Most Recomended Starter Lenses thread?

[CyberDyneSystems]

*** Help me out with this idea ***
;)

This is preliminary for now.. will be revised,...

I want to try and put together a Sticky thread or threads addressing the Members most recomended lenses.

The first post in each thread will be the list of the top ten recomended lenses for specific uses, (this one is "starter lenses) and/or a POLL,...

Members are encouraged to describe in detail why they recomend a particular lens,. and for what purposes the lens is usefull.

This may be the first of a handfull of such threads,. (portraits, Wildlife, Sports etc.... )

But lets try this one and see what we think of the format and how we can make this work best for new forum users.

For now,.. post your ideas of lenses that should be included,. and if any should be removed that will then go into a POLL so we can rate actual popularity...


*******************************************

My initial list of "Starter" lenses based on what I see recomended the most often is as follows;

EF 28-135mm IS
EF 17-40mm f/4L
Tamron 28-75mm XR DI ##? f/2.8
EF 70-200mm f/4L
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM
EF 50mm f/1.8
EF 50mm f/1.4
EF 85mm f/1.8

So what am I missing... ?
Remember for this thread we are looking for lenses recomended for a first time Canon SLR buyer,...

[KevC]

Cool thread!

Okay, well I've already ordered the 50mm f/1.8. Can't wait till it comes in the mail. Why? Well, I don't have (the money for) a flash, and due to the weather I shoot indoors. So... the wide aperature is a big welcome!

I've heard some people say the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM is a decent starter lens. But limited to only 1.6x crop factor it doesn't seem too good.

How about the Russian Fishy? That might be my next lens. Zenitar 16mm f/2.8. Mmm..... maybe my friend's dad can pick one up in Moscow for me.

//edit: If I ever strike it rich... my lens purchases will be... 17-70mm f/4L and 70-200mm f/4L :)

[Penguin_101_1]

What about the 75-300 f/4?

[tim]

The Tamron 28-75's a great starter lens, as it has a nice wide aperture so people can experiment with narrow DOF and take photos in low light. It has a useful zoom range, though of course everyone would like a little more at both ends, but that'd reduce it's image quality.

[jylitalo]

EF 35mm f/2?

I don't have this lens yet, but when we get to next fall and day gets shorter and shorter, I will probably be buy one. 50/1.8 is nice, if your photographing concert, etc. where you have plenty of space between you and subject, but if you just want to take outdoor pictures during dark seasons, 35/2 would be much more practical (at least for me), since it gives you whole lot wider angle and is closest thing that you can get to traditional 50mm lens in 1.3x and 1.6x world. Even if you end up buying 17-40/4L, this (35/2) lens will still give you two extra stops, when its really needed.

There is nice review about this lens on http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html

[blinking8s]

My intermediate photography teacher last semester always told me that the 50mm prime tells no lies. It helps a new student understand the technical details behind how the lens and camera work with less complications, as well as teach them how to frame a subject accordingly...it trains them to use the camera to get the result desired...not just sit there and pan in and out from one point because the lens gives you that power...each time you zoom in and out its changing several factors that more than enough times are not remotely taken into concideration when learning photography.

now taking into effect that the art departments photography courses start out with 35mm slr's...the EF 35mm f/2 prime would be an ideal choice with the 1.6 crop factor because its at least close to the given distance the human eye would percieve the photograph before hand.

I dont know for sure if such a meathod works for everyone, but the theory behind it makes total sense to me and worked well for me in class. I stucture my photographs much better as a whole because of the way I went about learning photography.

I would really like to see canon update their 35mm and 50mm primes though...better build and USM tech would make them a truly great all around lens for many different occasions.

[Scottes]

Perhaps we should break this into "categories" of sorts: Wide-angle, medium, tele? Then of course there's zoom & prime. Then there's budget to concern... under $500, $500-1000, $1000-1500? So now we leave 18 lenses to choose from.... Ayee-Yah!

OK, OK, how about 3 categories - wide/medium/tele - zooms only. Though I think many beginner's will want zooms there's definitely some primes that *have* to be considered, so we have a second list of the best primes....

