If you could only have a few Lenses?

Last week I purchased the D. Rebel XT. I haven't used an SLR camera in about 13 years. That was back in high school in a photography class. Anyway, this is something that I wanted for a long time. I have taken good pictures with my point n shoot but wanted to move to the next level. So, I got the rebel XT with the 18-55mm kit lense. I am still learning but have taken some OK shots for a beginner. Mostly I use M mode so that I can make pleanty of poor shots and learn from them. Learning in manual for me is the best way to understand what I am doing...Anyway, sorry for the babling.

I know that I won't have all the lenses that I want for a long time. I am interested in landscape photography, macro and city/people shots. Mostly in that order. With that in mind I would like to get a few lenses over time in some kind of priority.

What would be good overall lenses for me?

If you could own one telephoto, one macro, and one wide angle which would it be?

Any suggestions on lenses would be helpfull.

Mahalo and Aloha

Sounds like you might be on a fairly tight budget. From what you describe, I'd choose the following:

For WA you might want to go with a 17-40L or any of the third party offerings (Tamron, Tokina, Sigma)

For macro I'd choose the Canon 100 f/2.8 macro. Can't beat the quality at that price IMO.

For telephoto, do you want a zoom or a prime? The 200 f2.8L is a ultra-sharp and highly regarded prime telephoto and is relatively inexpensive. Then there's the much celebrated Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, or yet another relatively expensive bargain priced L, the 70-200 f/4L. Truthfully, you don't need L glass or even a Canon lens for that matter. A decent tool in the right hands can acheive amazing results. Good luck in your quest.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

mcapper, you're exactly where I was six months ago. I wish I'd found this forum back then!

One of the third party all-round lenses Lord_Malone is talking about is the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. It's about $410US at B&H, which puts it about $230US less than the 17-40 Canon. I've never used either, but I would think you'd appreciate the slight added range and reduced price of the Sigma. It's going to be my next lens, unless somebody with more knowledge tells me it's a crap lens!

The telephoto zoom lens I'm going to get was also suggested by LM: The 70-200 f/4L. It's about $600US. The 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma is about $830US, I think. Were you planning on a telephoto zoom or just a fixed focal-length telephoto, like a 200mm or so?

<edit> Oh! Welcome to POTN!

Welcome to the forum. If money is no object: Overall lens=24-105L, Macro=180L, Telephoto=100-400L, Wide Angle=16-35L. If money is an issue, Overall lens=17-85, Macro=100 F/2.8, Telephoto=70-200L, Wide Angle=10-22

Spot on. That's the ideal way to learn.

I might suggest the Canon 17-40 L or Sigma 15-30 EX for wide/walkaround, Canon 60mm Macro or Sigma 105 Macro and Canon 70-200 f4 or Sigma 70-200 2.8. Another option would be the Tokina 12-24 and SIgma 24-70 2.8.

If you're looking at using manual mode mainly (or AV) and don't mind manual focus too then there are plenty of classics that will fit with an EOS adapter. Zeiss glass with M42 mount can be superb for silly money. Currently, my only AF lens is the Sigma 15-30 EX. The focus screen can be hard to use tho'.

Another vote for the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 here for that sorta thing - I borrowed a freinds one at a trackday and was blown away by the images, even on my 300D - cracking bit of glass.

I can't comment on much else however, being a pikey I can't afford decent glass

I'm on a budget, too, but was never happy with the image quality out of the cheaper lenses. I saved up and upgraded one at a time. I've noticed a huge improvement over my old setup and get more compliments and sell more prints. I can't justify the $$$ for "L" glass so I settled on middle-of-the road lenses like the Sigma EX series. With images side by side from Sigma lenses and "l" lenses the differences are very minute, if any.

Tokina 12-24
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX
Sigma 2x TC

If I could only have a few lenses (one for each purpose), and it didn't matter the cost, it'd be:

16-35L (wide angle)
24-70L (walkaround)
100-400L(telephoto)
180L (macro)
Total: about $5,000

If I were being reasonable (tight budget):

Sigma 20 1.8 (wide)
Tamron 28-75 2.8 (walkaround)
Canon 70-300 IS (telephoto)
Canon 100 2.8 macro (duh)
Total: about $1,700

If you're a prime person:

Sigma 20 1.8
Canon 50 1.4 (maybe squeeze an 85 1.8 into it)
Canon 200 2.8L or 135 f/2L
100 2.8 macro
Total: about $2,000

The perfect setup for me would be:

Canon 24mm 1.4L
Canon 24-70mm 2.8L
Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS

Now...to come up with the money!

On what I consider a limited budget I've been very happy with the Tamron 28-75 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8, and the Canon 50 1.8. I'm enjoying each of those lenses and as others have mentioned learning how to get the most out of them (at least I think I am )

Hey Wrench....how does the Sigma 2x teleconvertor work with your Sigma 70-200? I've been debating between the 1.4 and the 2.0.

I'ld at least want something with a FoV compareble to 35mm on FF; that would be a 20mm on the XT. One compareble to FoV of an 85mm -> 50mm, and something wide, comparable to a FoV of a 28 or 24mm on FF, so 15-17mm.
That would probabely be Sigmas 20/1.8, Canon 50/1.4 (1.8 when on a budget) and Tokina's 17/3.5. You could also skip the 20mm and go for 30/1.4 for a 50mm FoV.

Telephoto: 200L or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
Wide: Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 18-50
Macro: 100mm f/2.8

Wide - Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, or Sigma 12-24 (which is the only one in that range that's usable on a full-frame camera if you plan on one down the road). You already have the 18-55, so 1-2 mm wider won't make a big difference.
Macro - Canon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all make outstanding macros in the 90-105 mm range. Any of those will do fine.
Tele - Canon 70-200 f/4 or the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 unless you want to photograph wildlife, in which case they're too short. The Sigma f/2.8's fast enough that you'll be able to use it with a teleconverter as a temporary measure should this be the case. The Canon will leave you in manual focus if you wanted to use a 2x TC, but the Sigma will preserve AF.

i own 4 lenses, extension tubes and a 1.4 TC. total cost was about $2.7k -- and two of my lenses are Ls. if i were to sell the 24-105L and replace it with the tamron 28-75 total cost would drop right under $2k.

i also own the tamron 17-35, canon 70-200f4 and the canon 50 1.4....in addition to the 24-105.

all lenses are highly regarded and all are considered bargains except for maybe the 24-105...but i insist on the best quality for the lens that stays on my camera 80 percent of the time!

so those are my picks !

ed rader

WOW! Thanks for all the replys and advice.

I am really glad I found this forum. I need to go back and read everything a few more times and digest everything.

Thanks again for the help, I will really benefit from it.

Thanks!