Just bought my first DSLR! Lens advice

[hazzel_frazzel]

Hey all, I am very excited as I have just bought my first DSLR, A canon 500d from the Canon ebay outlet for just £330. It's coming with the 18-55mm kit lens, which is great, but I know I'll very quickly want other lenses and probably more zoom. I am not focussed on one sort of photography in particular, I am a keen amateur and I will be doing all sorts.

I was fortunate enough to get a play about with a mate's 500d a few months back for a whole weekend. His camera had the Canon Image Stabliliser 18-135 EF-S lens on it, which took some lovely shots, especially at lower zoom levels. However, I took it to the zoo one of the days, and really found myself wanting quite a bit more zoom on a number of occasions.

So my question is what lens to get? As I said I am just starting out. I appreciate that better lenses make better quality images, but I don't want to spend the world just at the minute. I was thinking of getting The sigma DG APO 70-300 lens http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-300mm-f4-5-6-Macr... to give me a good range of zoom in addition to the kit lens. But then after reading some reviews I saw that it was compared with the Tamron Di LD 70-300 lens here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF-70-300mm-F4-5-6-... and was not all that much better, despite being quite a bit more costly online. So I thought I was set on the Tamron, until I saw the Canon EF-S 55-250 lens with Image Stabiliser on amazon with quite a lot of money off it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-55-250mm-4-5-6-... Do you think that the Image Stabiliser would be something that would be a good addition for a bit more money? Would I miss the extra 50mm of zoom as well? As I said 135mm was not enough zoom, but I have no idea if 250 would be or not. The canon lens does also not have a macro mode (the other 2 both do at the end of their zoom range), and this would be quite a cool feature to have. So which of these lenses looks like it would be the best to buy? (bearing in mind the range in price as well, if the Sigma is only slightly better than the Tamron then I'll probably get the cheaper one)

I was then going to get the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 lens as well, as I would like to have a faster fixed lens, and I understand that this lens performs very well for the money? (It's currently 80 quid)

I also obviously have a load of accessories on the way - A case, a new class 10 memory card and a spare battery, but I was wondering about a tripod. What is recommended that won't cost the earth, and would be reasonably portable? I would like to carry it around in a backpack if possible.

Thanks a lot for the help!

[350Wedge]

For a starter medium zoom you should definitely get Canons 55-250 IS. It may be more cheaply built compared to more expensive lenses (plastic lens mount for example) but the image quality will outgun most of the alternatives. You will find that you will get better quality than the 70-300's you mention. Ok you loose a little in terms of length but quality more than makes up for it! Unless you're shooting wildlife at a long distance or similar you wont miss the extra 50mm too much.

A lot of tests put this out as a clear winner in the optic stakes and it will give very sharp results. I had one and used in on a 450D, got some excellent results! I cant use one on my 1D being an EFS lens but if I could have I would have kept it.

So long as your 18-55 is the newer IS version you should get nice sharp pictures with that too. If its a non IS i would serious consider selling it and getting a second hand IS version. The original lens isnt that sharp and the IS is much better image quality wise.

The standard 50 F1.8 is a very good lens for the money, I'd recommend one straight away. At 1.8 its a little soft usually but stop it down and you will find it becomes very sharp. I have one in my kit bag and it would normally sit alongside an 85mm F1.2L and 35mm F1.4L. Its a great light little lens that gives you a good starting point for playing with prime lenses. If after using that you can decide what other primes you fancy.

Edited by 350Wedge on Sunday 29th January 14:22

[Crafty_]

+1 to the 55-250, unbeatable for the money.

[tenohfive]

hazzel_frazzel said:

What is recommended that won't cost the earth, and would be reasonably portable? I would like to carry it around in a backpack if possible.

I can't speak from experience on the subject but from these forums I've heard it said that a second hand Manfrotto tripod is the way ahead. That's what I'm keeping my eye out for anyway.

[hazzel_frazzel]

Cheers for the advice on the Canon lens, I'll get that bought then! Good job I asked really, to be honest I was leaning towards the Tamron. Good to hear the 50mm lens is a worthwhile buy as well. Manfrotto tripod's do look good, but a little out of my price range! Anyone got any experience with slightly cheaper brands of tripod?

[JABB]

I have just bought an EF 70 - 210 F4 lens. It is an old lens, but many reviews compare it highly against the L F4 lens. £70 ish on the bay should do you. Nearly L glass, F4 all the way. Can't be bad

[350Wedge]

Tripods like most things, you pay for what you get.