[Longwatcher]

I still think the 75-300 IS should be included. Worked great for me until I picked up the 70-200/2.8L IS
And you already have the 50s

As to format I am of the opinion that you arrange it by price grouping and then by focal length within each price group.
So something like (please note I have only included Canon lenses here a couple are not good choices)

low end:
EF-s 18-55 (for 1.6x format cameras only)
55-200
50/1.8

Mid range:
17-40/4
28-135 IS
75-300 IS
50/1.8 or 50/1.4

High range:
EF-s 10-22L (for 1.6x format cameras only)
16-35L
24-70L
70-200/2.8L IS
100-400L
50/1.4
And the I have nothing better to do with my money:
16-35/2.8L
24/1.4L
24-70/2.8L
28-300L
35/1.4L
50/1.4L or 50/1 (if you can find it)
70-200/2.8L IS
85/1.2
85/1.8 (for AF speed)
135/2
70-300 DO
100-400L
500L
and 1200/5.6L

or something like that with an explanation of why that lens.
Just my opinion

[Tom W]

No mid-range list could be complete without the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 zoom. Competent & inexpensive.

[FlyingPete]

Im in with Longwatcher, depends on your budget as to what you 'should' have.

Nice to see the 50 there, everyone needs one of those, either 1.8 or 1.4.

What about the 17-85IS as a replacement for the 28-135IS, which has been discontiuned in some countries, esspecially for the 1.6'ers?

[Tom W]

I agree, Pete - 17-85 is the 1.6X version of the 28-135 and thus should be included as a mid-range choice as well.

[wtlloyd]

Canon EF 100 f/2.8 Macro - not a cheap lens for a beginner, but versatile beyond macro capability - and the super sharp results this lens gives will encourage anyone to shoot more.

[pcasciola]

I think this is a great idea for a sticky, but should be broken down even further than wide/medium/tele, including types of photography and maybe even taking the x-factor into account. Also, giving both prime and zoom recommendations.

Some of these are my random guesses, but it's just a concept.

Walk around/Travel/Multi use lens:
Zooms:
Tamron 28-75mm Xr Di
Canon 28-135mm IS

Portraits:
Zooms:
Tamron 28-75mm Xr Di
Primes:
50mm f/1.8

Outdoor large field sports:
Zooms:
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L (1.3x - 1.6x 10D/20D/300D/1DMkII)
Primes:
300mm f/4L

Outdoor small field sports:
Zooms:
70-200mm f/4
Primes:
135mm f/2L (1.6x Zooms: 10D/20D/300D)
200mm f/2.8L (1.3x 1DMkII)

Indoor sports (basketball/volleyball):
Zooms:
70-200mm f/2.8
Primes:
85mm f/1.8 (1.6x 10D/20D/300D)
135mm f/2L (1.3x 1DMkII)

Landscapes/Architecture:
Zooms:
10-22mm EF-S (20D/300D)
17-40L (10D, 1DMkII)
Primes:
Tokina 17mm ATX Pro

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is all good stuff,..

Lots of good ideas,.
I agree we will need a few lists,. I had mentioned Sports, potrait work, Wildlife etc.. in the first post,.


But here's what I'm looking to do for starters,.
Remember for this thread we are looking for lenses recomended for a first time Canon SLR buyer,...

So,. this first one I want All around general purpose starter lenses for those on a budget.
(Budget randomly decided at $700.00 or less new)
This thread is for the Newbies to get all the Most recomended/popular Starter lenses for New DSLR owners...

Think about it,. 90% of the time we recomend the same lenses, 70-200,, f/4 etc..

Once we tackle this starter set,. then lets move on to no holds barred,. and list wises, normal telephoto or by use. etc..

Kay? :)

So from the above posts I have two recomendations to add 75-300mm IS to the poll/list,.
Three votes for the 17-85mm,
And Longwatcher recomending a $90,000.00 1200mm Supertelephoto that weighs as much as a volkswagon as new walkaround starter lenses ;)

[Scottes]

And Longwatcher recomending a $90,000.00 1200mm Supertelephoto that weighs as much as a volkswagon as new walkaround starter lenses
In his field that is a starter lens.

:-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

As for additional catagories,..

Having seen recomendations and giving this a lot of further thought,.

I feel that the only "Categories" should be intended use. (like all-around-gen-purpose- budget-starter-walkaround-what-ever-you-want-to-lable-this-first-one which-we-recomend-about-three-times-a day-to-new-DSLR-owners...) :lol:

In each catagory we will have a Top 10 ... so for Portrait,. we don't need 10 primes for instance,. we don't need 10 budget protrait lenses,. we just list the top 10 favorite portrait lenses,. and they will automatically include in the 10 selections from very affordable to very pricy,.. primes and zooms...

Sound good? Make sense?

But I do still want to have the 1200mm listed as the budget walk around starter lens for Newbies! ;) :mrgreen:

[pcasciola]

Ok, $90K is probably a LITTLE out of range for a starter lens, but It's hard to define starter budget, so maybe include price ranges? Some people will be willing to spend $2000 and some only $200.

