Please Help w/ First Lens [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

View Full Version : Please Help w/ First Lens

payton0621

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 09:22

Barb42

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 09:39

28-135 IS - great for an all purpose lens. I use it everywhere. There are better, of course - there is always something better! But for the money and focal coverage, its great and has been my walk-about lens for years. http://groups.msn.com/TheEthicalDemand/shoebox.msnw

harryelmo

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 09:45

I just purchased my Canon 30D w/ the lens kit...I want to get another lens that better suits what I am looking for...I have about $400-$600 to spend...I want to use my lens for landscape (telephoto), animals at the zoo, and macro.... Can you please suggest a lens that will fit these needs and stay within my budget...Thanks...
I have the Canon 10d and bought the 28-135mm IS lens with the camera and it does a great job but have since purchased a Sigma 24-70 mm f2.8 dg macro and find that I am using it more than the 28-135mm. Both are great lens and the Sigma is less than 400 dollars.

Jon

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 11:19

For wildlife, even at the zoo, you're going to find the 28-135 awfully short. Something with an upper reach of 300-400 mm. is more what you'll need to be looking for. I don't think you'll find a single lens that will give you both the reach you need and good macro (from 1:4 - 1:1 reproduction, at the sensor). Canon's 70-200 f/4 L or the 200 f/2.8 L might squeak you by for reach at the zoo. They will also accept the Canon 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. The 75-300 USM, either IS or non-IS isn't a bad lens, properly used, but not in the same category as the others.

Longwatcher

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:48

Within your price range, the 75-300 IS is probably the best lens overall, but as mentioned you will not get good macro capability. The 28-135 IS is a better lens for this and a dedicated Macro lens may be even better.

skimmilk68

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 14:46

i heard the IS doesnt even matter when you're zoomed in at 300mm sicne you're using a fast shutter speed anyway

is that 'IS' worth that extra couple hundred bucks?

LouDawg

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 14:55

i heard the IS doesnt even matter when you're zoomed in at 300mm sicne you're using a fast shutter speed anyway

is that 'IS' worth that extra couple hundred bucks?

The idea behind IS is that you will be able to use slower shutter speeds especially using long lenses, because it will essentially "steady" your image. For taking pictures of fast moving objects, however, such as many sports, the IS won't help you much at all because the shutter speeds will be relatively fast, thus reducing or eliminating visable camera shake in the image without the use of IS.

So if you are going to be shooting in low-light situations when you want a fairly slow shutter speed, IS may help you--but it won't help stop a fast moving object.

Headcase650

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 16:39

If you are not a pro, would be compleatly happy with a consumer lense of average optical quality, dont want to be changing lenses all the time and dont want to buy a bag full of lenses for thousands of dollars then you might want to look at the tamron 28-300di lens. It doesnt do any one thing super but does most thing you want and is fairly good. It is the highest ranced lense in its class.