newbe needs lens help for 300d

[webejamn]

i would like to get a lens or a bunch of lenses for my 300d, . my question is what should i shoot for, i was intrested in the tamron 75-300mm, and the sigma equivelant, i did eye some of the canon lenses, but i dont know how to choose what i need, i know i want more zoom for wild life and what not, i want to get some thing that isnt too ungodly expencive like the white canon lenses, but i want some thing that i can keep and uses for along time, and that can be versital
i shoot alot of wild life, or i would if i had a good zoom lens, aperantly thoes bears eat people
i like to shoot flowers, my daughter, water falls, lakes, outdoors kinds of stuff, the wild life i would be shooting for now wouldnt be moving all that fast, so i dont need a a super fast lens

[CyberDyneSystems]

There's a sticky thread just above..

"-=TOP Ten=- recomended lens section"

There are polls with advice on starter lenses, telephoto zooms, spots, portraits etc.
Take a look and see if any of that info helps.

[condyk]

Hard to say when there is no budget or indication of quality requirements.

The best lenses are usually quite expensive. Those that may satisfy include the 100-300mm Canon USM or the Sigma 70-300mm APO Super II. I have some great and crummy shots with the SIgma. A lot will depend on yopu. Same with any lens tho'. All the less expensive zooms suffer a little as they get towards the 300mm end of things. The Sigma has a kind of Macro facility for close up shots that may do for you. Resale of both is good. Specialist Macro lenses tend to start at around £250 tho' may well be a bit cheaper where you are.

If you have more cash then the Sigma 100-300mm f4 would give much improved quality and speed at the expense of weight and length. You can add a TCon to extend the lens focal length even more to 420mm. Sigma 1.4x costs around £150 in the UK. Lens alone is around £600. Good for wildlife and hide based bird photo's.

The Canon 70-200mm f4 costs around £400 in the UK and the Canon 1.4 TCon maybe £200. This will be lighter and easier to handle and without the TCon a lot more versatile than the SIgma for general carrying around. Length is really still too short for wild wildlife. Ok in the back yard or zoo! It's often available second hand.

The Canon 50mm II is a great portrait style lens and flexible indoors re. light demands. Good for family and kid style shots. Very cheap.

[webejamn]

cyber, yes i know there is already a thread about this, there are lots of threads about this, and guess what there will be alot more about this, how about adding your .02 cents instead of just saying there is allready a thread about this, i saw you in three diffrent threads saying that same thing, just because i am new to this forum doesnt make me an idiot, i did see that thread,

condyk, i guess i didnt put up budgit info, sorry i would like to keep a lens around or less than 300, as for the quality , well i would like it as best as posable. i ahve only had a couple of lenses on any of my camera, i tested a tamron a few months ago and i loved the feel and look of it but we are fresh out of camera shops around my town,
but thanks for the info condyk, it was helpful
the other thing is i would like to keep the weight and more improtant the length down some because i will be taking these lenses hiking with me, and i would prefer they fit in my pack and not kill my back

[condyk]

Sigma APO 70-300mm Super II and Canon 50mm II. You may just manage these for $300 US if you do a little shopping around. Both are capable of good results.

I just sold my 50mm and here are two very quick sample images I took yesterday to demo the lens was working Ok. Nothing special, but shows at least the normal performence level you can expect:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81592

Straight out the camera 100% crops. Apply some post processing in an image editor and these would be very nice sharp shots.

Here are some images taken by Nitsch who seems to be a Master with the Sigma zoom:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81631

Not sure you can getting better form your needs and budget ... and don't forget the Sigma will deliver nice close ups too :-) Both have decent resale.

There's a SH 50mm II here and it seems they retail for $79 new:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81756

[cmM]

from what i notice, what they all say is :"I don't wanna spend that much money on the white canon lenses" and then a few month down the road "I sold my Tamron/Sigma/Quantaray/.... to buy a 70-200 f/4"

My advice is save some money (in the long run) and buy the more expensive white canon lens. You'll never wanna sell it.

**edit: BTW, i did like I mention above, I bought a Canon 75-300 and ended up selling it and buying a 100-400L... I'm never selling this one.

[webejamn]

i just cant aford to pay 2000 dollars or so for a lens, i know i wnat the best lens posable, but its just not feasible for me to get one of thoes lenses, so i am in the market for a cheeper one that if i do acdently break or get wet from a water fall, again, then its not going to be the end of the world
i dont think i am a good enough photographer to justify spending that kind of money on a lens yet, i am sure that if i had a better lens i would have better pictures, but if i get good with a so so lens, then i would be exelant with a great lens. maybe....

[cmM]

you don't need $2,000. You can get a 70-200 for like $500 or somewhere in that vecinity.

[Andy_T]

Also take a look at this thread:

Initial results from the 300 mm zoom shootout (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78099)

Best regards,
Andy

[xuxu1]

Follow the sticky thread as CDS pointed out.

But before... read this :)

Don´t make the big mistake of buying "a bunch" of lenses right at the begining (unless you can afford it buying high quality right from the start). You´ll end up selling all of the cheapo lenses sooner or later and buying "good stuff". Imagine how much $$$ lose you will have. Take it nice and easy and go for HQ-lenses one after another.

ED

[EOSAddict]

Depends what sort of photography you do and how much of a burden you want your kit to be! For years (pre digital) I had a Sigma duo - 28-70, 75-300APO. As you can see, now I have a 28-300. Although I would love things like the 100-400L, I can't justify the cost right noiw (if ever) and with a young family I don;t want to be burdened with a huge kit bag that will inevitably get left behind and I'll miss the picture. Whilst the quality may not be the best (seems pretty good to me so far tho!) I am at least taking pics and learning. With what I have I am more inclined to take my SLR rather than make do with my P&S for convenience.

What I do miss is the short range - hence keeping the Kit Lens (which in my opinion isn't bad!)

My 0.02p for what its worth!

[nitsch]

Here are some images taken by Nitsch who seems to be a Master with the Sigma zoom:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81631

:o LOL! Cheers Condyk! I only just read this post (haven't been on here too much in the last week - too busy!). I think I could grow to like the title "MASTER OF THE SIGMA ZOOM", perhaps I'll add it to my signature! :lol: ;) (j/k)