-=Top 10=- Recommended Starter Lenses

[CyberDyneSystems]

-=Top Ten=- Recommended Starter Lenses

The first in a series of -=Top Ten=- recommended lens lists.

We start with the Basics,. the "starter lens"

Here in the EOS forum one of the most asked questions comes from the brand new,
first time SLR user asking "what's the best lens to start with??"

They are usually on a budget,. and often looking for "one lens to do most everything"

After research into dozens of past threads and some further discussion, with a budget of under $700.00 U.S.
...these are the lenses that were selected by our forum members as -=Top Ten=- Recommended Starter Lenses


Please vote,.. feel free to add to the thread why you like the lenses you do in the list,. and or add in an additional lens if it is not on the list and say why!

-=More Lens Polls=- (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975)

F.Y.I. This is a Public POLL. This means that if you click on one of the numbers in the poll,. you will be able to see who voted for what lenses. This may or may not seem helpfull to you. But it may be a benefit for various reasons.

This "Thread" is a forum informational thread and subject to extreme editing and deleting. Any OT discussion, issues etc should be taken via PM or another thread.

[AcuraFan]

def the 28-135IS and the 50 1.4/1.8, those were my original starter lens before i got 'L's

[CyberDyneSystems]

Reminder ;)

As explained in the post above,. these are the Top 10 recommended starter lenses,. not our favorite lenses.

The budget was set at $700.00 U.S. and under,.

also,. please note the last sentence in bold print.
... add in an additional lens if it is not on the list and say why!

So feel free to add to the mix if we missed something ;)

[klynam]

My 2c...

Personally, a 'starter' lens is: inexpensive, decent quality, good flexibility. Thus for quite a while I've been quite satisfied with the 18-55 kit lens and a basic EF 75-300 - no IS, no USM, bought with my original Canon Rebel 35mm years ago. In fact I only 'upgraded' to a 50mm 1.8 prime last week - and that just to get better portraits.

Now that I'm learning more (mainly from this forum) about shooting, and realizing what my 'starter' lenses are NOT doing for me (or even doing against me), I've been looking...no, scratch that...saving for better glass. Don't know that I'll ever be able to stomach $1K+ for a lens though.

However: I thought I snagged a real bargain last week with a Canon 600mm L, IS, USM for $500 on eBay. (!!!) Then eBay cancelled all the bids because a scammer had hacked this guys account and was conning buyers out of their money. An $8000 lens for $500 would have qualified as a 'starter' lens in my book!!! :-)

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

28-135 f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM.

Bang for the buck, gives a good range for the beginner. Not a major investment for a good range and will work for most styles of shooting.

It was a great lens to determine what else I needed to complete my kit. (Wider an Longer, not heavy etc.)

Still my favorite walking lens.

[Mark_Cohran]

A good, decent lens that's fairly sharp across it's zoom range, has good contrast and saturation, but won't cost an arm and a leg is the 24-85mm zoom. That would be my recommended starter lens, along with the 50mm prime.

[Mark Kemp]

I would also consider a 28-300 'superzoom' as an early purchase (Sigma or Tamron) not for quality but for light weight and versatility. Especially if I was planning to do a lot of travel photography.

Like a lot of kit choices the most suitable lens depends on what you plan to do. A good wide angle for landscapes a long zoom for sports and wildlife etc. etc.

[ssim]

When I got my first DSLR I was damned excited that I bought without alot of investigation. I got the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 and the 100-300. As started lenses they were pretty good and worked best around f8. I moved on because they lacked that additional quality I was looking for. My son still uses them.

In US pricing you should be real close to 700.00 for both of them. Again, great for starter lenses or casual shooters that do want the large investment in glass or don't need that additional quality. I had printed up to 8X10 from my 10D using both lenses and they were great.

I like the idea of this sticky, maybe it will help with those "help me buy my next lens questions".

[Cadwell]

Mmm... well I'm going on the assumption that this is going to be someones "first and only lens" - at least for a little while. Based on that, for me it has to come down to one of the "walkaround" lenses and I see the Canon EF 28-135mm and the Tamron 28-75mm as the two choices for that. I know if I'm doing the tourist bit it's one of those I put on my camera...

Now, since I loathe the 28-135mm with a passion (biggest waste of money of all my lens purchases) and I love the Tamron 28-75mm my vote becomes obvious. So, the Tamron it is.

[Longwatcher]

I recommended the 28-135 IS
first because it is my favorite non "L" lens. The reason, very good quality, sharp, light weight (at least compared to "L"). I also frequently recommend this lens because of its reasonable cost versus what you get.

Second I recommended the 50/1.8, got to have a 50 if you have nothing else. Good to learn on, very low cost while still haveing quality. It will also allow you to shoot in low light situations where you might not otherwise be able to get a picture.

Third, I went with the 75-300 IS as I personaly like the lens have gotten great results from it and unless you can afford both the 70-200/4 and a 1.4 or 2x extender, gives you the most range.

I avoided wide angle lenses because the kit lens will get you by until you know what you are doing.

Just my opinion,

[CyberDyneSystems]

The numbers are pretty amazing at this point,.
The 50mm's the clear leader,. with the two "normal zooms" next in line,.

There is one surprise to me.

Time was that the 28-135mm was recomended evry time,. so I expected it to do well,. thing is in thae last year,. 6 months even more so,. we see the Tamron mentioned FAR mroe often than the EF 28-135mm. Last night these two lenses were nearly neck and neck,. a day later,. the 28-135mm has more than DOUBLE the votes of the Tamron! :shock: what happened? Where did all those Tamron recomendations go?

The 17-40mm f/4L is curently TIED with the Tamron? Wow.

[HJMinard]

I voted for the 70-200/4L because I think it's just such a flippin' bargain for a very high quality lens. If afforded two votes, I would have also voted for the Tamron 28-75. Those two lenses together provide a sub $1000 starter kit with incredible sharpness and great (Canon) and good (Tamron) quality. Additionally (and obviously) their focal ranges are well matched.

Edit ... Duh, missed the multiple choice notification. (Can I vote again?)

[mbze430]

Definately the 50mm either MKI or MKII or the f/1.4. Anyone starting out in photography should learn on the 50mm

[GeneMan88]

This poll came out at a really good time for me... I presently own a Pro1 & a 420EX, & I just picked up a used 10D (body only). I've been lurking about this forum for a bit, just to see what you folks with DSLRs are using for lenses. I would love a L series lens, but they are way expensive & I'm trying to get the best at a reasonable amount of $$$. This poll has been so informative & has helped me shorten the list of lenses I've chosen on my own. I think I'm gonna pick up a EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM because it seems most like the lens on my Pro1 (at least when comparing focal length values), & a good "overall" type of lens. And having seen some of the photos taken by various people here, the 50mm f1.4 USM seems like a logical choice, too. I'm trying to stay within Canon, but not totally opposed to 3rd party lenses. I'm not a newbie at using a camera, but when it comes to DSLRs, I'm finding that it's totally different in that "I" have to make the choice of what lens to use... vs point & shoots which come with the lens that is permanent & pre-determined by the manufacturer. A very good & informative poll IMO.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Gene,

I am glad it is helpfull,. this is exactly what we had in mind! :)

[Olegis]

I voted for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime - these are the lenses I started my journey in the DSLR world (i fact I started with the Tamron alone and then added the 50mm), for obvious reasons.

Those with older DSLRs (D30, D60, 10D) also have a dilemma with wide-angle lenses - the 17-40 f/4L is quite expensive and the newer EF-S lenses do not fit. I personally can recommend the Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 EX for these needs - the price is right, the lens is wide (24mm at its widest setting) and the optical quality is very good. Those who want smaller lens and can be satisfied with a prime lens - can get the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro lens, it's fantastic purchase (small, built like a tank, has excellent optical quality and is very flare-resistant).

[Rayban]

Thanks for the poll! Yes, I'm a newbie to digital and was doing a ton of research. I'm taking action sports shots yet taking close-ups or group shots. Examples would be inline skating, sequencing, and individual/team shots. I also do some portrait and landscape shots.

