What should my next lens be?

[BEEEsH]

Heres the situation.

1. Got a Kit Lens.
2. Just bought a 50mm 1.8
3. Strapped for cash.

I want another lense.

(I shoot a lot of different subject matter and i have shaky hands[not alot])

what do you recomend?

[vinnyveez]

Heres the situation.

1. Got a Kit Lens.
2. Just bought a 50mm 1.8
3. Strapped for cash.

I want another lense.

(I shoot a lot of different subject matter and i have shaky hands[not alot])

what do you recomend?
i recommend you get another job, or you wont be getting another lens, lol

[BEEEsH]

I'm looking at this lense. (http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?itemID=37238&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&departmentId=10407&categoryId=10412&keywords=canon&order=ASC&sortKey=price)

I think i'll be able to pull it off in a couple of months.

[vinnyveez]

I'm looking at this lense. (http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?itemID=37238&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&departmentId=10407&categoryId=10412&keywords=canon&order=ASC&sortKey=price)

I think i'll be able to pull it off in a couple of months.

dead link you posted. Check out the thread, what is the fisrt lens you got after your kit lens. it is 4 pages long and probably has the answer you are looking for. I am in the same boat a syou and would like an answer too though.

[BEEEsH]

the link works fine for me. :confused:

[Steve Parr]

I'm now a sucker for USM. Since I got the 85mm prime, even my Nifty Fifty isn't seeing too much action. I'd hold out for a USM lens of a similar length...

Steve

[tim]

"I want to buy a new lens" - why? What's the problem with your existing lenses?

If the problem's shaky hands get a tripod or a monopod.

[condyk]

"I want to buy a new lens" - why? What's the problem with your existing lenses? If the problem's shaky hands get a tripod or a monopod.

Good question ... and as to shaking hands then good advice too. However, I would also add either drink less alcohol, or drink more :lol: :lol:

[Andy_T]

the link works fine for me. :confused:

So it's the CANON EF 80-200MM/4.5-5.6 II AF

Sorry, don't know the lens.

Best regards,
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

with photodo rating of 3, I would stay away from it.

My crystal ball predicts that it's gonna be a soft, low contrast lens.
why? What's the problem with your existing lenses?
I'd imagine the 55mm is not long enough.

Beesh - I don't know if you care for the quality, or want/need it. But you won't get a good tele zoom under 700 canadian.

You get what you pay for. Optically, the difference between a 1000 dollar zoom and a 200$ one is like the difference between the kit lens and the 50/1.8 In terms of build, the difference is like sunfire and a tank.

Plus, good glass holds the value way better than the body. When I was in the same position as you (Dreb, 50/1.8 and kit lens) I went with sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Cost me 1150 canadian.

Never looked back, only sometimes I think I should've gotten the 70-200 L IS ;)

[SHiKO]

28-135mm USM IS for ~350$

or...

28-105mm MKII USM for ~200$

I got the 2nd, and its perfect!

[condyk]

I was offered similar advice by a number of people, including Doc, a month or so back and I ignored it at the time. I bought a Sigma 70-300 APO and while it has been great as a learning lens, which was the main point when I first posted about the options, it lacks the quality I personally want to make it a long term keeper.

I knew it would (probably!)fall short and I was careful about getting a sellable lens, so I've only lost £1.50 on selling it on. Effectively i've played for free! No harm done re cash outlay ... and the ebayer who's bought it will get good use from it too.

People were MOST certainly correct about the capabilities of such lenses. I needed to see this for myself tho' and now I think I have. I just got a well priced second hand 70-200 F4 L and even a quick indoor shot of my cats revealed a significant jump in quality ... and under cra* conditions too! Things can only get even better. Too dull and drizzly to go out yet, but maybe this weekend I'll take a few.

These cheaper zooms won't produce the kind of images you can get even with your 50mm and once you've seen what's possible I guess you'll want to get that more often. But better glass is only worth the investment if (1) you want the quality and (2) you can afford it at the time. If not, then the cheaper stuff should suit needs ... and even then there is inexpensive and cheap: not the same thing. There are lots of reviews around and plenty of practical user opinion, so there is no excuse for buying rubbish that has little resale value.

The 70-200 F4, or Sigma 70-200 F2.8, seems to me the ideal, reasonably priced SH, lenses to have in any kit bag, esp. with the 1.4 extenders giving that extra flexibility. The cheaper Canon IS, 28-135mm, also seems a great carry around option with high resale value.

If you're after a zoom and best quality of image is important try and save for something like a 70-200 rather then going the route you're considering. If not, try and get a lens that at least has decent resale, to give yourself the option of a significant upgrade in the future without losing much cash :)

[eosster]

Heres the situation.

1. Got a Kit Lens.
2. Just bought a 50mm 1.8
3. Strapped for cash.

I want another lense.

(I shoot a lot of different subject matter and i have shaky hands[not alot])

what do you recomend?

First tripod
Second, get a decent zooms like Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8.

[lucasdigital]

Hi BEEEsH,

I've got the same kit as you, and was considering the same purchase.

All I can add to the previous comments is - If you want to zoom lens to cut your teeth on, then the 80-200MM/4.5-5.6 II AF is a good economy solution - there may be better lenses for the money - eosster suggests the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8, I might take a closer look, If it offers better image quality I think the cut in zoom range would be an acceptable trade-off.

Many of the forum regulars are "L" lovers who will tell you to save up for a high quality lens - that's an easy answer to give if you have a nice collection of lenses, personally I don't think there is anything wrong with buying cheaper "intermediate" lenses, so long as your sure you need the range that they offer.