drebel) make this lens quite "narrow". So not to good for landscapes I must say, but good for portraits and "walk-around".

[Loekito]

If you into close-up and macro works, better to buy a macro lens, like: Canon 100mm f2.8 macro USM or Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro or Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro.

If you got no problem with $$$, get Canon, since it had USM. I give up my sigma and change to canon, since it perform quietly so not makes skittis insect to be runaway and better AF performance.

the 100mm range is also suitable for portraiture works.

regards,

Loekito

[c0ntr0lz]

thanks
now are yall talking about the 50mm f1.8 or f1.4
cause the 1.8 is $70 and the 1.4 is $300

[Mr.B]

I'm talking about the 1.8 because it's cheap, fast, light-weight, and you will never regret buying it, because on top of all that it has really good quality optics.

If you want something a little more solid, you can go for the same lens in a mark 1, it comes with a metal mount, and will probably double the price, but if you want a cheap starter lens, nab the mark two, get used to quality optics and start building your lens collection from there.

1.4 is an awesome lens I hear, and I'm sure if I tried it, I wouldn't want to put it down, but I think for me, I'm ok with the 1.8 on the cheap so I have more money for higher quality telephoto lenses.

[c0ntr0lz]

kool
thats what i was thinking the mark II should be aight
thanks

[Mr.B]

That lens is on my camera constantly in nearly every situation. Here's a couple pictures I took this weekend just to show the bokeh and the crispness you can get from it.


just a touch of usm, but would have worked straight off the camera.
http://www.briarcreekfarm.com/matstuff/photos/headshot.jpg

desaturated just cause I liked it. Looked fine straight off the camera as well. This size just doesn't do it justice. Trust me though, for the money this lens delivers the goods.
http://www.briarcreekfarm.com/matstuff/photos/building.jpg

[c0ntr0lz]

very nice
thanks for the post
it does look to be an awesome lens
USM what is that? I see on B&H alot

[Mr.B]

I was talking about the "unsharp mask" filter in Photoshop. it seems to subtly sharpen up photos. It's a godsend for slightly out of focus shots.

USM at B&H stands for UltraSonic Motor I believe and that is the motor that drives the autofocus on Canon's nicer lenses.

the 50mm 1.8 does not us an USM, but it's motor is nice enough. I believe USM is faster, quieter, and allows for full time manual focusing. Lenses with this are usually a bit more pricey than their non USM counterparts.

I might be wrong however. I'm just now buying a USM lens for the first time.

[Olegis]

About the non-USM Af motor of the 50mm F/1.8 MkII - I was able to track a moving car at speeds of about 40-50km/h, so I guess the speed isn't an issue here.

[c0ntr0lz]

exellent guys!! thanks guys
that's the info i was looking for

[droosan]

I will throw my vote behind a 50mm prime too.

Unless you're planning to make really big prints, like bigger than 8x10in, 6.3MP is overkill. What this means is that you have a lot of room to crop the photo a 50mm will give. If you're making a normal size print you can easily crop down to what you'd get from a 200mm lens on a 35mm camera. And if your picture is destined for the Internet you can crop to the equivalent of a 300-400mm lens.

The short of it. With 6.3MP and a computer as an enlarger, zooms are much less necessary... and f/1.4 is 16 times more light than f/5.6--the long end of many consumer zooms. And the difference is focusing speed is enormous. And the optics...