Something like a Velbon or Hama will do what you need. There are loads on Amazon if you do a search. You can even get them as free gifts sometimes if you subscribe to a photo magazine!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Velbon-V20514-VEL-CX-440-T...

Manfrotto's and the like are very good, I've got a Carbon One Manfrotto which is superb. Unfortunately it is hardly used so it sits in the corner for months at a time! You need to ask youself how often you will use it. I find in general use I never need to use one. With IS on your lenses you may find the same thing unless you are doing very long exposures. The last time I used mine was last year when I was taking some pictures of the moon!

[JDRoest]

hazzel_frazzel said:

I was then going to get the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 lens as well, as I would like to have a faster fixed lens, and I understand that this lens performs very well for the money? (It's currently 80 quid)

I'll bite. I find this lens over-rated. There, I've said it, watch me get flamed

I have one (in fact it's my second as I discovered that they don't bounce on concrete) and it's my most underused lens in my bag. The problem is that it's too long for most things, and the 18-55 covers it's focal range. The only thing going for it is the wide aperture - so if you're not needing and using f1.8 then it's a waste of money.

However, buying a nifty fifty is a rite of passage.

If you want to play with a fun lens that costs next to nothing, look on Ebay for the Cosina 100mm f3.5. It's a very cheap and nasty lens which does macro. I was seeing them last year (not often mind) for about £10! lol. I wouldn't recommend it, but I use mine for the occasional macro shot and it's a great cheap macro lens - and I use this lens more than I ever use the nifty fifty.

[ofcorsa]

I love the nifty 50. I bought mine mainly for portraits and have taken lots of photos with it, I do find the focal length a bit odd and now prefer my 28-105mm but Its nice to have the 1.8 to use with available light

[markmullen]

Another vote for the 55-250, it is a great lens.

I'm tempted to swap my 50mm 1.8 for a 50 1.4 as I find the AF on the 1.8 slow and a bit hit and miss, even on 1 series bodies.

[350Wedge]

I used the 50 last year for a bit at Goodwood in the paddock at FOS. While it can be a touch long in some circumstances its still an easily useable lens. Best thing is that its so small and light it can be easily carried and changed if you want to fit the 18-55.

Here is a sample pic taken at F2.8 The full size shot is razor sharp! (One day I will get round to getting rid of the rope!!)

[Goa'uld]

Hazzel - I'm looking at picking up a DSLR aswell just now and hadn't though to check ebay for a Canon store, your offer still appears on there - can you comment on the condition of the camera that you recieved? It says reconditioned, but I was looking at 2nd hand bodys on ebay anyway, is it in good condition when you get it?

[StuH]

Another vote for the 50mm 1.4, my favourite lens!

Also, I know it's a bit more money but isn't the EF-S 18-200 a better bet? At 55mm you're really lacking at the wide end so you're still left with a 2 lens solution to cover this. The 18-200 loses out at the tele end but it's a proper walkabout solution?

[350Wedge]

StuH said:

Also, I know it's a bit more money but isn't the EF-S 18-200 a better bet? At 55mm you're really lacking at the wide end so you're still left with a 2 lens solution to cover this. The 18-200 loses out at the tele end but it's a proper walkabout solution?

Having seen reviews of this lens I dont think its one worth considering if you want to keep quality in the equation.

It suffers from massive barrel distortion at the 18mm end which is somthing that doesnt affect the 18-55 IS kit lens. Sharpness is also poor at the wide angle end and at wide apertures.

Granted its an all in one solution, but any lens that covers such a massive zoom range will always be compromised on image quality. Your best off with the standard 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. In time if you feel the need to upgrade, there are more expensive specialised lenses to choose from.

As an aside I used to have the canon 70-300 IS lens which is again a chunk more expensive, I actually got better shots with the 55-250 IS! Shows just how good the 55-250 is!!

[rottie102]

I'm very happy with a Sigma 18-200 as a walkabout lens

350Wedge said:

Having seen reviews of this lens I dont think its one worth considering if you want to keep quality in the equation.

It suffers from massive barrel distortion at the 18mm end which is somthing that doesnt affect the 18-55 IS kit lens. Sharpness is also poor at the wide angle end and at wide apertures.

Granted its an all in one solution, but any lens that covers such a massive zoom range will always be compromised on image quality. Your best off with the standard 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. In time if you feel the need to upgrade, there are more expensive specialised lenses to choose from.

As an aside I used to have the canon 70-300 IS lens which is again a chunk more expensive, I actually got better shots with the 55-250 IS! Shows just how good the 55-250 is!!

