Which lens?

So I have decided to go buy a canon XT after much debate over getting that or the XTI. Since I have decided to go with the XT I have about $400-500 to spend on a lens for it, or two lenses depending on the price. The camera of course comes with a canon EF 18-55mm lens. Now I love doing macro photography, in the past I have not been able to do what I want because of the lenses I had on my old cameras. Also doing flora and fauna photography as well intrestes me greatly. I do not do alot of indoor photography and will probably keep it that way. Now if I where to go with a macro lens which one would I go with, or what lens would be best for doing nature photography?

Also if I do get the XT on sale then I might be able to spend about $700 on a new lens, depeding on how much I save for buying the camera...

Oh and I am sorry if this question seems quite silly.. i have read the postings on reading about the lenses before posting a question like this. I have always used the lenses that came with my cameras and have never bought any new ones.. Mainly I am interested on opineons on the different lenses from first hand use....

You can sell the kit for $80 then you have $650 or so to spend.

17-85 IS? You can find that used for pretty good price.
Another obvious suggestion is to get the nifty...
You could also go 3rd party as well...

You could keep the kit, buy a prime and a 70-200 f/4 non-IS if the longer lenses interest you. IF you want IS in that range how about 70-300IS.

I would try to find them used. You get great deals on here or FM.

stg.Canada wrote in post #2613683
Oh and I am sorry if this question seems quite silly.. i have read the postings on reading about the lenses before posting a question like this. I have always used the lenses that came with my cameras and have never bought any new ones.. Mainly I am interested on opineons on the different lenses from first hand use....

Not silly at all - that's why we're all here.

Are you providing us with your budget in Canadian dollars? (Just to clarify.) Can you buy from a US reseller, such as B&H Photo? They happen to have the XT on sale at the moment for US$500 (body only). They also have the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 on sale ($350) which is a far better lens than the kit lens you'd get with the XT. It also does "macro" (1:2.3 magnification).

Your budget is tight, so I'm not going to recommend a bunch of really expensive "L" lenses for you. Here are some things to consider:

I'd keep the EF-S 18-55 for starters. You will need this as a normal lens, and while there are better lenses that can replace it they would all wipe out your entire lens budget.....this means no macro and no wildlife, which would defeat your purpose.

For Macro, the EF-S 60mm Macro is a fabulous lens. I think you should get it if you are serious about macro. It's going to take $350 of your budget though. The EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro would run only $250 but it only goes 1:2, it's slow to focus....the 60 is better.

If you get the Macro, we need a really cheap telephoto for your wildlife shots. The only thing that fits your budget is the EF 75-300. This lens gets a lot of bad press, and I won't suggest it is sharp or anything, but it does fit your budget and it will take decent wildlife pictures.

If you decide to skip the macro, then you could blow your entire lens budget on either the excellent 70-200 f/4 or the 70-300 IS. These are much better telephoto lenses than the 75-300, but they both run just a bit over $500.

If you hardly do any indoor photography where a larger f-stop is not needed, I recommend the Sigma 17-70 lens. It has a good kit replacement range and has fantastic macro abilities for a non-dedicated macro lens. There are lots and lots of satisfied users on this forum. I picked one up yesterday but I am going to upgrade. I found out that I don't use the 17mm range.. Other than that it's a gem of a lens. This is just one of many other choices..

JeffreyG wrote in post #2614023
I'd keep the EF-S 18-55 for starters. You will need this as a normal lens, and while there are better lenses that can replace it they would all wipe out your entire lens budget.....this means no macro and no wildlife, which would defeat your purpose.

If she wants 1:2 or so, then the Sigma 17-70 is really a better choice. It would serve as a faster lens with a longer focal length (thus working distance) and a better range.

For that much, I'd spend $50 more to get either the Sigma 105 macro or Tokina 100 macro. Much better working distance for fauna, which are usually spooked quite easily.

The Sigma 70-300 APO macro (1:2 mag) is a much better lens for the same cost ($200).

For less than US$1,100, she could get a Rebel XT, Sigma 17-70 macro and Sigma 70-300 macro. That'd be quite a kit for such a small sum of money.

for that money you can't go wrong with the 17-40mm f/4L

Unless you want more reach, in which case you could go the 70-200 mm f/4L route.

rabidcow wrote in post #2614265
for that money you can't go wrong with the 17-40mm f/4L

Exceptional lens, but I found on a crop camera it was a bit limited in range, aperture speed and minimum focus. I sold mine to get the Sigma 17-70. If I had plans to get a full-frame camera one day, I would have kept it.

No argument here. This one is next on my list.

rabidcow wrote in post #2614265
for that money you can't go wrong with the 17-40mm f/4L

Unless you want more reach, in which case you could go the 70-200 mm f/4L route.

That's over his budget of $400-500. Anyway does the 17-40L have good macro abilities? I've owned a 17-40L but don't recall shooting any macro with it.

just pick up the kit lens and a 60mm ef-s macro... done and perfect for what you want

stg.Canada wrote in post #2613611
Also if I do get the XT on sale then I might be able to spend about $700 on a new lens, depeding on how much I save for buying the camera...

My recomendation was based on the above quote. And as for "good" macro, the 17-40 has a minimum focus distance of 11.04 inches which offers a .24X magnification at 40mm. With the resolving power of this lens, post shot cropping is more than a reality. IF the OP wants to go that route...

$500 CDN will get you pretty close to a EF 35 f/2 plus a set of Kenko extension tubes. With this combination you will have a good focal length prime and the ability to do macro/closeup with the tubes attached to the 35.

This photo is taken with a 300D, 35 f/2 and 12 mm extention. It only had colour balanced and resized done in processing.

Photo taken about 1 or 2 inches from the handset.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

rabidcow wrote in post #2614401
And as for "good" macro, the 17-40 has a minimum focus distance of 11.04 inches which offers a .24X magnification at 40mm. With the resolving power of this lens, post shot cropping is more than a reality. IF the OP wants to go that route...

I'm pretty sure the 17-40L has only 1:4 mag. It is a superior lens, optically-speaking, and has USM focussing. It would also be good for landscapes (if the OP considers that "nature" photography). But it's also pricey...

A used Canon 70-200 f/4L with a set of Kenko tubes and a 1.4x teleconverter should cover the bases nicely.