Being on a budget was trying to get a multifunctional lense so I didn't have to change so much. My question is...with my type of shooting would the Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens be the best choice for my Canon Digital Rebel?

Currently I have...

Canon EFS 18-55mm
Sigma Fisheye 15mm 1:2:8
Sigma 70 - 300 macro 1:4 - 5.6
Canon 550EX flash

Thank you!

[FlashGordon]

Hi, I just wanted to say a huge THANK YOU for this poll. I am newcomer to digital photography and a fairly late starter to photgraphy in general since I've freed up time giving up team sports. I have found myself consumed by it and avidly read as much as I can on techniques, tips, news etc.

I've had a blast with my G5 and am now considering a 20D but was confused by the array of lenses on offer and what would be best to start with...hence my excitement when reading this thread! I live in the UK but visit the US frequently (my wife is American) and I always get ticked off by the disparity in prices between the US and UK.

Looks like I'm going to invest in a 20D, EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 and an EF 50mm f1.8..... can't wait for my next US trip!

[gmen]

If this was posted in the Sports section, there would only be one answer at the moment...

85mm f/1.8

Currently, the most popular lens on earth with all indoor sports shooters.

[BeachBum]

Another newbie here (just joined today). I have a Canon G2, along with an underwater housing I've been using for awhile, and I won't retire this setup. I'm about to buy a 20D. Pushing the envelope, I can spend about $1100 on lenses before my wife shoots me. I like travel, landscape, nature, and macro shots. I also would like to eventually get into wildlife (requiring a long zoom), but I'll have to save up for that later. I've done some research on lenses, and am currently trying to decide on a starter lens, or lenses. I've ruled out the EF-S 18-55, and the EF-S 17-85 based on what I've read. I'm currently looking at a choice between 1) 24-70 2.8L, and 2) 24 2.8, 50 1.4 USM, 100 2.8 USM macro. My criteria (by priority) would be sharpness, contrast, and build quality. I don't need (or can afford) L class build quality. Each option I've mentioned is close to $1100. Even if I opt for #1, I will buy a macro eventually, but my pocket book will have to recuperate first. Any thoughts on these choices would be greatly appreciated.

[johnbs]

I would like to suggest the Sigma 18-50/2.8. This is an excellent lens with a great range and a stop advantage of the canon 17-40. It also costs under US$400 in Hong Kong, allowing people to save up for a Canon 70-200/4, 85/1.8 or 135/2!

John

[BeachBum]

Thanks John and Jesper for your comments. To be fair, I should probably look at comparing Sigma (and other brands) against the choices I'm considering from Canon. The bottom line for me is that I want contrast and sharpness that is acceptable to me in the shots I take (based on my own subjective assessment). If I can get acceptable image quality for a little less money, I'm all for it. The trick is to do the proper research on all lenses considered so that I understand exactly what I would be buying in terms of image quality. I would rather spend a little more on a lens, and build up my set of lenses slowly, than acquire a more complete set quickly, but one I'm not happy with in terms of image quality. This means I'll be starting with an initial lens or lenses that won't handle all shooting situations and I'm ok with that. I do want my initial purchase to be a good starting point for eventually building a more complete set of lenses.

Dennis

[Andy_T]

I think that the humble EF-S 18-55 'kit lens' would deserve a mention here.

Granted, it will not be everybody's 'favourite' lens, but in my opinion it's a decent piece of glass (hmm. plastic, actually :lol: ) for the price that covers a very useful range for a beginner.

Best regards,
Andy

[gcogger]

One I would add to the list is the Tamron 24-135 SP. Similar (maybe even slightly better) quality to the Canon 28-135 and usefully wider at 24mm. No IS, but maybe that's not such a bad thing for a beginner - they need to learn how to hold a camera still :)

[clemjj]

I have to go with the EF 28-200. If you don't have a ton of cash to spend and want a lens that will cover most situations, the 28-200 is a good choice.

[MarkH]

I started with the 28-135 IS and the 50 f1.8, these 2 would cost under the 700 budget of this poll and get most off to a good start. The 50 works well as a low light/shallow DoF lens and the 28-135 IS offers a very useful zoom range, ring-type USM for fast focus, IS for low light and good sharpness and contrast for the price.

Later there are excellent options available to expand the range covered. The 17-40L is a good quality wide angle lens for the price and the 70-200 f4L + 1.4x Converter will stretch out the long end with excellent image quality.

Then of course you can add an ultra-wide and/or long tele.

I have no doubt that there will be those that have different requirements and budgets, but the 28-135 is a very useful lens for general photography and makes a great walk-around lens. If someone gets a kit with the 18-55 lens, then adding the 28-135 will give a pretty decent coverage.

[pcasciola]

I voted for the Tamron 28-75mm Xr Di as a good, inexpensive, do everything starter lens. $325 for a contant aperture f/2.8 zoom lens that is as sharp as the 50/1.8 prime, not much drop in sharpness wide open on a good copy, compact and lightweight too. In my opinion it's the amateur's version of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. Build quality is definitely cheaper than the Canon, and there is a much better chance at getting a bad copy of the Tamron, but you are saving $800-900 and not giving up that much.

I really like the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 too, but I don't think primes fall into the "one lens to do most everything" that we are looking for here, even though in general I tend to prefer primes over zooms for the extra speed and sharpness.

[davidwegs]

Sorry about the embedded shots :(

I think the Sigma 18-125 is being overlooked here. Its an excellent performer and gives great coverage for the $$$

[johneo]

I voted for the 28-135 IS USM.

Very good lens with a very good range and the IS is nice to have as well.
It's the first lens I bought with my 10D (along with the 75-300 IS) and even going with "L" lenses now, it's still a keeper.

While I understand that the most voted on lens is the 50mm and the price is cheap for a good quality, I think having the 50mm as an 'only' starter lens is VERY limiting. I'd suggest that as a "go along with" lens in that no matter what lenses you have the $70 price for this lens makes it a nice addition but not as a starter lens.

[dhbailey]

This is a very tough question -- you don't ask the easy ones, do you?

I think the term "starter" needs to be qualified -- if a person is a complete beginner to photography (or is moving to SLR from P&S) then I think a 50mm lens (either 1.4 or 1.8) is the best lens to get because not being able to fuss with zoom allows the person to really get to know the camera well and also forces them to figure out how to get the framing they really want (either by walking closer/further or in post-processing in PhotoShop or PaintShopPro or some other editing software).

But for a person who is at home with SLR photography, the "starter" aspect changes drastically and then my suggested lens can move in either of 2 directions, both dependent upon the type of pictures most likely to be taken. I use the Tamron for my main walk-around lens, but I am on a quest for local hawk pictures and so I find that I am using my 75-300 IS USM since it is the only long lens I own.

I voted for Tamron 28-75 since it covers the widest number of possible scenarios, but none of these lenses are an ideal suggestion for every "starter" situation.

[Raj]

Browsing through the forum I found a lot of people mentioning & satisfied with Sigma 18-125 mm f3.5-5.6 DC lens. It seems to be a good starter lens, goes 28-200 mm on EOS camera's, is not very fast at telephoto, however for the $$ it claims, it seems to be a decent overall lens.

[MrChad]

Browsing through the forum I found a lot of people mentioning & satisfied with Sigma 18-125 mm f3.5-5.6 DC lens. It seems to be a good starter lens, goes 28-200 mm on EOS camera's, is not very fast at telephoto, however for the $$ it claims, it seems to be a decent overall lens.


Ditto! If the DSLR is full frame or maybe even 1.3. I'd say Canon 28-135 IS. As is on a Canon 1.6x I find 28mm to narrow, for the money I love my Sigma 18-125mm. It's no L but definately in the same league optically as the Canon 28mm--xx zooms. Constructions very nice too.

I'm a Canon lens guy but for the money I loved the Sigma vs. the EFS 18-55mm, plus it was quite a bit cheaper then the 17-40 or 17-85 IS from Canon.

