OK... Branching out with a new lens

I've had my DRebel 350D for about a year and a half now ( How time flies!) and since it's my 18th birthday on Monday, I thought it would be the perfect opportunity to buy myself a new lens.

Thing is, as normal, I'm a helluva lot of confused and not very much closer to deciding. Price limit is probably between £100 - £200, *possibly* a little more at a push. I mainly do outdoor horse events, at least it's what I enjoy the most. To be perfectly honest (and don't kill me for this, I'm young!) I don't really understand the numbers on the lenses so I'm a bit when I'm going through the recommendation threads.

Erm... Yeah. Please help? Though I understand if you want to shout and tell me to leave well alone!

do you own the kit lens? or just the nifty (50mm f/1.8)?

as for cheap lenses to get:

if you want to zoom in to the horses more:
I have never owned one but I've seen good reviews of the Canon 55-250mm IS (the numbers are the focal length of the lens).
this lens is ~250$ so about 100-150 GBP...

Again I've never owned one but, if you want to get more subjects in the frame at the same time (and you don't have the kit lens): how about the 18-55mm IS?
this lens is about ~170$ so about 75-100 GBP...

The L-coholics have the floor...

Kit and nifty fifty

I can just about manage to focal length numbers - It doesn't mean that they mean anything to me though I swore to myself a while ago that during my long summer break (end exams + school forever on the 20th of June = Free until uni starts towards the end of Sept.) I'd both learn a lot more about photography and get out and shoot more!

A very basic explanation of the numbers, from one beginner to another.. The f numbers refer the the minimum aperture settings of the lens. The lower the f number, the faster the lens. The faster the lens, the better it will perform in low light.

So, for example, the nifty fifty (f/1.8 50mm) has a focal length of 50mm and a minimum aperture speed of 1.8 - So it's great in low light, because it's quite a fast lens. Prime lenses tend to be faster than zoom lenses, because there are less necessary obstructions inside to block the light.

So, lens choice would be based on what you're hoping to do with it. In your case, you're outside shooting events, mostly, so a very fast lens isn't really a necessity (as there is plenty of available light); Depending on how far away you are, you might want a lens that can zoom quite far, or if you're closer, perhaps a shorter range lens that may give a sharper pic. As far as focal lengths go, there's wide angle (around 8mm-20+mm), standard zoom (20+mm-70mm) and long range (70mm-500+mm). You'd probably be wanting a prime or a standard zoom lens in the mid range.. So the 55-250 that has already been mentioned would be a good call.. Or the new IS version of the kit lens (18-55) (bearing in mind that IS isn't going to be much use if you're panning..) OR the 17-55 (although that might be getting a bit too far towards the expensive side of things..)

Note: I'm a beginner at this myself and I'm still learning, so the experts on the forum will probably be able to assist further, and correct all the mistakes I no doubt just made in the above explanations I've tried to simplify the number, so apologies if I've oversimplified anything.

Hope this helps!

The 55-250mm is looking the most likely at the minute, unless anyone else has any other suggestions to throw at me?

Thanks for the explanation tehdrok, it seemed to make sense to me. I've got so much to learn, it would seem!

You and me both

The Canon option above seems a decent one though never even seen it myself let alone used it. Another option is the Sigma 70-300mm APO DG which probably costs around £130. No IS so hand held shooting will likely produce some blur from shake and the longer end will be a bit soft but you can get a cheap monopod like the Slik Pro 600 which is light and sturdy and small - Amazon have it for around £30. Seems likely the Canon would be best choice given it has image stabilisation to help with shake.

I tend to only do hand held shooting so IS is good Thanks for everything guys!

I think the 55-250mm IS would be a great addition for you. It doesn't cost too much, and with the IS it should fair well in outdoor venues. If you're ever considering going into low light/indoor situations, the 85mm 1.8 prime is a good compliment as well.

IS is only useful at the longer end or with longer shutter speeds.

How does your 50 work for you doing the equestrian events? Is it too wide? By a lot or a little? If you don't need zoom, and you only want a slightly longer lens, the canon EF 85mm f/1.8 is a GREAT lens, doubly so for the price.

A quick addition on the aperture size of lenses. Just because it's a 1.8 doesn't mean it always performs better in low light, it means it CAN. If you have it stopped down to f/8, it'll perform as well (more or less) as any lens at f/8. But if you open it up, it lets more light in (at 1.8 or 2.0, et cetera). Usually you want to stop it down a little from it's widest as you can have some color, perspective or fringe issues on many lenses that are really wide. I shoot my 85/1.8 mostly at 2.0 or 2.2.

Primes generally (not always) take better quality pictures. That's why I recommend staying away from zooms unless you need them or prefer not to switch lenses very often. But, every photog needs to find the way they like to shoot, so best of luck to you

Another vote for the 55-250. It's a great lens, it's cheap, and it'll let you shoot things you've never shot before. After that I'd go for upgrading the kit.