In search of a new lens

Turnerzdad wrote in post #2243823
You mentioned that you wanted 3 lenses at no more than $350 each (350x3=$1050)

The 24-105 is currently available at B&H for $1079 after rebate.

But if that's not in your range...I'd definitely look at the Tamron 28-75 as I mentioned previously. It's going for $349 after rebate at B&H.

Good luck!

Yes, I was looking for 3 lenses at that price, not just one. I really can't picture myself spending that much on 1 lens right now I mean I'm only 16!

And thank you for the good luck wishes and all your help

saravrose wrote in post #2243843
are you working with about a thousand dollars? or a little less?.. if you have a grand to work with i'd suggest two lenses... the first being the 70-200 f4.0L.. it is very, very nice the quality is incredible and it's really versatile and I find myself using it for portraits quite a bit... the second would be either the tamron 28-75 (as previously suggested) or the tamron 17-50 (which I have)... and a hint when looking at glass for the first time.. try to get lenses with constant app.. that's just one number.. for example the canon is a constant f4.. IMO the lenses with constant appertures give you pretty close to the quality of primes with the versatility of zooms..

sari

Right now I currently have about 700$ to work with, but it isn't all going straight to lenses. I figured I would buy the 50mm f/1.8 and the 75-300mm right now for about 250$ then put the rest into other accessories and christmas gifts then gradually build up more money to buy lenses a little more expensive. This was all before I posted here though, now I will take a look at other lenses that were posted. Plus, I still have christmas to ask for a lens a little out of my range

plus, I am now considering selling my kit lens once I get a new lens

With the Sigma 17-70, how would it compare to the Canon 100 f/2.8, which is a true macro? B&H and some nice rebates going on and if I get another lens from there I can have the 100 for $409...Just about $20 more than the Sigma. Now since the 100 is a true macro does this mean I cannot take zooms like the Sigma, or what?

melissa. wrote in post #2243952
Right now I currently have about 700$ to work with, but it isn't all going straight to lenses. I figured I would buy the 50mm f/1.8 and the 75-300mm right now for about 250$ then put the rest into other accessories and christmas gifts then gradually build up more money to buy lenses a little more expensive. This was all before I posted here though, now I will take a look at other lenses that were posted. Plus, I still have christmas to ask for a lens a little out of my range

plus, I am now considering selling my kit lens once I get a new lens

skip the 75-300... if you are on a budget get the 28-105 3.5-4.5 a good quality lens and going for a bit over two hundred now and the nifty is a good buy for the money... Let's put it this way right now you are mostly looking for versatile focal lengths but, as you grow as a photographer you will be more concerned with the quality of your shots than just being able to get your shots... Lenses are fairly expensive and the ones worth having are more expensive.. But, if you make purchases that you won't ultimately be happy with it will end up costing you in the long run... only good glass retains it's value the rest of them can't really be resold for what you purchased them for.. it's about making the smart investment instead of just buying.. so, a two hundred dollar lens that you own't like in six months is two hundred dollars closer to what a lens that you will be happy with...

by the way.. I did buy that 75-300 and luckily only lost seventy dollars on it.. and I have upgraded from original purchases and really wish that I hadn't bought quite a few of the stuff I bought..

sari

melissa. wrote in post #2243547
Anyway, I am looking for lenses that will suit my shooting styles. I mostly take portraits, still life, macro, urban and nature & animal shots. I would love to have a nice zoom lens, a macro, and just an everyday walk around lens that will suit my needs for the landscape and urban shots I take. My budget is about $350 max for each lens and I am open to Canon, Tamron and Sigma lenses.

Sigma 17-70mm will do you for walkaround and close to Macro, tho' not a true macro. It will get you pretty close. Very good lens. Mine has replaced my very sweet 17-40mm L as it is so practical. For longer then the Sigma 70-300mm AP0 DG seems to be well liked by owners. I had one and also thought it was great value. It gets soft at the 300mm end but pretty good otherwise - all the cheaper zooms do the same. A monopod will help you get sharp images. Anything over 100mm is much more prone to showing up camera shake. Finally, the 50mm 1.8 is good value and I have had two. Both very good lenses.

Thank you Sari, You have been more than helpful to me. I'll start looking up reviews on the 28-105 right now. But from your experience, is it a good overall lens? Could I use it for more than just landscapes and my urban shots like say for, portraits and maybe macro shots? I'd love to fit my needs into 1 good lens lol but I might have to wait a bit for that...

For the $700, you can get two nice lenses. I have the 28-105, but I don't use it as much now that I have the 70-200 f4. Like Sari said, that is a great lens. The 28-105 is decent for the money. Don't discount it. I'd get that again instead of the 28-135. Consider the Tamron as well. Many here use it.

melissa. wrote in post #2244083
Thank you Sari, You have been more than helpful to me. I'll start looking up reviews on the 28-105 right now. But from your experience, is it a good overall lens? Could I use it for more than just landscapes and my urban shots like say for, portraits and maybe macro shots? I'd love to fit my needs into 1 good lens lol but I might have to wait a bit for that...

it's wide enough to use for landscapes not as wide as you will always want but still usable.. for urbans the extra reach is really nice for portraits stopped down it does a very decent job i've used it on more than one occasion and it does have a macro setting... So, all in all I think it will fill your needs right now pretty well... some examples...

melissa. wrote in post #2243995
With the Sigma 17-70, how would it compare to the Canon 100 f/2.8, which is a true macro? B&H and some nice rebates going on and if I get another lens from there I can have the 100 for $409...Just about $20 more than the Sigma. Now since the 100 is a true macro does this mean I cannot take zooms like the Sigma, or what?