[EZRider]

Found my way back to the forums :) Good job, looks nice. This thread is very helpfull :)

Just recently purchased a 300D. I've owned the G2 for several years now.
I bought the camera and 18-55 kit lense , and 75-300 IS USM , figured it was a good started zoom lens and i'm very happy with it. Can't affored the bigger L series zoom lens yet. And i have no business buying one being so new with the camera. Some day but for now i'm very happy with what i have.

This link is to a site where i posted some pictures of a flower blooming 9 days worth. Using the 18-55 .. If you view these use the slide show it views much better.
http://squill.photosite.com/KarensChristmasFlower/

And these bird pictures I took with the 75-300 out on the canoe :)
http://squill.photosite.com/Birds/ Again view using the slide show ;)

Thanks for the site keep up the good work!

Stephen

[Hazza]

I would go along with what others have said about the Sigma 18-125, sure it is cheaper than Canon and a bit slow but the focal range is just what I needed and optically it hits the mark every time if stopped down to f8 or f11. A good all rounder IMHO.:)

[glangston]

50mm 1.4, This is an excellent lens for the price, a favorite for walking around, it's compact and light and versatile (equiv. to 80mm in film) It wasn't the first lens I purchased but should have been.
17-40 f/4L
70-200 f/4L


BTW I see polls for the wildlife lenses and portrait but I can't find the poll (only the results) for this subject. Are you "hand-polling or am I missing something?

[rdenney]

Time was that the 28-135mm was recomended evry time...
...The 17-40mm f/4L is curently TIED with the Tamron? Wow.

The problem with the lenses that only go down to 28 is that they provide only a normal to telephoto zoom range. It would seem to me that a starter zoom should provide at least some wide-angle capability. I think that explains the popularity of the 17-40. But it is pushing the price constraint for a first lens.

Thus, the lens I bought as a starter lens, and that is still quite serviceable for me, is the 20-35 USM. It's in Canon's prosumer range, at half the price of the 17-40, and though not perfect it provides very good images (much better than the consumer-level 18-55 that won't work on a 10D in any case). And it provides roughly the same zoom range as a 35-70 cheapie that one would find on, say, a full-frame Rebel film camera.

Rick "respectfully submitted" Denney

[Oatman]

Yikes!

All this information is making it hard to choose! Perhaps ignorance is really bliss;)

Thanks for the info. I'm a rookie SLR person who needs to practice, so I think I'm going to stick with the kit lens for wide/normal.

I had been set on the Sigma 18-50 EX, but now I'm thinking the Sigma 70-200 HSM if I can figure out how to make sure I have a good one (QC) apparently sucks.

My dilema has been one of priority. I need to learn how to take pictures and my 2 year old Neice will be my favorite subject (need fast glass and focus!) But I'm also a naturalist and plan to do much outdoor shooting of animals, birds etc. (Need long zoom, fast shutter - IS?)

Kind of mutually exclusive perameters, and I had been thinking learn to shoot first then invest in big zooms down the road... Now not so sure.

Also since the 50mm F1.8 is so cheap and awsome, I was thinking of that as well, I'm just a bit confused about the focal length. On my 20d it will be about an 80mm crop so it isn't a "normal lens" for me. Should I be instead looking for a 31mm or so prime (closer to normal). My understanding is that 105 is the "Portrait" focal length so the 50mm doesn't quite hit that either...

Advice? (assuming any of what I'm saying makes sense:))

[Jon]

Portrait range in 35 mm runs from 80-120 (some will push it to 135) mm, so the 50 f/1.8 qualifies as a portrait lens on the double-digit D family and DRs.

[SamerJ]

what about the EF 28-105mm 3.5:4.5 USM II ?!! , its a great value lens at about 250 $ .. I got one and I love it : here is a quikie straight from the camera

http://www.fotop.net/SamerJ/SamerJ/IMG_5696

[ToddMorris]

I got my 20D last November. The first two lenses I bought were "cheapies" ... the 50mm 1.8, and the canon 80-200 ($100 one, not the L).

The first real "starter" lens that I bought was the Tamron 28-75, about 2 weeks later. This lens is still on my camera most of the time.

A couple of weeks ago, I upgraded my telezoom with the Canon 70-200 F4L. It's nice to finally have a big white lens, although I must say over the past few months, did get a few surprisingly good images with the "cheapie" 80-200.

At some point, I'll probably upgrade the wide angle side. Although honestly, I've only had the kit lens on my camera a few times since I got it ... and those few times, I've been pretty happy with the results. Coming from the world of P&S, 28mm on the wide side is pretty much in line with what I've been used to for past couple of years .. so most of the time, it's not worth the hassle of changing lenses ... if I need to go wider, I just back up ;-)

Anyhow, I voted for the Tamron 28-75 ... as far as value for money goes, I think you'd be hard pressed to find better.

Todd

[tcaran]

Just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to post your opinions. This is incredibly valuable to people like me who want good quality but want to spend wisely. After getting your input, I'm leaning toward the Tamron 28-75mm Xr Di as my starter with the 20D and bypassing the kit lens.

Thanks again.

[E.C.Giorgio]

Hi everyone, Just curious as to some pro opinions on the Sigma 24mm-135mm/ 1:2.8-4.5 as a starter lens? One of the experts at B&H recommended this lens to me, to go along with the 10d!
As to the polls taken, they were a great help. I think I'll be shooting for the 100-400mm lens. There was so much positive feed on it, that it made me want it. Plus i've been doing "birding" so i need a long lens. Thanks for all your help. Manny g.

[Muhfahsa]

Now, since I loathe the 28-135mm with a passion (biggest waste of money of all my lens purchases) and I love the Tamron 28-75mm my vote becomes obvious. So, the Tamron it is.

Why do you loathe the 28-135 and love the 28-75???

[Muhfahsa]

Hi everyone, Just curious as to some pro opinions on the Sigma 24mm-135mm/ 1:2.8-4.5 as a starter lens?

Can someone break down the lense nomenclature to me. Sigma = Developer, 24mm-135mm = focal distance, but what does 1:2.8-4.5 mean?

[Andrew Pratt]

that's the apperture...ie f2.8 to 4.5 depending on the focal distance

[garbidz]

From my earlier EOS days I had a Tamron 90mm macro and an EF 20mm F/2.8 and the latter seems to be the one I use most of the time. The kit came with the little zoom that works well but...
How do you focus it manually when lights are low and the subject lacks contrast? I used to carry the 35 F/2 around so with the conversion factor of 1.6 I am at home with the 20. It looks impressive and feels professional. Not at all like the maraccas-type plastic zoomie.

The Tamron 90 gets soft if used for landscapes. Naturally as it was designed for macro work. Great for portraits, though...

[lancea]

35mm cameras didn't come standard with a 50mm for no reason, and wider lenses were and are very common, especially on rangefinder or point and shoot cameras. So I can't understand why a 50mm is coming out so well for digital cameras, given the large number of 1.6x sensors. It would drive me nuts to use a 50 as a general purpose lens. That aside, my choice would be for the 18-55 kit lens or the 17-85 IS.

[MarkH]

It's funny how different people use different focal lengths. Years ago I had a film camera (I don't remember the brand, but I think it started with an N and may have also ended with an N), I only had 2 lenses - a 35-85 and a 70-210. I used the 70-200 as the main lens and swapped to the 35-85 when I needed wide angle.

Now with my 10D I use my 28-135 and my main lens and it does very well. The long end gives me the FoV of 216mm, very similar to what I had on my old film SLR. The wide end gives about 45mm, better than my old main lens and not that far from the wide lens I had. When I remove the 28-135 now I would say that over 95% of the time it is to change to a longer lens. To me the equivalent of 28mm is what I think of as very wide, if I had a full frame D-SLR then I would be happy to use my 28-135 as my widest lens and only add longer lenses to my collection.

I only occasionally use my 50 f1.8 because I usually find it too short or too long. I guess I am just not a primes type of guy. I find zooms so much easier to deal with that I am happy to compromise on the quality/aperture in return for the versatility. For portraits I only use my nifty fifty if I really need the wide aperture, otherwise I prefer my 28-135.

