2nd lens advice

Last month I bought my first DSLR, a Canon T3i 18-135 kit. I freakin' love the camera. I admittedly bought the T3i for Dummies book (which has helped a lot) and have heard much praise about Understanding Exposure on these forums; going to be picking that one up soon. I feel like I have a good grasp on what settings makes x happen, what settings make y happen, and so on. I've had 1 major outing with the camera, a trip to the LA Zoo. I thought the 18-135 fit the bill pretty well when trying to capture animals. A more of a telephoto would have been nice, however.

This got me looking at the Tamron 70-300 VC. I hear it's a nice beginner telephoto lens which also has Image Stabilization. The only downfall I've heard is that it's kind of heavy for long amounts of handheld time (correct me if I'm wrong).

Looking further into telephoto I noticed the "Nifty-Two-Fifty" and there is nothing but positive feedback on that lens.

Next, after reading through these forums, I noticed the "Nifty Fifty" craze. I then began starting to look at those. The Canon 1.4 USM came to mind. However, with the cropped body, it really isn't a "50."

Wanting a more "50ish" focal length, I stumbled up the Tokina 35mm last night. I've been trying to get as much info on that little lens as I could, but there is little out there. It seems to have a lot of praise from the miniscule amount of information out there. It's more of a 50ish focal length and a Macro (another thing that I've tried and enjoyed doing with my 18-135, but hasn't worked out very well).

It's pretty much down to those 4.

I know you are all going to ask, "What are you mainly looking to use this 2nd lens for?" My answer is to further my education on photography by taking advantage of what different lenses can offer.

My budget for my second lens is no more than 400-500ish (my birthday is right around the corner )

Please keep in mind that I only have a T3i, 18-135mm lens, 1 battery, Canon bag, Lightroom 4 Beta, and that's it. No tripod.


So far I'm really leaning towards the Tokina 35mm. It sounds like a great versatile lens that be used for Macro photography. I've read the sharpness and color replication is very very good. Plus, the build quality is supposedly good as well. Second in line is the 50mm 1.4, then the Tamron, and then the Nifty-Two-Fifty. Or should I buy a nice tripod, Lightroom license, etc?

In advance, I'm sorry for another one of these threads.Any input is appreciate since I'm such a novice at this.

Thanks.

when you use your 18-135mm do you find yourself at 35mm or 50mm more?...

everything comes down to what you want to shoot, and where your priorities lie...the 55-250IS is a good lens, and is really cheap in comparison to other lenses...so it's hard not to recommend that to beginners...

what kind of macro shots are you looking to shoot, the 35mm will require you to get pretty close

DreDaze wrote in post #13852915
when you use your 18-135mm do you find yourself at 35mm or 50mm more?...

everything comes down to what you want to shoot, and where your priorities lie...the 55-250IS is a good lens, and is really cheap in comparison to other lenses...so it's hard not to recommend that to beginners...

what kind of macro shots are you looking to shoot, the 35mm will require you to get pretty close

Just from messing around I think I like the 35 better. I know Macro shots on the Tokina will have to be taken up close, but I don't see myself taking pictures of anything more than flowers or bugs, etc.

On this forum I've seen great pics taken with the 55-250!!!! I know it's a great lens.

1. Like Dre said, 35mm means you'll have to get pretty close, not always convenient.
2. Like Dre said, do you want wider or longer?
3. I have the Tam 70-300VC, and yes, it has some weight to it.
4. A Tamron 60 f2 will give you a macro true macro lens in a decent range. *you'll find that in general, all macro lenses are very sharp.
5. No mention of flash? Not interested in off camera flash (OCF) yet? That said, a tripod is a must have accessory.
6. You need more than one battery. I got these batteries for my T2i, worked just fine: http://www.amazon.com …CW/ref=pd_sxp_g​rid_pt_0_1

BrickR wrote in post #13853061
1. Like Dre said, 35mm means you'll have to get pretty close, not always convenient.
2. Like Dre said, do you want wider or longer?
3. I have the Tam 70-300VC, and yes, it has some weight to it.
4. A Tamron 60 f2 will give you a macro true macro lens in a decent range. *you'll find that in general, all macro lenses are very sharp.
5. No mention of flash? Not interested in off camera flash (OCF) yet? That said, a tripod is a must have accessory.
6. You need more than one battery. I got these batteries for my T2i, worked just fine: http://www.amazon.com …CW/ref=pd_sxp_g​rid_pt_0_1

Sorry for the dumb question, but, do macro lenses work okay as portrait lenses, say if people came over and I wanted to take pictures indoors?

