18-55 lens and what's next

[loebas]

Have been busy learning everything on photography. As I'm still learning I think it is time to buy some lenses for my D300

I like to take photo's from streetscenes, marketplaces, people, landscape and wildlife (deer, fox)

After reading all the critics with regard to lensens (Never thought this would be a special world) I decided to go for the following lenses:

Canon 50 1.8 (for low light, portrait, etc)
Tamron 28-75 (as walk around lens, landscape )
Canon 70-200 f4.0 (for wildlife, portraits, etc)

What do you think of my ideas and is there someone with the same lens outfit and can you tell me your experiences.

[DocFrankenstein]

Congrats on doing your recearch. Excellent choices.

[tim]

Sounds like a good choice of lenses to me.

[wolf]

Good choice of lenses. The 70-200 may be short though for wildlife unless you can sneak up on your prey real quietly.

[gramps]

I agree that the 70 -200 might be on the short side. You may want to consider throwing in a 1.4 extender or one step further.................the 100 -400!!!!!

[RbnDave]

All good lenses. I have to agree with wolf about the 70-200. It is too short for wildlife except for tame animals. I did the same thing when I started buying lenses. I got a Sigma 70-200 for portraits and wildlife. Soon I found out that 70-200 was too short for wildlife. Unfortunatly you will have to fork out huge dollars to get a good wildlife lens. There are no cheap ways to get to 400mm. You will love that 70-200 anyhow. I still use my Sigma 70-200 even though I have a Canon 100-400. I guess I did get a few wildlife photos with my 70-200. I used to live near a herd of tame deer. Also I got some pictures of tame sea otters and tame seagulls.

[Mchu86]

I am in the same situation as you and believe it or not, I have the same exact choices as you! :)

[DocFrankenstein]

Yes... I also find myself pushing you towards sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX

Very good lens for the price. And you can get a converter and still have f/4 at 280mm

Good luck. It takes lots of thinking, experimentation, money and research to get the system you want. :)

[Olegis]

It takes lots of thinking, experimentation, money and research to get the system you want. :)

You can never get the system you want, it always will be something that you will want to add to it :-)

loebas, those are wonderful lenses. Go for them !

[DocFrankenstein]

Nah... sooner or later you'll specialize and you'll get the equipment that gets the job done.

That's unless the equipment you have is more important than the images you make. :)

[Olegis]

That's unless the equipment you have is more important than the images you make. :)

It always is, isn't it ? :rolleyes:

[loebas]

I am in the same situation as you and believe it or not, I have the same exact choices as you! :)

Good to hear that I'm not the only one.
For what purpose are you going to use the 70-200 f4.0 ?

[DocFrankenstein]

It always is, isn't it ? :rolleyes:
:head down in shame:

[mr.photoguy]

for me my ideal set up will be
18 - 55 for wide angle, (till I decide to upgrade, if I do 17-40)
50mm 1.8 low light fast shooting
Tamron 28-75 for mid range.. odd subjects
Tamron 180 macro -- for macro work
70-200 f4 (A posibility) need a good big zoom.

I see nothing wrong with your set up btw.

[DocFrankenstein]

Uh-huh...

What about wide angle?

[mr.photoguy]

Uh-huh...

What about wide angle?
he has a 18-55

[Cadwell]

I have the Tamron 28-75mm and the Canon 70-200f/4L. They are both excellent lenses. Good choices.

I've borrowed a friends 50mm f/1.8 and whilst it's a interesting little thing to use, I can't really see me getting any use from one.

[mr.photoguy]

Is the 28-75 your wides lens.?

right now I have a 28-80 with 28 being the widest side ... It's the widest lens I have right now. I can't stand it because it kills my landscapes. I can't wait for my 18-55 to come in.

18 should be good enough to get me the wide angles that I need.

[Cadwell]

Is the 28-75 your wides lens.?

If that question was addressed to me, then no. I have Canon EF 17-40 f/4L for the wider stuff. :-)

[Mchu86]

Good to hear that I'm not the only one.
For what purpose are you going to use the 70-200 f4.0 ?

For me, it's the simple purpose of having a longer zoom. We've all been in that situation where you wish you had a longer zoom...and boy, have I had that :)

[mr.photoguy]

It's funny cause when I used to shoot film, and I had a 70-210, I would constantly have my 1.4x extender on the damn thing ... 210mm was just never enough .

[DocFrankenstein]

Is the 28-75 your wides lens.?

right now I have a 28-80 with 28 being the widest side ... It's the widest lens I have right now. I can't stand it because it kills my landscapes. I can't wait for my 18-55 to come in.

18 should be good enough to get me the wide angles that I need.
It only translates to 28 mm on the full frame sensor.

[mr.photoguy]

It only translates to 28 mm on the full frame sensor.
I honestly don't believe this whole 1.6x magnification stuff. I do however feel there is a 1.6x crop. So an 18 on a 20D will just show less of the field than a 18 on a 35mm.

[Reminisce]

I have the above setup, minus the 70-200, and the 18-55 still gets a bit of use when I need landscape. 18mm is just so much better than 28mm on a 1.6x body. However, the 28-75 is now on my camera full time :).

[Jon]

I honestly don't believe this whole 1.6x magnification stuff. I do however feel there is a 1.6x crop. So an 18 on a 20D will just show less of the field than a 18 on a 35mm.
And that "less of the field" just happens to correspond to the field of view of a 28 mm lens on a full-frame 35 mm. See also the several zillion posts on the cra^hop factor referenced here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45388)

[hank1105]

Funny you should mention that setup. I am looking at getting the Tamron and the Canon 50mm. Also add the 1.4x teleconverter for my 70-200 f/4. The research you have done makes me feel better that I am also heading in the right direction.

Hank