[benhasajeep]

Just orderd a D20 (first Canon purchase) and have decided on the Tamron 28-75di. I have looked at all the posts and for the price can't seem to beat what you get for the money.

[I Simonius]

Thanks John and Jesper for your comments. To be fair, I should probably look at comparing Sigma (and other brands) against the choices I'm considering from Canon. The bottom line for me is that I want contrast and sharpness that is acceptable to me in the shots I take (based on my own subjective assessment). If I can get acceptable image quality for a little less money, I'm all for it. The trick is to do the proper research on all lenses considered so that I understand exactly what I would be buying in terms of image quality. I would rather spend a little more on a lens, and build up my set of lenses slowly, than acquire a more complete set quickly, but one I'm not happy with in terms of image quality. This means I'll be starting with an initial lens or lenses that won't handle all shooting situations and I'm ok with that. I do want my initial purchase to be a good starting point for eventually building a more complete set of lenses.

Dennis

As a starter lens if it were me knowing what I know now I would go for the 17-40L, -CHEAP! - and good quality pics. The idea of just one zoom to someone brought up on primes took me a long while to accept but having used one recently and read ALL the reviews comparing it to other lenses it is what I would go for - did in fact.

The only real contender is the 16-35L, which if you don't need the extra stop for twice the price of the 17-40L, I don't see from the reviews whether MTF or subjective, that this lens would produce images noticably better on the 20D.

If you have any money left over you could get the 50f1.4 for low light stuff.

[lkstaack]

For my first post on this forum and as a new EOS 350D owner, I'ld like to share why I purchased the Tamron AF 28-75 XR Di LD and Canon EF 50mm 1.8 for my starter lenses.

As many EOS 350D Reviewers indicated, the kit lens is junk. At least mine is. The zoom ring feels like some hardware is hanging inside the lens as I twist the ring, pictures lack the sharpness I expect, and the aperture doesn't go down far enough (f4.5?). I haven't used an SLR for over 20 years, and this is my first DSLR (I miss being able to adjust aperture and shutter-speed with knobs on the camera). Based upon the lenses that many EOS users use on the forum, it seems that many accept f4.5 lenses as being o.k. What am I missing here?

Anyway, getting back to why I chose the Tamron and Canon leses. I chose the Tamron because it had the focal lengths I was looking for in an everyday zoom, it received good reviews (by people who know more about lenses than I) and it was ALOT cheaper than lenses of simular quality. I chose the Canon 50mm for simular reasons. I thought I may need a portrait lens from time to time, the Canon got good reviews, was fast, and it was cheap.

So, I got two good lenses in lengths that most people use 90% of the time for less than $400. Anyone want to buy a (very) slightly used Canon EF-S 18-55?

[buze]

I would recommend the Sigma 18-200. It is my starter lens and I'm having lots of fun with it. You can experiment "wide" and "tele" on the same kit, and the optical quality is pretty good too.. nothing to be compared to more expensive (and less versatile) lens but pretty good all the same..
Oh and the 50mm f1.8 mII is a no brainer too. I got addicted to primes staight away using it (got it second hand on ebay)! I've now upgraded to the 50mm f1.4 (it's now my primary lens) and the 85mm f1.8... and I'm drolling over a 28mm f1.8 and 135mm f2 already :D

[whchan]

I am considering Sigma 18-125 and 18-200. Like the 18-200 range but want to make sure quality is on par with 18-125. Anyone has experienced with both?

[vjack]

I bought the Sigma 18-125 instead of the kit lens with my new 20D. I'm surprised that it isn't recommended here becasue it was highly recommended on 3 other photography forums as one of the top "walk around" lenses. Anyway, I've been happy with it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

..poll is reopened.. (didn't realize it had closed)

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I voted for the Ef 28-135 and Ef 50 f/1.8 II

I voted for the 28-135 because it is a nice relatively cheap lens with a good focal range. Its not too long nor too wide. hence if someone finds the 28mm to be too long, then they know thier next lens should be a wide(r) angle. And if the 135 end is too short for thier needs, then they know that thier next lens should be a super telephoto. And if thier needs fall within 30mm-100mm, then they know that they should get zooms or primes within those ranges like a 24-70 (canon or sigm) or a EF 50 f/1.4 or EF 85 f/1.8


I voted for the EF 50 f/1.8 II because it is a sharp low light capable lens but every biggener should have (typo)

[antibt]

I am surprised to see that no one mentioned about Sigma 28-300mm DG Macro.Is there anywhere I can read the consumer review of this lens?

[stormin]

My favorite lens by far now is the 85mm f/1.8. I consistently get great shots from it.

[mcruzn]

I am new to all of this digital photography stuff and so far I love it. I just bought my new Rebel XT today and I have spent the last three days researching on the internet. I can't make any recommendations as to which lenses to purchase because I too am looking for a zoom lense. By the way, thank you to you all for all the good information I have found on this site. I have also found another site that I think will be of value to all you other "newbies" who are in my boat. Here it is:

http://www.jafaphotography.com/chdigital.htm

[Belmondo]

I had forgotten this thread. It started 6 months ago!

I am surprised the 35mm f/2 hasn't been more popular. It's just about the closest to a 'standard' lens when used in a body with a 1.6X crop. The 28-135 zoom is probably the most usable zoom, and the 50mm f/1.8 is an incredible bargain. Still, the 35mm is going to be the closest to what the eye sees than any other prime, and the quality will be excellent.

Just goes to show how much I know. (not much)

[mijbril]

It wasn't by mistake that I bought the 50mm 1.8 & the Tamron 70-300 as my 2 starter lenses to use in addition to the 350D 18-55 kit lens, which means now I have fairly good zoom coverage from 18mm right out to 300mm (with just a small break from 55mm to 70mm) & a decent portrait / low light lens in the 50mm prime.

At the moment I am on a budget & together, both of these lenses cost me about $240 US, not bad at all for the quality of the shot & the capabilities of each lens.

There are 2 things to remember in my opinion.

1. These lenses ARE limited which is why they are so cheap, but working within these limitations you get great results (for the money outlayed) while you learn the craft. In the meantime, you want to save as much money as possible don't you??

2. These lenses are NOT going to be with you for a lifetime, no starter lens will. If as a starter you stick with this hobby, you will upgrade at some point when you can afford it & have determined the style of photography you want to do. You will have more of an idea of what you're doing & what type of expensive "L" len you will require.

If I'm talking bollocks (again) though, feel free to correct me :)

[icsDave]

"2. These lenses are NOT going to be with you for a lifetime, no starter lens will. If as a starter you stick with this hobby, you will upgrade at some point when you can afford it & have determined the style of photography you want to do. You will have more of an idea of what you're doing & what type of expensive "L" len you will require"

Not to say your wrong but I still have have 4 EF lens from 1987 first year for EF-EOS. Added the first rear focus 35-135 USM in 90. I am on my 4th body but still have all my EF lens.

I think that the crop factor will decide between the 28-135 and the 17-85. Was using the 28 2.8 as my wide for some time (87-05) and the 35-135 so the 17-85 on a 1.6 fits my needs.

Dave L

[Poco]

I'm still happy starting with my 28-105 (sorry to see it missing from the poll). I chose it over the 28-135 IS because it was half the price and only about $100US more than the kit lens. I still think that I prefer the 28-105 over the 28-135 IS because that is money I can spend toward a longer lens that really needs the IS (or a faster lens).

[smassey]

I haven't had much of a chance to shoot with it, but I have been very happy with the performance of the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4. It is replacing the kit lens that came with my original Digital Rebel.

[CyberDyneSystems]

2. These lenses are NOT going to be with you for a lifetime, no starter lens will. If as a starter you stick with this hobby, you will upgrade at some point when you can afford it & have determined the style of photography you want to do. You will have more of an idea of what you're doing & what type of expensive "L" len you will require.