[S230]

Since your topic is regarding "Starter" lens, I would recommend the following:

Canon 50mm f/1.8 - $150CND
Sigma 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 w/Macro - $180 CND
Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 $100 Approx

These are CHEAP (Pricewise) and very affordable for many.
As your thread lists, there are those that recommend ie. the 50mm f/1.4. But would that be more towards a more advanced users?

[edsarkiss]

blinking8s prof is right on the money with learning photography with a "normal" lens ... that is, for someone seriously interested in learning the art and science of photography.

for 1.6x DSLRs : 28/1.8 (DRebel, 10D, 20D, D30, D60)
for 1.3x DSLRs : 35/2.0 (1D)
for 1.0x DSLRs : 50/1.4 (1Ds)

The "starter" lens should not be a budgetary matter for a serious student. The lenses above are affordable and will allow the student/beginner to focus on the mechanics of photography. Other lenses should come later as the person masters the medium. Too often people starting out in a hobby will compensate for lack of ability with more equipment/gadgets.

[Wazza]

Good topic.

As for my opinions, I'm on the learning side, and limitations are obviously money available. Some of those L lenses for beginners are perhaps a little over the top. Are there some more advanced lenses, but sometimes overlooked by the L lens. Say a decent 70-300 ish range?

I'm looking at getting a 17-40L, 50.18, and 2 other lenses with more tele length. But budget is a concern. Having two L's such as including a 100-400L is simply too much. Is there an in between 70-300 and a 300 DO IS/100-400L. Maybe in the US$300-500 price range, and not $1000+ for some of those L's. :)

And when Longwatcher has finished with the 1200, I'll happily "learn" with it. :D

[Tom W]

Well, there's always the mid-priced 100-300 USM tele zoom. Inner focus, decent build quality.

[Olegis]

Very good and important topic.

I think that the most recommended starter-lenses are the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Xr Di and the Canon 28-135 IS zooms. They offer the best flexibility because of their focal lengths ranges with very decent optical quality. Then there is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 MkII, which had become "a must-buy" lens a long time ago - because of its price / performance ratio.

[RichieHatch]

Here's what i think...

Definatley the 50mm either 1.8 or 1.4 purely for the sharp optics...
If its in budget the 17-40 is good value.
If ye want a start into the L telephoto Prime world you cant go wrong with the 200mm f2.8 mk1 or 2.
Also have a look at one of the Sigma Macro lens for a start into Macro on a budget.

Richie

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ed,. I can certainly see adding the 35mm to the top ten,. I do see that recomended often enough on the forum.. but I don't think Ive ever seen the 28mm mentioned for that purpose... although it makes sense..

Also at under $600.00 the 200mm f/2.8L is another good addition, and it's one that we do recomend from time to time.. (though not nearly as much as the 70-200mm)


hmmm....

I guess I should have known it would be tricky to narrow it down to 10...

[CyberDyneSystems]

Updated list;

EF 28-135mm IS
EF 17-40mm f/4L
EF-S 17-85mm (Should we have EFS lenses on the list? )
Tamron 28-75mm XR DI ##? f/2.8
EF 70-200mm f/4L
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS
EF 35mm f/2
EF 50mm f/1.8 - or f/1.4
EF 85mm f/1.8


I am not going to put the 18-55mm EFS on the list as we only seem to recomend it's purchase with the kit.

So this is ten.. any additional lens will mean removal of another,. (note I Made the two 50's a single choice to get another lens in there ;) )

I do believe this current list is very representative of the most often recomended lenses on this forum for general purpose/new DSLR owners.. with the possible exception of the 200mm f/2.8 prime loosing out to the 35mm f/2... but we can get the 200mm into the "sports" list later... we don't often recomend it as a "starter" lens..

[CyberDyneSystems]

AAAArghhhhh....

What about Sigma 12-24mm?

Should that be on the list?,. I see it recomended all the time. it is THE Wide zoonm alternative to Canon's 17-40mm as far as member recmendations.

But What would we "bump"?

[Olegis]

I don't think the 17-40 f/4L should be included in the list - after all, it's a list for beginners and not all beginners would spend that much of money on a lens. There are other, much cheaper possibilities - Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 EX for example. It's wider, nicely built, very good optically and almost $200 cheaper. IMO, the Sigma has way better price / performance ratio - just what every beginner wants ! ;)

The Sigma 12-24 is also not sutable for beginners, IMHO, it's more like a specialty lens for very special occasions. I think that what a beginners needs is to spend as less money as possible when entering into this photography hobby. This means - he / she needs just one or two GENERAL-PURPOSE lenses, which will cover the basic photography needs. After using it a while, the person will develop his / her style of shooting and then see what to purchase next. The

[Motorsports Photo]

*** Help me out with this idea ***
;)

This is preliminary for now.. will be revised,...

