Help choosing lenses

Hello, i just graduated from high school and im going to college in the fall for photography. But im leaving a week from wendsday for a trip to nicaragua and i need to get a macro and telephoto, and maybe a wide angle lens before i do. I have a Digital Rebel XT and about 800 to spend on the lenses. I want them to last me through college but i dont want to spend a fortune yet. These are a few ive been looking at please tell me what you think and if i should look at other lenses.

http://www.wolfcamera.​com …t=t1004%3Bc1022​%3Bc914962

http://www.wolfcamera.​com …t=t1004%3Bc1022​%3Bc914962

http://www.wolfcamera.​com …t=t1004%3Bc1022​%3Bc914962

thanks

Have a read of this thread and this reviews site. If you have $800 for two lenses you're going to get two average quality lenses, personally i'd get one good lens, and it probably wouldn't be a macro.

I think your looking at a couple pieces of crap. I think you need to decide what single lens you would need, and use the most. Invest a decent chunk of the 800 on that one lens, and then buy soso lenses with the rest.

This is a sweet macro lens. Wicked sharp, f/2.8 apeture so good for some indoors. Good walk around and portrait lens as well.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=194​451&is=USA

This ones got incredible image quality. Sooooo sharp, and wicked fast AF. Fantastic for anything sports, portrait, also decent walk around lens. Wee bit on the expensive side, and doesn't have great reach if your doing birds and stuff, but it'll do the trick.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=183​198&is=USA

Here's a good wide angle. Reasonable price, pretty sharp, not a fixed apeture, but it goes from f/2.8-4. Not bad. This would probably be the less practical choice of the three lenses though since you can't do much with this lens compared to the others.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=303​166&is=REG

If you need some more reach for distant stuff, this is a decent lens. It gets soft when you try using the higher mm's and it's AF is pretty slow, but it's a decently priced lens, and I've seen some absolutely stunning wildlife shots taken with this lens. That and IS rocks.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=102​854&is=USA

so im thinking the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
and the Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens
look pretty good, the 300 over the 200 because i plan on shooting alot of "birds and stuff" and the reviews on both of those lenses lare good too so thanks guys i really apreaciate the help, you will probolly see me around here alot more.

one last question though, do you recommend the site the lenses are on also? i mean are the fast? because i need the lenses within the next 8 days. hopefuly they are as fast as newegg...

BH photo and video are fast and reliable.

That 300mm zoom lens is generally considered to be of below average image quality, but people around here can be quite fussy. I'd not buy it myself, the 100-300 non-IS is meant to have better image quality (if you hold it still/use a tripod), and the Sigma 70-300 Super Macro II APO has a good reputation too.

are these the two lenses you are refering to?

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …tails&Q=&sku=12​059&is=USA

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=163​657&is=REG

Yep - read about them on the reviews site I posted in the 2nd post of this thread.

they both seem to be good, though (please excuse my being a newb as i ask this stupid question) for subjects that are far away i wouldnt want a telephoto macro, but a telephoto right?

That's correct, but a some lenses have "macro" written on them by marketing people, not technical people. Either of those will do the same job. I had the Sigma for a week or so, I returned it because F4-F5.6 was too slow. I got the excellent but very expensive 70-200 F2.8 to replace it. I'll get a teleconvertor some time, to make it something like 100-280.

ok, but what about the Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Autofocus Lens i was planning on getting? do you think its worth it? or is there a cheaper alternative with a similar quality?

I want a macro for flowers, very tiny dental equipment and such.

Yep, that Canon macro lens is fantastic, I have one, it does a great job. It's also a great portrait lens. Here's a couple of photos I took with it.

http://www.wildphotogr​aphy.co.nz …n_Formals/pages​/JJ400.htm
http://www.mrwild.co.n​z …dels/slides/IMG​_9336.html

ok so i guess ill go with the sigma since its a little cheaper, thanks so much for your help it saved me a couple hundred bucks.

No problem, glad I could help

For $800 maybe you should consider the 70-200L f/4.0 and buy a set of extension tubes like Kenko for Macro.
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=183​198&is=USA

I'm guessing you already have the kit lens.
This will leave you with enough money to buy a tripod like Bogen 3001 and Ball head.

do you mean this set of extension tubes? http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=375​102&is=REG

yes i do have the kit lens

and i already have a decent tripod that will work for now

if i got a 2x teleconverter for the 70-200 it should still work fne right?