Asking a question for a friend...

[photo_luver]

This is what he wrote on another forum....


Hello all,

I am new to photography and am looking into buying either a Canon EOS 20d, or a 350d, but will probably end up going with the 350d because of the price. I would be very appreciative if i could get input as for the lens i should first buy with it. It needs to be very cheap in price (below 150 or so USD) all types of lenses are considered (canon, tamron, sigma and others) and will be used for macro shots and of birds in the hand (banding), and needs SHARPNESS. Any suggestions welome.

And dont say the kit lense or the nifty fifty these will be bought...

[tucked]

...needs to be very cheap in price (below 150 or so USD) ...And dont say the kit lense or the nifty fifty these will be bought...

Other than these 2, which were going to be my recommendation... i am at a loss for what to say for less than $150. Get to the $300 range... and I can think of a few.

[tim]

For that price all you can get is the kit lens or the 50mm F1.8, neithe of which are macro or overly sharp. I think he needs to triple his budget, or buy a point and shoot.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

$150.00? Length for birding, macro, and sharpness? I'd tell your friend to save some more money. If his budget is that tight, definately go with the Rebel XT, and use the extra cash to put towards the lens. The lens is verrryyyyy important! Like tucked said, get to $300... minimum. $400 would help.

I'd maybe recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 as a starter lens. Something to hold him off maybe until he can afford some real nice glass. The 50mm can be found for $75 and it's sharp, fast apeture, small, light, a steal for the price.

[RAitch]

Throw in some Kenko tubes for cheap macro? I like them and work alright with the 50.

[weasel]

I think Tim is right, sounds like a P&S would be best. I have a G5 and it is a fantastic little camera.

[cfcRebel]

Funny, maybe i didn't search hard enough but i paid almost US$1000 still i don't get a lens that is great for macro as well as for bird photography and still offers the SHARPNESS that i want. :D

[Mitcon]

All I can say is if anyone finds any SHARP EOS lens for under $150 I would like to know too please ;). The advice already given is correct IMO also, I can't even get a lens of any kind for that amount of money let alone a sharp one. I think a set of tubes costs more than that here, best thing I can think of thats really sharp for macro work and shooting something in your hand (the banding work) would be a true macro lens.

If you don't need 1:1 ratios Canon do a 50mm or for a couple dollars more Sigma do a 50mm. I'd save a few more dollars and buy one of the offerings from Tamron 90mm-Canon 100mm or Sigma 105mm for something very good/sharp, and all three have excellent optics at f8-11. I think theres a cheap Vivitar Macro lens for around $150 but I have no idea myself what it's like and would lean away from it.

We would all love a good, sharp lens that does everything but sadly there is no such animal.

[jaypie77]

I'd say don't buy the kit and use the saved money with the $150 budget for more lenses to have more money to put towards a real macro lens.

Better option: buy a used 10D or 300D for less money and put that extra money saved towards an even nicer macro and a lens like the 50 1.4 or something.

[Jon]

If he's planning on getting the kit lens and the 50 f/1.8, and only has about another 150 to cover his needs, for macro I'd say forget the 50 f/1.8 and get the 50 f/2.5 macro. It's a little over $150 more than the 50 f/1.8, and about a stop slower, but still faster than the kit lens. Tubes for under 150 aren't going to be easy, and wouldn't cover an EF-S lens. The macro will do nicely for the bird-banding shots as well as general 50 mm (portraits, etc.) work where tubes would give you discontinuous focussing range, probably right where you needed continuous focussing. If he had more money (about $200 more), I'd say to go with one of the longer macros, but if the bird-banding is typical of his usage the 50 is probably good enough.

[rklepper]

My suggestion would be to look here and at Fred Miranda. There are many times used 300 D kits with several lenses included. Probably the only way to get what you want, or anywhere near.

[photo_luver]

K ill take you guyes advice and iull give it to him thanks ;)

[photo_luver]

K he raised his price... about 250-300... he is looking at the sigma 50mm f2.8 EX Macro 1:1 Lens...

Any other suggestions?

[weasel]

K he raised his price... about 250-300... he is looking at the sigma 50mm f2.8 EX Macro 1:1 Lens...

Any other suggestions?

Why would he not want the Canon 50mm macro?

[Outdoor23]

wow...a lens that is less than $150, shoots birds, shoot macro, and is SHARP!! I wish there is one...or is there??? Seriously though, what your friend wants are 4 tough features put into one. buying lens is always about compromise, there have to be something that he will need to give up.

[HJMinard]

Well ... photo_luver did say birds "in hand" ... so a macro for "birding" is not really a compromise in this specific case.

I agree with the recommendation for the Canon 50mm macro ... or, for about $400, the EF-S 60mm macro.

[photo_luver]

K if you knew what bird banding was then you would know what im talking about! Its when a person tags a band on the birds leg so they can track it later....

He is looking for a lens that can show the molt and feathers and wing spread and details of the bird and you need a good macro to do that...

HE ISNT ASKING FOR A ZOOM OR PRIME THAT IS LARGE!! he is asking for a closeup/macro lens for bird banding purposes...

Also this lens cannot really hunt in low light... as you are always under brush or cover...

Thanks...

[condyk]

For this specific use I would go for a good SH 300D Kit and then up my lens budget for a quality Macro. One of the 50mm would do as the bird is in hand. All the Canon and Sigma Macro's score very well and your friend can probably safely buy on price if things are tight. The 50mm II is pretty good in low light and well take close up shots too, so that could be a good place to start and then get a true Macro later if necessary. The 350D would be nice if they can stretch for it and a Macro.

[jaypie77]

Yeah, sounds like a used 300D is probably the best place to start - saves enough to get another lens.

[Jon]

Why would he not want the Canon 50mm macro?

Canon 50 mm macro only does 1:2; the extension tube (which contains some glass, so not a true tube) costs another $200, bringing the price in line with the 60 EF-S or the 100 EF macros.

OBTW, I wouldn't get the 60 EF-S macro - it's virtually the same price as the 100 and the 100 has better working distance for most purposes. And generally I recommend the longest macro you can manage because the working distance is so important, both for avoiding disturbing your subjects and for getting light past the front of the lens.