If I'm talking bollocks (again) though, feel free to correct me :)

Well I too would disagree with some of this...

Look at that list again.. many of the lenses that were recomended as good starter lenses are alsoi lenses that most people would keep forever. 85mm f/1.8 USM,. 50mm f1.4, 70-200mm f/4L and 17-40m f/4L etc...

If you forgo the step of buying cheap only to learn that you get what you pay for. you save money (and photos) in the long run.

[I Simonius]

Well I too would disagree with some of this...

Look at that list again.. many of the lenses that were recomended as good starter lenses are alsoi lenses that most people would keep forever. 85mm f/1.8 USM,. 50mm f1.4, 70-200mm f/4L and 17-40m f/4L etc...

If you forgo the step of buying cheap only to learn that you get what you pay for. you save money (and photos) in the long run.

Likewise! ;) - those happen to be exactly the lenses I have bought and WILL keep. I MIGHT add to them but won't subtract from them. They are the base of my shooting and excellent lenses, exceptional lenses actually, if you know how to hget the best out of them.

These are the lenses I tried but wouldn't keep though: the 35mm f2, 24mm f1.4, 15mm, (the 20mm I would have kept if the 17-40L didn't cover the FL) All very good lenses, just not quite right for me.

Lenses I might buy yet: 85 f1.2, 35 f1.4, 135 f.2, 180 macro

As you can see I'm not a long shooter :D
What I do like though it the *pop* of the above lenses' reputation, which the ones I rejected didn't have.

Th ebottom line though is you have to actually be a good photographer and also know how to get tthe best from your lens. Loook at the pics formthe OLD masters shooting on 35 mm, some on pretty rough lenses. No one's complaining. Can you see HCB running round with a camera bag full of heavy lenses? :lol: :lol:

All depends on what you want to shoot!

[mijbril]

If you forgo the step of buying cheap only to learn that you get what you pay for. you save money (and photos) in the long run.

Oh I agree there entirely. But look at the cost of say the 50 1.4, that to many people is a major lens investment while to others, it's merely pocket change. But it is recommended as a starter lens....

I know fully the limitations of my cheap lenses & I know what I want to replace them (though it will be a cold day in hell when I buy a lens here in the UK, LOL, I'll wait until I get back to the continent).

I just don't think a "starter" lens should be 50% (& over) the price of your camera while for a top lens well, really the only limit there should be how you can justify to your other half why you maxed out your credit card :D :D

[jojohohanon]

I recommended the 28-135 IS
first because it is my favorite non "L" lens. The reason, very good quality, sharp, light weight (at least compared to "L").

Agreed, but borrow/rent, don't buy.

I have one on extendend loan, and while I *like* it, I probably won't buy it (unless I drop it, natch). Turns out (and who woulda thunk!?) I like the wideish/fastish lenses rather than the longer ones. ' Turns out I hate flashes and take most of my pix at night (when I'm awake, as it turns out).

So Fast and Wide trumps longer reach, for me at least. BUT having the 28-135 on hand allowed me to find that out, and I _definitely_ recommend renting/borrowing/buying-returning this lens for a week or a trip to see what you like, as it is smack-dab in the middle of the range (and competentely so), and you'll see to which end of the spectrum you're drawn.

You may end up buying one, as might I, but it will *clearly* serve you well until you figure out what you want.

[Redr8]

Starter lens to me means something affordable that you won't mind putting in the back of the cupboard or on Ebay when you move up to a better, more specific lens. On my salary, and I suppose most others as well, affordable and IS / L series lenses don't go together in the same sentence.

I therefore voted for the Sigma 18-125 mm f/3.5-5.6 DC lens, and also why I purchased one. I would have also voted for the 50mm f1.8 if I could, butfigured the Sigma is more of an all rounder. Another contender is the Tamron 24 - 135mm f3.5-5.6, http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/24135mm.asp , but again we are looking at IS / L prices.

[MattyB]

you can't go past the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4USM for learning about aperture, DOF, and bokeh.

i'm stuck with my 18-55mm for now, but this christmas, my list says "50mm 1.4 USM + something-300mm IS" :D

[Ronald S. Jr.]

"something"=28 :-D :lol: ;-)

[LightRules]

Did I read that list right? No Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro? :cry: I will say though that it isn't a mere "starter lens" but one that will last a long time. But it should be in the list as it's unbeatable at its price-point and you'd be hard-pressed to find a sharper standard zoom given a normal, good copy.

[goatee]

I'd second that - the Sigma 18-50 EX f/2.8 is a fabulous lens - very close in optical quality if not the match of the 17-40L, but with a 2.8 aperture (at f/4 the lenses are so close that it's the luck of the draw which is sharper), and much cheaper.


I would like to suggest the Sigma 18-50/2.8. This is an excellent lens with a great range and a stop advantage of the canon 17-40. It also costs under US$400 in Hong Kong, allowing people to save up for a Canon 70-200/4, 85/1.8 or 135/2!

John

[SQUAREROOT]

This is a very nice thread and poll. It really makes me think what lense should I get next. I am a newbie to DSLR and I am really fascinated with it as a hobby.

I just have one question, would you guys know why Canon provided 18-55mm lense as a kit? Shouldn't this be the starter lense? Well, for me, that is my first and only lense for now. And I am currently planning to get a new lense.

Cheers!
Square

[goatee]

Square - you're right - for real budget, the kit lens isn't a bad lens (within its limitations) - it's got a nice range, is light, and gives the best bang for buck for wide angle lenses.

[sachi]

I believe what I have is the BEST ... Sigma 18-200, Canon 50/1.8 II, Canon USM 90-300. And with my wonderful XT, I now have a range covering about 16X zoom possibilities, best aperture is 1.8, maximum zoom telephoto focus is 480!!!!

[RUSS-D]

I just perchased the Canon Rebel XT w/ the kit lens, and a Canon 75/300 f/4-5.6III. Is this a good set-up for a begginer?? The pole doesn't show much favortism for it.

[Jon]

I think you'll find the 75-300 also showing up in the other "Top Ten" lists, particularly the Nature/Wildlife Zooms. Remember, there are an awful lot of lenses that would fit into the "starter" category. Also bear in mind that this is less a method of validating your current possessions than an aid in deciding what to add to them. You have a capable, if not dazzling, set which is capable of some very good work if used properly. It's up to you to learn how.

[RUSS-D]

:) It's up to you to learn how.
Ahh yeah, thats going to be the fun, and by fun I mean: frustraiting, hair pulling, teeth grinding, yelling. cussing, swearing, wanting to throw the camera into the wall type fun LMAO!! I am looking forward to learning, and hopefully I can do a lot of that in here.:)

[ron chappel]

There's a choice for the 50/1.8 OR the 50/1.4 is the vote ?? Now that's just dumb

There is NO WAY i could in good concience recommend a 50/1.4 to a beginer! (assuming they aren't rich anyway)
There are just so many lenses to recommend before the 50/1.4 ! ....as georgeous as it is

It's allmost funny that tyhe 18-55 kit lens is not on the list :lol: :lol:
It should be listed but with the words "try this one first to find out how good -or how bad- you want your lenses " :) :)

[Faraday]

Hi,

I used to have a canon EOS33 with a 28mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8 and a sigma 70-300 APO (soft :S).
Unfortunatly, some guy stole my camera from my car trunk, taking the 28mm and the 50mm with it, this christmas I bought a 350D to ease the passing of my beloved 33.
So, I'm pretty much stuck with the kit lens and the sigma, the kit lens is actually quite usable and has a pretty nifty range, and stopped down in good lightning conditions it actually is pretty 'decent' (at least for what I was expecting from a plastic kit lens). But, alas, I crave for more sharpness and low light capabilities. But still, my favorite type of photography is landscapes, I also do some portraits and such, but pretty much my favorite lens in the EOS33 was, the 50mm.
Using the kit lens made me consider getting a good zoom this time around, problem is, good zooms are usually expensive. For my current price range I am deciding between these 2: sigma 24-60 f2.8 at 310 eur, and canon 35mm f2.0 at 300eur. The tamro goes for close to 400 from where I can get it, and Portugal doesn't have tamron assistance centers so if I got a bad copy I would have to send it to germany or something.
As for the sigma, looks pretty decent, but I fear sigma with a dread after my 70-300 APO (ohhhh the regrets...). The canon 35mm sounds like a winner with the 1.6x conversion ratio. I will probably just buy the canon for the peace of mind.

