18-55 and what's next for a beginner

[loebas]

Have been shooting around with my 18-55 lens standard with D300.
I like to shoot streetscenes, people, landscape and want to go after wildlife
Like sharp and clear pictures
What lens or lenses would you advice me ?
with low/middle/high budget.

Hope you can help me a bit

[drisley]

I highly recommend the very affordable 50F1.8II lens, and also the 85F1.8. They are extremely fast, sharp, and very affordable, and great for shooting people.
If you aren't a fan of primes, many people recommend the Tamron 28-75F2.8 lens. It's very affordable, and has extremely good quality. I think it would compliment your kit lens very nicely.
If you would rather spend alot more money to stay with Canon, there is the very pricey Canon 24-70F2.8L lens. It's slightly sharper than the Tamron, but it's also alot bigger and heavier (and did I mention, it is pricey).

I leave the wildlife lenses to the others. I'm not experienced in that area at all.

[Biko]

For wildlife 100 - 400 L

[Molydood]

re: wildlife, there are some obvious choices depending on budget:

70-200 f4 L (430 gbp)
70-200 f2.8 L (900 gbp)
100-400 L (1100 gbp)

these are all canon lenses, and by far the best suited to wildlife is the 100-400l being the choice of a lot of quality photogs. The 70-200 is also an excellent lens and you will not hear a bad word said about it. The 2.8 is more for low light shooting, so if this isnt your bag then the 70-200, preferably with a 1.4x teeconverter, is the choice.
On the cheaper side, canon also do the 75-300, in IS and non IS versions. I have the non IS, and had no problems other than its slightly soft at full 300mm. It's for sale if you want it (UK)

Martin

[gramps]

For wildlife 100 - 400 L

I just got mine a couple of hours ago............one word...WOW

[tim]

There's better budget lenses than the Canon 75-300. I've just ordered the sigma 70-300 apo super macro ii from B&H for $209, which has the advantage of being a macro lens. Sure it's not the best macro lens and it's a little soft at 300 (i'm told) but for the price you can't complain.

[ron chappel]

I can help with the budget end of the telezooms

Supercheap - sigma 100-300 DL
-examples here
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_6.html

Good cheapie -canon 75-300 (has some interesting characteristics such as VERY strong background blur
- examples here
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index.html

Very good consumer grade lens - canon 100-300/3.5-4.5 (fits between the L series pro lenses and the cheapies for build and optical quality,a nice lens)
-examples and comparo with the 75-300 here -
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/index_2.html (also check next page,etc)

Possible alternative to the canon 100-300 -sigma 70-300 apo macro super II
-I haven't use this one but here's a comparison with the canon 75-300 -
http://www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp

From here on up it's definitely pro lens territory-the awsome 70-200/4 L is recommended by all but there are other even better choices :) 8)

[robertwgross]

For wildlife 100 - 400 L

I agree completely.

A beginner wildlife shooter is likely to go with some 75-300 lens (I did). You can get good results with that, but not necessarily great results, and you'll be looking for longer focal length.

I got the 100-400mm L lens, and I haven't looked back, and the birds pose nicely. However, the price is not insignificant.

---Bob Gross---

[mr.photoguy]

I have seen some photo's that have been taken with a 75-300 and I have never liked them. I only saw maybe 1 or 2 that were nice. I don't know if it's the user error or the lens, but I don't hear that much good about the lens as opposed to the 70-200F4 which get's raved.