I want to try and put together a Sticky thread or threads addressing the Members most recomended lenses.



I've gotten more cynical as I've watched this forum go from a GOOD informational one to cr*p with posts like asking for starter lenses.

Personally I think there should be a bot to remove everyone of those requests and a message sent to the poster to USE THE SEARCH ENGINE!! There is LOTS of information about lenses out there that no-one should be asking what lens to buy!

Use your brain, personal preference, and wallet to guide you to the correct choice.

[soapbox off- carry on]

-Pete

[tommykjensen]

I've gotten more cynical as I've watched this forum go from a GOOD informational one to cr*p with posts like asking for starter lenses.

Personally I think there should be a bot to remove everyone of those requests and a message sent to the poster to USE THE SEARCH ENGINE!! There is LOTS of information about lenses out there that no-one should be asking what lens to buy!

Use your brain, personal preference, and wallet to guide you to the correct choice.


With responses like Yours to efforts for getting the scattered information collected to one or more easy accessibble topics people are discouraged to do the work.

With Your attitude dpreview is probably a better place for You to hang out.

[Quinn Porter]

I've gotten more cynical as I've watched this forum go from a GOOD informational one to cr*p with posts like asking for starter lenses.

Personally I think there should be a bot to remove everyone of those requests and a message sent to the poster to USE THE SEARCH ENGINE!! There is LOTS of information about lenses out there that no-one should be asking what lens to buy!

Use your brain, personal preference, and wallet to guide you to the correct choice.

[soapbox off- carry on]

-Pete


I also believe there are too many threads asking about starter lenses, which is why a a new sticky thread is a good idea. Newbies need the info, so give them an easy place to find it. I hope it will reduce the number of new threads asking about the 28-135mm vs. the 28-75mm.

As far as CDS's list goes, the only lens that seems to be a weak suggestion is the 75-300. It seems that everytime this lens comes up, most people suggest the 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter as a better alternative.

[Jon]

I think the 75-300 IS belongs on there. The 70-200 + TC combo as an alternative costs about twice as much, and it's fairly evident that new photographers don't fully understand the impact of a teleconverter on aperture or the restricted list of lenses the Canon and Sigma models will work with. Offering that kind of option will only accelerate confusion at a time when there's enough occurring naturally. Besides, IS does offer definite advantages while you're coming to grips with all the myriad of variables if only by increasing the hand-holdable range of speeds.

[Longwatcher]

Ok, $90K is probably a LITTLE out of range for a starter lens, but It's hard to define starter budget, so maybe include price ranges? Some people will be willing to spend $2000 and some only $200.

While I am willing to conceed that the 1200mm might not be everyone's starter lens, it was on my "I have nothing better to do with my money list" and had I won a lottery (big win, not the $4 win) just after getting my D60 you can bet I would have had a 1200mm lens on order. People would have been offering me free photography lessons just to play with that lens. Now that's the kind of starter lens I want. 8)

It is still remains on my "when I win the lottery" list. Along with my Roman style villa, large studio, a sports car or two and a couple of live in models. 8) 8) 8)

on a serious note: THE basic starter lens is the 50/1.8. However, since the kit lens for the drebel is a 18-55 and it works (my dad likes it), that is also one of my prime recommendations if you only get one lens for your camera. My old Canon AE-1 has a FD 50/1.4 (at least I think it is f1.4) and that was all I ever needed. Come to think of it my Hassleblad has a 50mm lens also, hmmm a trend here.

We will get this figured out in time for Canon to come up with a new lens and confuse us all over again.

[CyberDyneSystems]

As far as CDS's list goes, the only lens that seems to be a weak suggestion is the 75-300. It seems that everytime this lens comes up, most people suggest the 70-200mm f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter as a better alternative.

Quinn,

I agree completely,. personally I "dis" this lens with regularity ;)

I added it as it was suggested by two members... but I agree ,. everytime this lens comes up most of us seem to push towards the 70-200mm and t-con for not a whole lot more money (well the t-con does make it a lot more,.. but it is usefull as an investment for a number of lenses)

.... hmmm... so we may still have one opening.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oops,. in the time I posted that a third recomendation for the 75-300mm... :)

[Jon]

Sorry - I'll try to type faster next time, so I get finished before you start your post!

