What Is The Best Lens For Diversification

Hi,

I've spent some time reading up on the different Canon cameras, and have decided to go with the 50D. But given that I figure I'll be shooting in a variety of situations, not sure which lens would be best.

I've read some good things about the Canon 18-200, but if there is another Canon lens that is cheaper, and can provide as much diversification, would gladly go that route.

Does anyone have any suggestions on which lens might best suit what I'm looking for?

Thank you.

Not fond of the super zooms myself. Too many compromises to image quality. Depending on what your planning on shooting and how much you want to spend there are many 2 lens combinations that would give you about the same range as the zoom you mentioned.

18-55 IS and 55-250 IS is a great lower budget combination. 24-105 IS and 70-200 F4 would be another good combination for larger budgets.

Might be an idea to let us know what your main use for the lens would be - different lenses have different uses after all...

Kuma,

Thank you for your suggestions. I will take a look at those lenses.

Pete,

Thank you for your response.

I can't say I'm going to have a specialty right now, but in terms of what I'd like the lens to be able to handle, I would say nature/wildlife, sports/action, and portraits.

Thanks again.

Photo1812 wrote in post #7813541
Kuma,

Thank you for your suggestions. I will take a look at those lenses.

Pete,

Thank you for your response.

I can't say I'm going to have a specialty right now, but in terms of what I'd like the lens to be able to handle, I would say nature/wildlife, sports/action, and portraits.

Thanks again.

Wow that is a lot of uses for the same lens. That pretty much covers it all. To get a lens that can do all of that well be prepared to spend the big bucks.

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood what I read about the 18-200, because it sounded like a pretty versatile lens? And maybe I'm asking too much of one lens without spending big bucks?

if you have money to spend then a 70-200 would be great for the uses you've specified...

if you need it on the cheap the 55-250mm is perfect...

actually, unless you're rich and know exactly what lenses you want, I would get the 18-55mm IS, 50mm 1.8, and 55-250mm IS and then use those to figure out what you like to shoot. Then when you get better glass you'll only have sunk ~500 on those 3 lenses instead of thousands...

Edit: as for the 18-200 and the third party competitors, they're great for travel when you just want one light lens to cover lots of ground but compared to shorter zoom lenses they're not as good...in almost all cases of superzoom lenses, it doesn't matter how much you spend, it still won't be better than shorter zooms...

Photo1812 wrote in post #7813623
Hmm, maybe I misunderstood what I read about the 18-200, because it sounded like a pretty versatile lens? And maybe I'm asking too much of one lens without spending big bucks?

you can spend all the big bucks you want...there's not really a lens that exists that covers it all...

i'd go for the 18-55IS, 55-250IS, and a prime for portraits

this will give you a good starting kit, and you can see which aspect you wish to upgrade, and then do so

diversification is the reason your camera has an interchangeable lens mount. You use multiple lenses to gain your diversification.

So, no there is not one lens you can buy and be done, IMO.

NYC2BGI wrote in post #7813585
Wow that is a lot of uses for the same lens. That pretty much covers it all. To get a lens that can do all of that well be prepared to spend the big bucks.

Well, a 70-200 f/4 can do all of those, not in lower light though. Problem is though that there are different niches within each of those types of shooting. There are people who would use everything from a 70-200 up to a 600mm prime. The OP needs to get an idea of what they'd use the most.

I was thinking more along the lines of a 24-105 f4 L. He would still have the low light problem though. Then again 105 may not be long enough so he needs at least two good lenses to cover his needs.

NYC2BGI wrote in post #7813771
I was thinking more along the lines of a 24-105 f4 L. He would still have the low light problem though.

I still don't understand the stick that this lens gets, I used it all the time in low light, I can handhold a perfectly sharp shot at one second with the ISO at 200, F4.

RyanL wrote in post #7813787
I can handhold a perfectly sharp shot at one second with the ISO at 200, F4.

Hmm

RyanL wrote in post #7813787
I still don't understand the stick that this lens gets, I used it all the time in low light, I can handhold a perfectly sharp shot at one second with the ISO at 200, F4.

ok...but what if you're taking a picture of someone moving...

edit...wait i just re-read what you wrote...1 sec exposure?...and now i've got this to say

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Well then im screwed :P The post I was answering only stated "low-light".