Advice, please.

[quickben]

Hi all,

I feel like I'm playing with the "big boys" posting in this forum :D

I currently have a G5, but I'm upgrading to a 10D in a few months time. The kind of photography I mostly do is landscape, portrait, a little bit of macro and nature (birds). I'd like to know what lenses I should go for.

I'll have a small budget after buying the camera (around £600), so no "L" glass, I'm afraid.

Any suggestions would be very gratefully received.

.......... Just don't take my dinner money from me !!!

[robertwgross]

There is no easy answer to this.

Some people take the approach of "buy one lens and make it last forever". For that, you would want one very versatile lens, perhaps with a broad zoom range.

Some other people take the approach of "buy one lens for one range, then later buy a second lens for a second range, then ..." That will keep you in collecting mode.

Birders need a very long lens. As it has been stated elsewhere, you need something out around 500mm focal length at a minimum unless you want to shoot only the bird nest outside your window. Those lenses don't come cheaply.

I began my Canon work with one short zoom lens and one longer zoom lens. Later on, I decided I needed a very wide zoom lens. Then I needed a broad range zoom. Then a fixed 50mm. Then I needed a monster wildlife lens. The collecting process continues.

---Bob Gross---

[quickben]

Bugger.............. My wife is going to HATE this new interest of mine :(

[quickben]

Actually, she already does. :cry:

[JZaun]

You haven't even gotten started. I shoot mostly wildlife (when I can find it :? ) I had a 100-300 zoom and needed more reach !! so I upgraded to a 100-400 (L) IS.. The only way to get more than 300 with out going to primes. I love it, it stays on my camera most of the time..I had a Sigma 50mm 1:1 macro, had to get too close for good results, upgraded it to a canon 100mm macro :D I love it,, that is on my camera when I want flowers, macro's and close ups :) ,,I have a 24-85mm USM but rarely have it on the camera but it does take nice wide shots. The 24 is wide enough for me but others need wider :? So I know I didn't help much , but maybe I gave you food for thought.

Good luck

JZ

[martcol]

Well, that's tricky. The fact that you do a "little bit" of everything makes it trickier. You need to decide what you think you will most use your camera for and stick with it. A good starter that always gets a decent press around here is the 28-135 IS USM. I have used it for a year with pretty good results. It's light, has a good range and pretty good optics. The 50 mm is cheapo and will give you excellent results but there you are limited with the fixed length.

In fact that was my lens collection for some time. I have recently spent over twice the original cost of the body on three L lenses and wow! Maybe you should think about flowers for the other half?

Martin

[G3]

The Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX APO RF HSM is one hell of a lens for around $1,000.00 US.

[robertwgross]

I needed a monster wildlife lens, and the selection of Canon lenses was somewhat limited or very expensive. Back in January 2003, I got the Sigma 170-500mm zoom, and it has provided some good long-throw images for me. Fortunately, the lens is new enough that there was no compatibility problem (as was the case for some of the old Sigma lenses). After I got the lens, I discovered how expensive filters are for that sucker! (Hint: 86mm filter size)

Then, of course, I discovered that it is too heavy to carry very far or very fast, so I had to get the optional lens trailer to haul it.

If you shoot large animals, maybe you don't need that much lens. But then, the elephant repellant has been working too good around here lately, and there aren't many large animals to point it at.

It seems to work pretty good at deer distance. I have to use it more at marmot distance.

---Bob Gross---

[quickben]

Cheers Martin :D

Actually, i've been looking at that very lens recently !! It looks like a good starter lens. I've also been looking at the 50mm f1.4. Is that a good portrait lens ?

I think I'll wait a while before I get a decent long lens, I just can't afford it.

Especially if it means getting "L" glass. :(

[iwatkins]

Quickben,

Welcome into this forum. :)

1. Canon 28-135 IS USM + Hood = £370 (http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/PHOTO/lenstech/canon/28135f3556isusm.html) (general lens, OK for landscapes but not really wide enough)

2. Canon 50mm f1.4 USM + Hood = £280 (http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/PHOTO/lenstech/canon/50f14usm.html) (great portrait lens, general lens for indoor work, very narrow depth of field work)

Comes in at £650 (OK, a little over your budget, but get used to it ;)). Or you could buy the 50mm F1.8 which is a lot cheaper and spend the left overs on other bits and bob, or put towards saving up for a super wide lens/super long lens.

Prices as current on WareHouse Express (http://www.warehouseexpress.co.uk/) site (UK based, top guys)

Those two lenses are very good and would set you up quite well. However, the requirements you stated actually cover a very large lens range so I think it is safe to say the budget stated won't be able to cover it all.

Cheers

Ian

[DaveG]

Hi all,

I feel like I'm playing with the "big boys" posting in this forum :D

I currently have a G5, but I'm upgrading to a 10D in a few months time. The kind of photography I mostly do is landscape, portrait, a little bit of macro and nature (birds). I'd like to know what lenses I should go for.

I'll have a small budget after buying the camera (around £600), so no "L" glass, I'm afraid.

Any suggestions would be very gratefully received.

.......... Just don't take my dinner money from me !!!

I started off with the 24-85 f2.5-4.5 zoom. It didn't break the bank and is a very good lens - and I compare it all the time to work from my 16-35 and 80-200, both L series lenses.

That'd give you a lens which can take you from moderate wide angle to short telephoto and you could so worse if you only own one lens. After that you might want to consider the 75-300 IS lens. Again it's not billions of $ but it will take you way out there telephotoly. I suggest the more expensive IS lens since it'll help you steady this lens at the long focal lengths, even if you are using a tripod or monopd. At least get the USM version of this lens so you get quicker AF.

[Canuck]

I needed a monster wildlife lens, and the selection of Canon lenses was somewhat limited or very expensive. Back in January 2003, I got the Sigma 170-500mm zoom, and it has provided some good long-throw images for me. Fortunately, the lens is new enough that there was no compatibility problem (as was the case for some of the old Sigma lenses). After I got the lens, I discovered how expensive filters are for that sucker! (Hint: 86mm filter size)

Then, of course, I discovered that it is too heavy to carry very far or very fast, so I had to get the optional lens trailer to haul it.

---Bob Gross---

Bob,
You and I are nearly in the same group...you have the weight of lens in your corner, but I have hte 105mm filters in mine to go with the 5 3/4lb Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX. I shoulda bought the trailer too.

[DaveG]

After I got the lens, I discovered how expensive filters are for that sucker! (Hint: 86mm filter size)



---Bob Gross---

Try pricing the 122mm filters for the Nikkor 300mm f2.8.