[Longwatcher]

You just want the helpless newbies to go with the 70-200/4 "L" so they get addicted from the start. I am trying to save people here :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

We will get this figured out in time for Canon to come up with a new lens and confuse us all over again.

No kidding,.. I am not sure I have ever even seen an EF-S lens in person :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

You just want the helpless newbies to go with the 70-200/4 "L" so they get addicted from the start. I am trying to save people here :)

What was that? **cough** -kickback- *cough**

Couldn't quite hear what you were typing?

[MarkH]

It seems to me that the 75-300IS is a bit expensive for a lens that is not particularly sharp or contrasty. The 70-200 f4 + 1.4x teleconverter may cost more and lack IS, but it is a high quality lens and will give excellent pictures that are sharp and have good contrast. I would advise anyone to spend the extra and consider that they are purchasing a lens to use for 10+ years which means 3+ camera bodies, it really isn't that expensive to buy quaLity.

[Longwatcher]

It seems to me that the 75-300IS is a bit expensive for a lens that is not particularly sharp or contrasty. The 70-200 f4 + 1.4x teleconverter may cost more and lack IS, but it is a high quality lens and will give excellent pictures that are sharp and have good contrast. I would advise anyone to spend the extra and consider that they are purchasing a lens to use for 10+ years which means 3+ camera bodies, it really isn't that expensive to buy quaLity.

I can never understand why everyone says the 75-300 IS is not sharp. Except for my 100-400, the 75-300 has produced the sharpest pictures I have ever taken, including with my 50/1.4 and 70-200/2.8L IS. I will conceed the contrast on the 75-300 IS is not as good, but mine is (or was the last time I compared) extremely sharp. All I can think of is I got one of those lenses where they accidently got all of the alignment exactly correct when assembling the lens. The bokeh could be better (in comparison to my 70-200 a lot better), but as far as sharpness, I can't understand what everyone is talking about when they say it is not sharp. I thought it was an extremely good value for my money until I could afford an "L" class lens. And while the IS on the 75-300 IS is not as good as my 70-200 it still helped.

My gripes with the 75-300 are focusing in low light and it will zoom on its own if you point it down. Things I could live with if I couldn't afford "L" glass. I have no doubt from all of the conversations that the 70-200/4 is an excellent lens for its price, but I think the 75-300 IS is as well.

[Andy_T]

So where's the poll?

Best regards,
Andy

[MarkH]

I can never understand why everyone says the 75-300 IS is not sharp. Except for my 100-400, the 75-300 has produced the sharpest pictures I have ever taken, including with my 50/1.4 and 70-200/2.8L IS.

Since the lens is rated as mediocre by many lens test sites, I would think that it is possible that you have a very good sample and maybe not every instance of this lens is as good.

I currently use a Canon 75-300 f4.5-5.6 III for the longer range - not a great lens, but good value for the price (because it is CHEAP). But I will replace it with a 70-200L IS when my finances allow. I bought it specifically to use until I bought an L lens, in other words I bought it intending to get rid of it later. The IS version just seemed to be too expensive for a lens that I intended to get rid of later.

[Jon]

OK - from the 75-300 IS, full EXIF is in the 100% crop. f/5 1/50 and 140 mm on a D60. No post-processing of the original AWB JPEG. The first is full frame, the second a 100% crop.

[CyberDyneSystems]

poll,... very busy at work.. maybe weekend...

[b@s]

Starter lens? Anyone buying a camera new now will buy a 20D or its less costly sibling the 300D (Rebel in US). With it I would get Canon's EF-S 17-85 IS lens. Or an equivalent from another brand, these can cost quite a bit less. 17-85mm gives a nice range to start with from mild wide angle to mild tele, and is ideal to learn photographing. Worry about the rest later when you get to know what its all about.
Bas.

[mtndew]

When i first switched from my G2 to 10D i purchased 28-135mmIS then still had enough cash to pickup 75-300 IS. As starter set of lens its a nice pair of lens cover most of the focal lengths and not having to lug around ton of equipment. Then toss in a 50mm 1.8 especially if your on a budget.
That my 2cents.

[roanjohn]

A good starter lens is the Canon 5.4-16.2 mm 1:2.8-4.8............


..............thats the A70!!!

In all honesty, CDS made a good list..........a starter lens is usually for people on a budget...........so L is out of the question.

The two L glasses that you will likely see in a novice photog who are in a "budget" are the 70-200 f4 and the 17-40 f4..........

Ro1