[goatee]

Faraday - the Sigma EX range is really pretty decent. I love my Sigma EX 18-50 f/2.8 - it's sharp, with good build quality, and hasn't let me down. Focussing is not as fast as a USM lens, but it's not bad. Also - if you like landscapes, you will really miss the extra 6mm the 24-70 is missing on the wide end - and I'd be surprised if the 35mm would be wide enough (it would work like the 50mm did on your EOS 33).

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

As a starter lens ... I'd say the 35 f2 on a 1.6x crop body or a 50 f1.8 on a fullframe body (presuming one needs a "starter" lens for a film body, perhaps not a 5D or 1Ds :)).

Definitely a prime though - best to start off with the right habits and be corrupted later, zooms make you lazy :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Did I read that list right? No Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro? :cry:

You only half read it right,.. ;)

Correct that it was not there,..

BUT you missed both the date the poll was posted,. (the lens did not exist yet) and you did not read the the part that is re-iterated repeatedly through the thread.. if you don't see a lens.,.. rather than whine about :) Tell us about the lens that's missing, and we'll add it. You know,. the part in bold italics :)

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro Has been added to the poll. :)

[Flashdog]

what would be a better lens for weddings? A50 f1.4 canon or 85 f1.8 canon? I have the 16mm full frame sensor canon camera.

[Belmondo]

what would be a better lens for weddings? A50 f1.4 canon or 85 f1.8 canon? I have the 16mm full frame sensor canon camera.

What camera would that be? I'm not familiar with your terminology (i.e. 16mm full frame).

Welcome to the forum.

[LightRules]

BUT you missed both the date the poll was posted,. (the lens did not exist yet) and you did not read the the part that is re-iterated repeatedly through the thread.. if you don't see a lens.,.. rather than whine about :) Tell us about the lens that's missing, and we'll add it. You know,. the part in bold italics :) Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro Has been added to the poll. :)

:D :D :D Good, now I'm a happy camper. Although I don't have the Siggie any longer, she gets my vote. She's like a lover that has left me but I just can't get out of my heart... :cry: But I'm glad she's on the list now.

[rsheele]

I love my 50mm 1.8
it has a very shallow dof but that is one of the reasons that I love it.
Here is a picture I took of my son about 3 hours after I brought the camera an lens home. I'm not a pro but I like it.

[Honeybee]

Please take vote from Tamron 28-75 and place on Canon 50 1.4. Couldn't go back to change.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Neither can we.. :(

[Honeybee]

Please take vote from Tamron 28-75 and place on Canon 50 1.4. Couldn't go back to change.

[goatee]

I voted for the 50mm and the 85mm primes. This is purely because I find myself taking different types of shots when I have my 85mm lens on as I have to work much harder to get nice compositions.

I would have liked to have seen the Sigma EX 18-50 f/2.8 as I think it's an awesome starter lens for those who can justify the price as a starter lens (but then there seem to be plenty who buy L 'starter' lenses, so it seems for many cash is not a concern)

[ldweiler]

I've just recently acquired the 30D and am learning quickly the wonders of digital SLRdom (previously having been linited to fully manual film SLR and lenses). My first lens is the EF-S 17-85 mm 1:4-5:6 IS USM and it is a fabulous basic use lens.

I am looking for advice as to the best choice for a companion lens, namely a zoom to telephoto. I seem to be down to choosing between the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (at B&H for about $560) and the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM (similar price). What do y'all think? This is for general use, travelling, some hobby art shhots, etc.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Please take vote from Tamron 28-75 and place on Canon 50 1.4. Couldn't go back to change.

I'll repeat..

Votes can't be changed. Not be you, me, or anybody.
Keeps us all honest :)

[mrfourcows]

I've just recently acquired the 30D and am learning quickly the wonders of digital SLRdom (previously having been linited to fully manual film SLR and lenses). My first lens is the EF-S 17-85 mm 1:4-5:6 IS USM and it is a fabulous basic use lens.

I am looking for advice as to the best choice for a companion lens, namely a zoom to telephoto. I seem to be down to choosing between the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (at B&H for about $560) and the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM (similar price). What do y'all think? This is for general use, travelling, some hobby art shhots, etc.

they is always the ongoing debate over which one is 'better'. and obviously, there is no 'better' lens, just which want suits you more. take a look here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=180234

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=175166

[td4wg]

50 1.8 is what i'm borrowing till I buy some glass.


Here's something I shot the other day.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/td4wg/30D013a.jpg

[ScottE]

How can you compare starter lenses without including the 18-55 kit lens and the 17-55/2.8?

For people on a limited budget the kit lens is an obvious choice because it gives them coverage from wide to short telephoto with the least cost. Image quality is not more important than the ability to get out and practice shooting for most beginners and a wider zoom range is better than a prime lens because it gives them more chance to experiment and find their own style.

For people who are not on a limited budget, the 17-55 EF-S gives the same zoom range with better low light capabilties (wider and IS) plus it is capable of higher quality images than just about any other lens on a starter level camera like a Digital Rebel XT.

That leaves the 17-85 IS as a good compromise between budget and lens capablility and since it is the only voting option it has to win my vote.

[Daya]

I voted the 28-135 f4.5-5.6 IS ...Great Lens for a starter and a nice zoom range...
But if anyone wants to get better at composition and shoot sharper pictures...then go for the 50 F1.8 or 1.4...one will never regreat the purchase of the 50 mm

[In2Photos]

How can you compare starter lenses without including the 18-55 kit lens and the 17-55/2.8?

For people on a limited budget the kit lens is an obvious choice because it gives them coverage from wide to short telephoto with the least cost. Image quality is not more important than the ability to get out and practice shooting for most beginners and a wider zoom range is better than a prime lens because it gives them more chance to experiment and find their own style.

For people who are not on a limited budget, the 17-55 EF-S gives the same zoom range with better low light capabilties (wider and IS) plus it is capable of higher quality images than just about any other lens on a starter level camera like a Digital Rebel XT.

That leaves the 17-85 IS as a good compromise between budget and lens capablility and since it is the only voting option it has to win my vote.

Well this was started long ago before the 17-55 was available, but the kit lens is because of this:

After research into dozens of past threads and some further discussion, with a budget of under $700.00 U.S.
...these are the lenses that were selected by our forum members as -=Top Ten=- Recommended Starter Lenses

[Doctor T]

I know the poll pre-dates the arrival of these 2 relatively new lenses, but I really think anybody looking for a 'starter' lens on a 1.6 crop body should seriously consider these two, especially considering the price/value ratio:

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Asperical

cheers,
doc t

[littlebug1979]

wow..i didnt see any lenses that i have at all...i wonder why? do they not make them anymore? i just got a rebel g2, and i have a 35-80 mm and an 80-200 lens, is there any particular application these are best for? at this point i also want to do macro, but i dont even know where to start looking for lenses that fit my camera...

[goatee]

Hi littlebug. Welcome to POTN! The 35-80 and 80-200 lenses used to be the lenses that would be supplied in kits with film SLRs. The reason why they're not any more, is that because the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame, they lose 30% of the image around the edge - as though the picture taken on a film SLR was cropped down. So, what happens is that a 35mm lens, on a digital SLR only has the field of view that a 56mm lens has on a film SLR. The kit lens, and digital only lenses have arrived, at much wider angles to compensate - so the standard kit lens is now an 18-55mm lens.

The forum is a great resource for finding out about lenses, but first you need to think about what the subject of your photography will be, what your budget is, and what light conditions you will be shooting in - answer these, and you'll be able to select a lens.