Sigma has a magnification ratio of 1:2, which means a 2cm object can cast a 1cm image on the sensor. The Canon, being a a 1:1 macro will have a 2cm object cast a 2cm image on the sensor. Hence the magnification is twice that of the Sigma.

The Canon is a prime lens, so there is no zooming, so essentially you have a 160mm lens on a cropped sensor. Hence it of a limted use to macro and portraits mainly.

The Sigma is a zoom and you can use it for landscape/cityscape to portraits. It's range is what we generally call walking around range, and very versatile if you walk around and like to shoot stuff outside.

I'm not impressed by the Canon 28-105 as it's not wide on a crop sensor dslr and it's optics are not stellar.

For $700, I'd probably get a Sigma 17-70, about $340 at Tristate, for walking around and either a Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro or a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for just under $350-390 at Tristate as well.

That way for about $700 you can have a 17-70 for walking around and a 100/105macro for real macro work. Personally, I'd first get the 17-70 and see if you really want a 100mm macro afterwards.

melissa. wrote in post #2243952
Right now I currently have about 700$ to work with, but it isn't all going straight to lenses. I figured I would buy the 50mm f/1.8 and the 75-300mm right now for about 250$ then put the rest into other accessories and christmas gifts then gradually build up more money to buy lenses a little more expensive. This was all before I posted here though, now I will take a look at other lenses that were posted. Plus, I still have christmas to ask for a lens a little out of my range

plus, I am now considering selling my kit lens once I get a new lens

OK, now I'll have to agree with what someone else said earlier... don't rush in and fill your kit bag with a lens to suit every photographic avenue. What you have selected above is a decent choice if you want to diversify and should suit you until you have the cash (and inclination) to upgrade. That being said, the 75-300mm USM isn't a brilliant lens. You'll get long telephoto at 300mm, but I found it very blurry from 200mm onwards. The 28-105 USM is a much better performing lens, however you won't get the reach of the previously mentioned zoom.

You can't go wrong with the 50mm 1.8. It's so cheap anyway. Plus, if you want to do true 1:1 macro, you can buy a set of extension tubes (I use Kenko - nice n' cheap too) and fit them on your nifty and voila! cheap 1:1 macro photography.

Oh, and don't get rid of your kit lens until you replace it with something that will do the wide end, like the 17-70 sigma or similar.

ghms421 wrote in post #2243820
I'd suggest a 50 f1.8 and a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro. The 50 will be fine for portraits etc. The sigma is versatile enough for city, landscapes etc. Although not a true macro lens, its still usable.

That's what I did!
Very happy!!!

As you've seen, you'll get lots of opinions here on this forum. If I were in your shoes, I'd only get the best I could afford. At this point, That would be one great lens or maybe two not-so-great lenses.

My recomendation is to keep your 18-55 kit lens and add the 70-200 f/4 L. That way you have all the focal lengths you need. The 70-200 f/4 is an outstanding lens which will show you how good your photography can be at all the focal lengths it covers. Once you've accumulated a little more money, you could pick up a macro in the 100mm range (there are several good ones). But for the price of the 70-200 f/4, I don't think you could do better with any of the various zooms or primes.

just my $.02

saravrose wrote in post #2244055
... if you are on a budget get the 28-105 3.5-4.5 a good quality lens and going for a bit over two hundred now and the nifty is a good buy for the money...

Melissa,

I agree with Sari...I was in the same boat as you 2 years ago. I bought the Canon 28-105MM EF Mark II and the Canon EF f1.4 Prime and used them along with the kit lens for several months to learn about the camera and the focal lenghts that worked best for my shooting style.

If you have the kit lens then you will have from 18MM to 105MM to explore. Get the 50MM Prime...the f/1.8 version will work fine to explore fixed lenses where you must "zoom with your feet."

If you do buy the 28-105MM be sure and get the Mark II version...it is a quality lens.

Good luck with your lens quest and come back here often...I have learned so much here and the POTN members are the best! They will help you learn and improve your craft.

JNunn wrote in post #2249340
As you've seen, you'll get lots of opinions here on this forum. If I were in your shoes, I'd only get the best I could afford. At this point, That would be one great lens or maybe two not-so-great lenses.

My recomendation is to keep your 18-55 kit lens and add the 70-200 f/4 L. That way you have all the focal lengths you need. The 70-200 f/4 is an outstanding lens which will show you how good your photography can be at all the focal lengths it covers. Once you've accumulated a little more money, you could pick up a macro in the 100mm range (there are several good ones). But for the price of the 70-200 f/4, I don't think you could do better with any of the various zooms or primes.

just my $.02

Hmmmm... that would be awefully tempting

How much are they RRP in the states there?

I agree with Dan. I actually picked up the 28-75 Tamron to replace my kit lens. But since its not wide enough, I ended up using both.

In the next round, I picked up the 70-200F4 - the best lens out there for the price imho. Goes for around 500 I think after rebates.

Last lens I picked up was the wide angle.

If I were to do this all over, I would pick up the 70-200 and use it with the kit lens. Then, replace the kit lens with the 28-75 Tamron or one of the many 17-xx 2.8 aperture lenses.

All the best.