[flat-planedCrank]

I'd certainly get the 50mm 1.8. No other lens will give you a look into whether you want to invest in other 'fast' lenses at a low price point.

Other lenses might offer faster focusing or better build quality, but none of them will be below £100.

For me it's a 'no-brainer'

[StuH]

350Wedge said:

StuH said:

Also, I know it's a bit more money but isn't the EF-S 18-200 a better bet? At 55mm you're really lacking at the wide end so you're still left with a 2 lens solution to cover this. The 18-200 loses out at the tele end but it's a proper walkabout solution?

Having seen reviews of this lens I dont think its one worth considering if you want to keep quality in the equation.

It suffers from massive barrel distortion at the 18mm end which is somthing that doesnt affect the 18-55 IS kit lens. Sharpness is also poor at the wide angle end and at wide apertures.

Granted its an all in one solution, but any lens that covers such a massive zoom range will always be compromised on image quality. Your best off with the standard 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. In time if you feel the need to upgrade, there are more expensive specialised lenses to choose from.

As an aside I used to have the canon 70-300 IS lens which is again a chunk more expensive, I actually got better shots with the 55-250 IS! Shows just how good the 55-250 is!!

Which is why I'm always a little wary of reviews. My stepfather recently got into photography and whilst initially skeptical of his choice of the 18-200 (having read the online reviews) I was really impressed with the IQ given the massive range (and after all 55-250 is also a massive range), the shots are sharp with nice contrast and very little in the way of distortion or CA. I personally use a Canon 70-300DO for tele and the images from this lense aren't a million miles away unless you're a real pixel peeper. Given that the kit-lens and 55-250 are themselves IQ comprised given the constraints of the budget AND you have to carry 2 lenses around I just think the 18-200 is a better bet because of the convenience it offers. As you say, as you get more into this money-pit of a hobby you're going to aspire to L level glass anyway.

I think online reviews are a great guide but ultimately you need to trust your own eyes. A good example being the EF-S 17-55 that everyone raves about but at least for me fell way short. I think I might have gotten a poor sample, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 24-105 that I traded it in for.

[hazzel_frazzel]

Goa'uld said:

Hazzel - I'm looking at picking up a DSLR aswell just now and hadn't though to check ebay for a Canon store, your offer still appears on there - can you comment on the condition of the camera that you recieved? It says reconditioned, but I was looking at 2nd hand bodys on ebay anyway, is it in good condition when you get it?

Sorry it has taken me a while to reply. I still haven't had the camera through - due to a couple of nightmares. I'm living in France right now and so wanted to get it delivered to my girlfriend in England as Canon won't ship abroad. Obviously this looked a bit dodgy, so my debit card was cancelled, and my bank account frozen! Then the delivery has been a nightmare - sneaky couriers saying they have attempted delivery twice at times when multiple people have been in, and refusing to redeliver after 2 attempts.

Hopefully I'll be able to tell you tomorrow what kind of condition it is in though, it should be being collected tonight. I wouldn't worry too much about being late with the ebay outlet. It seems they will only list one at a time, although they have a great number to sell. As soon as I bought mine, another exactly the same was relisted, and I have seen at least 3 other relistings of identical cameras since. The quality should be as good as new - it has the same warranty, and I've saved a lot of money in recent years buying various Dell refurb laptops through their outlet.

350Wedge - thanks for the example shot, that looks awesome! Just the kind of image quality and sharpness I was hoping for. Bear in mind I'm just a beginner, but the increase in image quality from even a decent point and shoot is what I am really looking forward to.

As for potentially buying an 18-200, I am afraid it is more than double the price of the 55-250! Yeah it may be a little more convenient, but if I'd be losing out a little image quality, losing some zoom and paying far more, I'd rather have the small inconvenience of changing lens.

[smoores]

StuH said:

I think online reviews are a great guide but ultimately you need to trust your own eyes. A good example being the EF-S 17-55 that everyone raves about but at least for me fell way short. I think I might have gotten a poor sample, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 24-105 that I traded it in for.

Right, purely out of curiosity how are you comparing these 2 lenses, I have the 17-55 and think it is brilliant for what it does (however personal opinion aside). By putting the 24-105 on a crop sensor body you are getting roughly 38mm - 168mm. I would imagine the reason most people would go for that lens is to use it to shoot wide and hence the 2 aren't really comparable. You are also getting f/4 rather than f/2.8 so losing a lot of light if this is an issue.

[hazzel_frazzel]

Have just heard from the Mrs re the condition of the camera. She reckons all looks great, At the end of the day with paypal you have pretty good buyer protection, although I will only see the camera myself on Friday night