[littlebug1979]

wow thanks i didnt know that, i want to do macro, spiders bugs and things like that, but i seem to have a problem finding a macro lens for my camera, it says in the manual that ef-s lenses arent compatible with my camera, what would you reccomend for a rebel g2? i can only find things for the k2? is my model obsolete or something?

[goatee]

The only macro lens you can't use (as far as I know), is the Canon 60mm EF-S macro lens. The Sigma (105mm), Canon (100mm), and Tamron (90mm) macro lenses are all meant to be superb -they're not cheap, so if they're too expensive, check out the Cosina / Phoenix 100mm f/2.8 macro lens - it's not the best, but it's acceptable, and it'll give you a nice entry into the macro world.

[Broncosaurus]

I want to say a fast 50mm is best for a beginner but that's just the grumpy old man in me. My first lens was a 50 1.4 and it is far and away the most used lens I own. "Used" in the past tense. If todays short and medium zooms existed when I was a kid I probably never would have used that 50. It is a great lens and I have fond memories of it, but realistically I don't see myself buying a new one for my modern camera anytime soon.

[littlebug1979]

thanks goatee, i just got the canon a while ago, and am still learning about it, and im kinda bewildered by the amount of gizmoes and gadgets out there, how do i find the compatibility? can most lenses be attached to my camerea, but the autofocus wont work? thats what im wondering, i know it may sound dumb, and soemthing that is obvious to you guys, i just dont want to spend money on something that wont work on my camera, all the stuff ive seen online isnt very user freindly, like the companies you order the stuff from seem to assume your going to know everything but theres stuff in my manual that doesent really tell me anything.....

[goatee]

Ok, any Canon EF fit lenses will fit on your camera - Canon EF-S lenses will not fit. If you're looking at lenses from any other manufacturers, make sure that they're not digital only (Sigma DC lenses are one example), because whilst digital only lenses physically fit on your body, they won't work properly (as the digital sensor is only 2/3 the size of a 35mm frame).

[littlebug1979]

this guy really helped me out he explained everything i need to know to understand you guys right here! ^_^ http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html

[Bamamike]

I would add the Tamron SP AF Aspherical Di LD 17-35mm 2.8-4 for a FF beginner. In Addition to this just the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. If you start with a 1.6 crop you will just exchange the Tamron with the Tokina 12-24mm and live with the gap. My older daughter started with a Tamron 18-200mm on a Rebel XT I gave to her, she can later get some of my L lenses (just for a shooting!!!).
In my opinion it is anyway the eye behind the viewfinder that takes the picture, a bad lens cannot destroy a good picture, it could lower the value but you can do a lot with software (CF, distorsion and so on).

[Guineh]

I think I'd also toss in my current personal favorite:

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di II.

Excellent quality, fast, and very affordable, has the same range as the kit lens, but is optically superior.

[Bill Roberts]

I thought about it for a while, it was a hard choice between a 50mm prime or the 17-40 but I eventually went with the latter. It's a decent quality lens, not that fast but manageable and pretty good value for what you get.

[steveathome]

I cant seem to add my vote to the poll

Kit Lens
Sigma 75 - 300 Apo
EF 50mm 1.8
EF 28 -135mm Is USM
Tamron 28 - 75 Di etc

No L's No L's No L's No L's (oops Christmas is over)

[jonnypb]

should the sigma 17-70 not be on the poll?

[august23]

I assume the 17-55 isnt up there because of price?

[Ruffio]

should the sigma 17-70 not be on the poll?

That's the lens that would get my vote. Less than $400, good range and decent speed--it even comes with a hood. I do wish it was full time manual focus, though.

[KevC]

I assume the 17-55 isnt up there because of price?

I believe that lens was released after the poll was created.

[Andy_T]

Coming back to this poll after a long time, what surprises me a bit is that there is only one fast prime in the 28-35 range (the 35/2) and it actually nearly takes last place (while at the same time the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 couple has a very convincing lead).

After a long time of having the 50/1.8 (and subsequently 50/1.4) as most liked (and used) lens, I got the Sigma 30/1.4 EX and it quickly superseded the 50/1.4 as most used lens, because the focal length is (IMO) a lot more usable than the 50 on a 1.6x crop camera (which I assume is the logical choice as 'starter' camera). Mind you, I still fiathfully go for my 50/1.4 for uppoer body portraits, but for 'environmental portraits' or candids and just everyday pictures, the 30/1.4 is more useful for me. (Pretty boring actually, considering that a fast 50 was considered the 'natural' starter lens in the old days of film cameras, but IMO that was for a reason :wink: )

So ... my suggestion would be to also include the Sigma 30/1.4 EX, Canon 28/1.8 and 2.8 with this poll ... possibly as one choice like the 50/1.4//50/1.8. If you put price differences into consideration, the 30/1.4 EX might be bundled with the 28/1.8, and the 28/2.8 with the 35/2.

Best regards,
Andy

[evandavies]

Another vote for the Sigma 17-70

[mantra]

i'm a beginner
for a beginner could be a good choice sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO ?

i have a 18-55
and i would like to buy a second lens

or what could i buy

[Citizensmith]

This poll was started a long time ago. Is it worth starting this thread over with a more current line up of lenses? There are some notable gaps as some really popular lenses that seem to fit the bill aren't listed. Some that are listed are also limited availability now as well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

We can add new options, but the field has become almost overwhelming.
We do have a new one though (newer, a lot newer) for "walkaround lens"
It has most of the latest options.

It is funny to see how things have changed though, 28-135mm is till in 2nd place, for years it was in first place, but frankly no one much uses it anymore with all the new EFS options etc..

[Citizensmith]

I'd noticed the overlap with the walkaround thread. Maybe some words in the post at the start of this one to make sure people see both would be good?

Or redoing the choices with a stricter definition of starter?

Or just leaving it all as is. :)

[slimninj4]

I think the perfect starter lens is the 50mm. At around 75$ it is hard to beat.

[monstar]

Voted for the 50mm 1.8
Got it 2 days after I got my camera

Good for playing with DOF/Aperture
And that also helps well for practicing manual focus

[Bgoing2]

Great info... But my question is, to save a couple of bucks, should I buy a "body only" camera and the 28-135 IS USM to go with it? Or buy the kit and expand from there?

[baybud]

I don't really think it matters what lens you start with IMO, as long as you understand the capabilities of the lens and are willing to take the time to utilize them.

FWIW my starter lens was the mp-e 65mm f/2.8, purely because macro interested me, so from that perspective that was my ideal starter lens.

[kitacanon]

Used prices for starters
24-85 @ 175
50/1.8 @ 75
35/2 @ 150
This is my rec. for a starter setup (basic walkaround + 2 avail. light lens...)
...that's $400 leaving 300 for the newb to go wider or longer as shooting style and preferences develops.

[CountryBoy]

I voted for the 85mm 1.8.

I would like to see the Tamron 17-50mm and the Sigma 17-70mm added. Neither are that high and make a good walk around lens.

Also the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro is not a bad starter lens. Price is not bad, and you have macro . Two for the price of one

[miralee]

If we're still talking about adding lenses to the poll, I think the 28-105mm should be added - at under $250, it's a steal, and a very good starter lens. Great range, and very good IQ (not that I have that much to compare to, but anything I'm unhappy with is because of me, not the lens). I'll certainly be upgrading at some point, but not soon.

The 50mm 1.8 is also great for its price - not as useful as I thought it would be, as it's a bit of an akward length for the pictures I take. it's either too short or too long, it seems. But for the price, it's a great tool to practice low-light no-flash photography, and learning about light and DOF.

[kansascityshuffle]

I voted for the 85mm 1.8.

I would like to see the Tamron 17-50mm and the Sigma 17-70mm added. Neither are that high and make a good walk around lens.

Also the Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro is not a bad starter lens. Price is not bad, and you have macro . Two for the price of one


The Sigma 18-50 should be there if the Tammy should. I'm very happy I picked the Sigma over the Tamron, and I call myself a beginner.

