First Time User - Advice on Lens?

Ive recently been given a canon dos 1100d for my birthday (body only) and I'm wondering what would be a good starter lens for me? Im not needing anything super-dooper impressive, just a simple zoom lens thats on the cheaper side of thing (poor uni student!)

Any help would be great!
Ellen

Depending on your ramen noodle/PB & J budget, mine is pretty high, you could check out the 55-250 (<$300) to get started. What is your spending limit and focal zoom range desired (ie: do you want wide angle too, portraits, or just telephoto), that will help us get you pointed in the right direction.

Welcome to POTN.

I'd have a look at the EF-S 18-55mm IS lens first for general shooting (make sure it's the IS, image stabilization model) and then later the EF-S 55-250mm IS for those telephoto opportunities

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….6-IS-II-Lens-Review.aspx

enjoy

A general zoom lens on a budget would be the EF-s 18-55 IS.

If you would be taking lots of indoor shots, an EF 50 1.8 is a starter lens

honestly, I think the 55-250 defeats the purpose of having a dslr. Really, any of the full-range lenses will probably produce less than desirable images that a dslr is capable of. My advice for a starter lens would be one that has a smaller focal range, but slightly higher quality. The amount of times that you will NEED a focal length longer than 70mm or 80mm is very slight for a beginner. My opinion; first buy a 50mm f1.8 ($100) for those low-light thin depth of focus shots. Second, buy an 18-55mm($150) to use as a catch-all starter lens. Once you get a feel for different focal lengths and what you like shooting, you can save up and invest in a nice lens that will really bring your photography to new life. Remember, it's the lens that makes the bigger impact versus the body.

For general shooting and portraits you would not go wrong with the 18-55mm IS zoom. I still use the original 18-55mm (non-IS) I got with my 350d way back in the day.

I would buy this second hand (£20 - £30) for one that will hardly have been used. Lots of people sell these as they came as a kit lens with their oiriginal body.

18-55 IS, there's a reason it's the basic kit lens. Then the 55-250 to make the perfect budget starter set up. Then you'll be able to find your range and get better quality gear in the range you'll use.

I know I'll catch flak for this, I would never recommend the 50 1.8 to someone just starting. Yes you can get good shots with it, but it's a piece of crap lens. Hated mine, just seemed like a toy.

the 50 1.8 is way better of a lens than the 55-250... Using the 55-250 on a dslr will make your images look like they were taken with a point and shoot.
I have had my 50 1.8 for a year now with zero problems. Yes, it's light weight but big deal... I could not care less that a lens "feels like a toy".

Good responses on the 18-55is. The 55-250 is a terrible first lens range - too long as a starter lens IMO.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #14681738
the 50 1.8 is way better of a lens than the 55-250... Using the 55-250 on a dslr will make your images look like they were taken with a point and shoot.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Does this look like a P&S photo to you?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

Eagle wrote in post #14681713
18-55 IS, there's a reason it's the basic kit lens.

Despite the proliferation on this site, Canon do not sell that many L lenses, but they do ship shed loads of bog standard 18-55's. Canon would not sell many cameras if their vanilla lens was not fit for purpose.

It is like cars, Ford sold 20 million Escorts between 1968 and 2003, very few were XR3i's, most were basic models and still very good cars. But the XR3i helps sell the other 19 million cheaper models.

18-55 can be had for $100 or less. Just make sure you get one with IS as it's pretty helpful.
If you have more money, around $300 then have a look at the Tamron 17-50. It's about the same range as the Canon but with a constant 2.8 which you will learn to appreciate.

For an eventual second lens you can't go wrong with the 50 1.8.

ewheeler20 wrote in post #14681525
honestly, I think the 55-250 defeats the purpose of having a dslr..

honestly, I think the 55-250IS is a pretty good lens!

XSi (450D)
Canon 55-250IS

ewheeler20 wrote in post #14681738
the 50 1.8 is way better of a lens than the 55-250... Using the 55-250 on a dslr will make your images look like they were taken with a point and shoot.I have had my 50 1.8 for a year now with zero problems. Yes, it's light weight but big deal... I could not care less that a lens "feels like a toy".

Huh, I never had too many complaints IQ wise for my 55-250... I actually preferred it over the 18-55 and it was pretty much 99% of the time on my Rebel when those were the only two lenses I owned. No way in hell it takes photos comparable to a point n' shoot - unless the user of the camera is completely incompetent with the gear in his possession

In my opinion if you just want one lens for the moment, go with the 55-250. It gives you the reach, even if its not terribly wide - I think for the most practical uses having reach can be more of a benefit in the long run. The majority of the general shots I miss out on are due to not having enough reach to get them, almost never about needing something wider. I had to lower the res for these images in order to get them to post here, but you get the idea. A couple of old shots taken with my 55-250 and Rebel T2i

Since you said body only, I'm going to assume you have no lenses.
55-250 would be your best zoom but you might want something wider like 18-55mm.
But you can pick up a 18-135mm used for cheap. Its a good starter lens that will give you a wide angle as well as zoom.