If not, that's one of the reasons why the Tokina looks like such a cool lens.

Yes. Macro lenses make great portrait lenses. Go to Amazon.com and go though images posted about the 60mm macro lens that Canon makes - they have portraits mixed in.

macro lenses can do anything other lenses can do as well....the 35mm focal length isn't a typical portrait focal length, but that doesn't mean it cant work...

35mm may be tough for bug macro shots, as the working distance won't be there, and they could easily get scared off...

1. External flash like a 430 EX II or 580 EX II. An external flash will open up avenues that most lenses can't.
2. With your limited budget- after an external flash - then maybe a 55-250.. There is not really that much difference between 250 and 300..
3. 50mm is 50mm. It's FOV on a crop is about 80mm- making it more of a portrait type lens, imo. The Sigma 50 f/1.4 is highly regarded and yet often criticized.. 50mm in general - well some like it, some don't. Shooting at a wider aperture can be challenging- and a lot of people blame the lenses incorrectly. A lot of 50mm lenses also require you to stop down a little for sharper pictures, because of the narrow DOF, it's easier to get something out of focus. My point is: 50mm's are their own animal. YMMV

I guess I can't call the Tamron 70-300 as being heavy.. Throw around a Sigma 50-500 for a while- and the Tamron will seem like a featherweight.

Of all the 3rd party lens makers out there- I don't recall seeing any negative things about Tokina; maybe I have or have not, but I really haven't heard anything about Tokina except raves that I recall. Tape your 18-135 at 35 for a day- and take a lot of pics- and see how you fare as far as liking the focal length and framing. In all fairness, generally people bit*h about problems and issues- rarely about the good but I really don't think that there are as many Tokina owners as there are say- Sigma or Tamron owners ... On the other side of the coin, Tokina users do often seem to state about how much they like their lenses generally speaking- which is good. that said, I really like my Sigma lenses- and until I get something better, they will do.

Most people consider the longer focal lengths - between 50 and 135 to be the better focal lengths for portraits- generally towards the longer focal lengths - IF it fits where you are typically shooting from. There are some that shoot portraits with even 30-35mm. But the longer focal lengths are considered more flattering - often because you have to step back a bit to begin with. A lot will prefer wider apertures to get a narrower DOF.

Heavy is relative. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS was extremely heavy the first time it was used. It is much "lighter" now. Don't be too concerned about the weight if all other factors fit your lens requirements.

I have no need for any version of a 50mm lens. The 40-60mm range is seldom needed or used for my photographs. That is ME, we are all different.

You should know by now if there is a "most used" focal length in your photos. Also, if a high percentage is at 18mm then you might need an ultra wide. If a high percentage is at 135mm then you might need something longer.

Consider a flash if you take inside photos. LR is a great program, you should soon know if it is worth the costs for your needs. There are several combinations of previously mentioned items that will fall within your $400-$500 budget and any would be a benefit. Decisions, decisions, join the club.

deeselcyde wrote in post #13853037
Just from messing around I think I like the 35 better. I know Macro shots on the Tokina will have to be taken up close, but I don't see myself taking pictures of anything more than flowers or bugs, etc.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

On this forum I've seen great pics taken with the 55-250!!!! I know it's a great lens.

yeah the 55-250 is a great lens but it doesnt have IS i dont think, and that bothers me ALOT lol

the 35mm is really nice.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #13853926
yeah the 55-250 is a great lens but it doesnt have IS i dont think, and that bothers me ALOT lol

the 35mm is really nice.

you probably should try thinking again....

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #13853926
yeah the 55-250 is a great lens but it doesnt have IS i dont think, and that bothers me ALOT lol

the 35mm is really nice.

55-250 does have IS...

[QUOTE=StructuredAmazi​ng;13853926]yeah the 55-250 is a great lens but it doesnt have IS i dont think, and that bothers me ALOT lolquote]

On the contrary, the 55-250 has a terrific IS system, very effective. I can shoot mine at low shutter speeds and get excellent results.

It sounds like some of you think I should invest in an external flash and/or tripod before a second lens.

I think that I'd get more use out of a sharp fixed focal length than a telephoto ATM. I think it would be a better way of myself learning DOF, exposure, etc.

I seriously looked at the 60mm macro and it looks like a very nice lens. Indoors shooting looks like it would be tough though if in a tight space. Any other suggestions on a 35-50mm?

And I know this is off topic, but any recommendations on a good starter tripod? Nothing too fancy, but I don't want toothpick legs.