[MLphoto]

I my self have been using A DSLR for 6 months now. i got a 17-85mmIS for my XTi, this lens has been a good walk around lens, but i always am looking for more zoom.

i recommend this lens, its nice sharp and fast.

but my next walk around lens will be the 18-125IS sigma.

[Andy_T]

We can add new options, but the field has become almost overwhelming.


I am missing the 85/1.2 L :-)

Just kidding, but what surprises me is the low amount of votes for the 35/2, that is the only representative of the 'fast prime normal lens for 1.6x crop cameras'. Maybe if we lump it together with the Canon 28/1.8, Sigma 30/1.4 EX and the 35/1.4 L (like the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are lumped together)...

My Sigma 30/1.4 is my most used lens now, although I initially got the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (and voted for it).
I would definitely endorse it for everybody starting out with a crop camera.

Best regards,
Andy

[bauerman]

I had never looked at this thread prior to today and had to chuckle a bit when the term "starter lenses" and the a budget amount of $700 is set as the price point for consideration.

I'm not sure why any hobbyist starting out would (or should) spend $700 on a lens and/or get an L lens to boot. I think that it is the exception (rather then the rule) that most people will start with anywhere near a $700 budget for a 'starter' lens. I think that is more driven by the L-slanting nature of this forum to be honest.

Sigma 17-70mm would be my choice as a recommended starter.

[digirebelva]

In truth I think a lower level "L" lens is going to give a beginner better results than some of the consumer lenses out there. I know I had 2 of them (at different times), the 100-300mm canon and a 100-300mm tamron before I got fed up with the soft image at 300mm. At first i thought it was the camers (XT) but did more research and rightly determined the problem to be the lens quality. So I got lucky and found my 70-200mm F4/L on ebay for $400...and have not regretted my decision one day...Seeing those soft images is a real let down when you start comparing your photos to what you see from others...

[shutterfiend]

I was about to complain that it was an outrage to leave my favorite lens out, until I noticed the date.

I think we need a new thread with a few other options including,

Tamron 17-50 (the one I would have voted for.)
Sigma 18-50 macro
Sigma 17-70
EF-S 18-55 IS

[M5Man]

I voted for the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM & EF- S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

Yes I have them both and they were the first real lenses I have owned, I here you say they arent very good lenses, but whats the point of spending money on L class lenses when you are new to the hobby...

Anyway, since using the lenses on several occassions and getting used to them and finding there abbilities I find them adequate for a beginner. Obviously looking forward to moving on to L class lenses as my skills progress, after gaining more knowlwedge off better qualified photograghers off the Potn Forum ;)

[Geejay]

I too voted for the Sigma 18-125. Sharper than the kit 18-55 and not at all bad for the money IMO.

On a full-frame camera, then a 28-135 would seem a sensible choice, but as I only have a crop.....

[EORI]

I haven't read through this entire thread, but my vote for a singular starter lens would be the Tamron 17~50, which offers excellent IQ, covers the standard wide to medium tele range, and is priced under $500, leaving money for a used prime like the 28 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4. Any lens that starts at 24/28mm on the wide end is not wide enough on a starter camera = crop format.

[bauerman]

Any lens that starts at 24/28mm on the wide end is not wide enough on a starter camera = crop format.

That's a personal preference/shooting needs kind of thing. My widest lens on my 20D right now is 24mm and I am not limited in my shooting at all. Besides - going wider than that on a zoom lens is going to be paired with at least some distortion.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I had never looked at this thread prior to today and had to chuckle a bit when the term "starter lenses" and the a budget amount of $700 is set as the price point for consideration.

I'm not sure why any hobbyist starting out would (or should) spend $700 on a lens and/or get an L lens to boot. I think that it is the exception (rather then the rule) that most people will start with anywhere near a $700 budget for a 'starter' lens. I think that is more driven by the L-slanting nature of this forum to be honest.

Sigma 17-70mm would be my choice as a recommended starter.

Many many POTNers have begun shooting with the 17-40mm and or 70-200mm f/4L options..
Different strokes..

[CyberDyneSystems]

That's a personal preference/shooting needs kind of thing. My widest lens on my 20D right now is 24mm and I am not limited in my shooting at all. Besides - going wider than that on a zoom lens is going to be paired with at least some distortion.

I agree with this completely,. my first "starter" lens was a 28-xx and it was plenty wide for my needs at the time.
Obviously, look at the poll, the vast majority seems to agree as well :)

[EORI]

That's a personal preference/shooting needs kind of thing.

And therein lies the challenge with polls like this. It may be sufficient for your own personal needs, but what about the typical newcomer to photography?

IMHO, he/she is going to want to be able to take a whole range of picture-taking opportunities; not just images beyond an effective FOV of 38mm (which was what cheap film p&s cameras started at). 38mm is rarely sufficient to tackle most indoor or group shots. It is also limiting for landscape photography.

That's why camera and lens mfrs introduced zoom lenses starting at 17/18mm when digital SLRs (most of which are crop) were introduced. It provided the traditional equivalent FOV of wide to medium tele zooms of lenses starting at 24/28 on a full-frame camera.

[EORI]

Obviously, look at the poll, the vast majority seems to agree as well :)

And the majority voted for George W. in the last election too. ;)

[Stocky]

As I recall he did not win the popular vote. That was a victory thanks to the electoral college system.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Well this is the point of a poll, "what is the majority using recommending", not what is it that you personally would recommend.

It doesn't mean it's right for anyone at all,.

[Amamba]

Didn't have time to go through all pages, so maybe this was already answered. Why isn't Tamron 17-50 /2.8 on the list ? I feel it's a better starter lens - it''s more versatile than 28-75, as it provides a much better wide end while it's still got a useful reach. At least that's what I chose as my starter lens. E.g. for somebody going on a European vacation wide would be a must.

I, however, voted for 50/1.8. Can't beat the price, and this is a perfect lens to start playing with if you're a newbie, getting some feel of the camera, before you drop $400-700 and realize what you bought wasn't what you want.

[TaDa]

Didn't have time to go through all pages, so maybe this was already answered. Why isn't Tamron 17-50 /2.8 on the list ? I feel it's a better starter lens - it''s more versatile than 28-75, as it provides a much better wide end while it's still got a useful reach. At least that's what I chose as my starter lens. E.g. for somebody going on a European vacation wide would be a must.

I, however, voted for 50/1.8. Can't beat the price, and this is a perfect lens to start playing with if you're a newbie, getting some feel of the camera, before you drop $400-700 and realize what you bought wasn't what you want.

Probably because the lens wasn't released until a year after Cyber created this post :)

[BeritOlam]

Probably because the lens wasn't released until a year after Cyber created this post.

I was thinking the same thing about the 18-55 II kit lens. Optically inferior, yes, but me thinks *many* (if not the majority) of newbies aren't going to notice (unless we're talking about artsy-fartsy photography buffs who are simply new to DSLRs, which frankly in my books makes them not a newbie!). What a newbie will notice (even if they are new to photography in general) is how much better their pictures look with image stabilization. The old 18-55 kit lenses didn't have IS; the new ones do, and that makes it a slightly better newbie lens than many are willing to give credit!

That of course assumes people are buying a Rebel or 10-50D, which I take to be a good newbie camera.

[mrcpix]

well i use a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 because for the money it can't be beat in the IQ department and it has good zoom range. I also use a canon 70-200 f4 wouldn't get ride of either one of them.

[caiguar]

I haven't voted yet but I think the best starter and if I could start all over again. I would go with the tamron 17-50 2.8

Great starter lens, I consider it perfect for starters because its priced right and it has resale value. It cover the basic range and will give you an idea if you want to go wide or maybe go for something with more reach. It provides 2.8, that covers most indoor situations (something any f4 or above can't do)

Since the budget was set at 700 I would pair it with a canon 85 1.8

That's what I have and it works great for almost everything and gives you an idea on what range you will need or like, maybe you will like later on to star on the wider ranges, maybe you will want more reach and start going with longer range lenses.

If it has to be one, I would vote for the tamron 17-50