FAQ: A starter guide to buying lenses for your Canon digital SLR camera.

[alrocky]

Starter's Guide Caveat: EF-S lenses are for EOS 20D and Digital Rebel bodies. If you're just starting out, it may be hard to justify the expense of $1000+ lenses. Your best (ie most expensive) glass, be it a prime or a zoom, should at the focal range you do most of your shooting.

fredmiranda site for reviews. The two $1000+ walkabout zooms, the 24-105 f/4L IS and 24-70 f/2.8L are both well reviewed. The f/2.8 is faster but the f/4 has IS, is lighter, and has longer reach.

My modest collection of affordable glass:
17-40 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
85 f/1.8
50 f/1.8

 

[shuttleboi]

Here is an excellent guide written by Bob Atkins, a well-known photography writer on the net. When I was looking for lenses for my 300D back in 2003, I read this guide thoroughly.

Prosumer Canon lenses


If anyone is interested, when I was using my 300D extensively, my all-time favourite lens was the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Man, I love that baby. It is much lighter and cheaper than the Canon 24-70mm f2.8.

A highly overrated lens is the 50mm f1.8. A good lens to be sure, but its focal length is subsumed by the 28-75mm. If you're going to spend $70 on a 50mm lens, you might as well buy the 28-75mm for $325. Buying this lens was a waste of money.

Two other great lenses are the 17-40mm for wide-angle and the 85mm f1.8 for portraits. This 85mm is a hidden gem in Canon's lineup. It's about $340 and is incredibly sharp. On a 1.6x crop body, it's 135mm, which is a classic head-and-shoulders portrait focal length (see below).


(If pbase.com is giving you an error, just try clicking again)

dude

chick

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: shuttleboi
A highly overrated lens is the 50mm f1.8. A good lens to be sure, but its focal length is subsumed by the 28-75mm. If you're going to spend $70 on a 50mm lens, you might as well buy the 28-75mm for $325. Buying this lens was a waste of money.

f/1.8 > f/2.8.

Although my wife's 50mm f/1.4 is the lens we use the least by far, it is really good for portraits.

Edit: The 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron is the lens we use the most.

 

[Yreka]

How are the Carl Zeiss Lenses ? Are there any worthwile, or too overpriced to consider ?

I am very novice, so I am still researching. Right now, it looks like I will probibly be purchasing the Xti body and Tamron SP AF28-75mm or maybe the "Plastic Fantastic". I will mainly be using it for family pics, kids sports, etc. Might be some macro use too, taking pics of hardware up close for use in documentation, but I doubt very much of this. Hmmm.. since it will be for work, maybe I can expense a macro lens...

Anyway,

I only as about the Zeiss stuff, as I work for their Medical Division, I think I can get the lenses at a slight discount.

 

[NoShangriLa]

Zeiss lenses are great, however they aren't better than the competitions. Some of the Zeiss zooms from the 80s was made by Sigma and aren't much better than Sigma lenses that demand 6X the price.

Contact bodies are beautifully crafted & are precision machine, and Kyocera has stop producing them. Therefore, what ever you get is it. The used market will have them for a long time, but they will lack technologicaly against the competitions even more than they were before.

Canon & Nikon are king & queen of the hill at the moment because they are very competitive in the technological area & their huge auto focus lens line up should more than quench the thirst the most demanding photographer. Other camera/lens manufactures have very competitive lens/body for average shooter that shouldn't be ignore but a serious photographer might want to look at Canon & Nikon.

 

[EvilYoda]

Thank you for this post, but damn this is going to take a while to read. I also gathered in my research that that 50mm is a great first lens.

 

[Mrvile]

Good job with the writeup, but of course, it's very preliminary and leaves quite a few things out (I'm not going to take the time to mention everything). Anyway, one thing to note is that every is different and has different preferences for what they consider "landscape" or "walkaround" lenses...personally I can use anything as a walkaround - I've gone entire days using just a 150mm prime or a 10-20mm. It forces me to be more creative.

Also, I'm also more of a "build your lenses around your shooting habits, not focal range" type of guy, so I'm all for buying very specific lenses if need be (I have a 150mm macro, a 50mm prime, and a 10-20mm, nothing else). Since I don't "need" a 24-70 or a 70-200, I wouldn't buy one just to have it.

But then again, it's just how we are.

 

[thawolfman]

How about a noobs guide to buying a dSLR?

 

[NoShangriLa]

Originally posted by: thawolfman
How about a noobs guide to buying a dSLR?

Buy the best your budget allow with a decent lens, and used camera/lens is a good option.

Dump the initial gears once you whet your thirst for photography. Some people may suggest a new Nikon/Canon body & lenses because they are influent by the marketing. The reality is that used camera/lens are cheap, and not too many serious photographer keep their original gears even if they are name brand or cheap dSLR-like cameras.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

If anyone wants to buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 "Nifty Fifty" I've got one that I'm selling

Check sig.

 

[kalster]

anyone using zeiss (c/y) or pentax (m42) glass on canon dslr's (with appropriate adapter of course), i know the rebel has a crappy viewfinder making it hard to use since these lenses have to be manually focused, and stop down metered. can you recommend some good zeiss primes to use (mostly for wide angle stuff)

 

[Boo Boo]

alot of what your telling people to buy are over priced and not nessascery to be a good photographer and for what theyd be used for

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: Boo Boo
alot of what your telling people to buy are over priced and not nessascery to be a good photographer and for what theyd be used for

recommend some cheaper but good performing alternatives

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: Boo Boo
alot of what your telling people to buy are over priced and not nessascery to be a good photographer and for what theyd be used for

recommend some cheaper but good performing alternatives

The kit lens, a 50mm f/1.8 and a flash.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: pontifex
The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.


anyone know an equivalent Nikon lens?

uhhh, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8

well obviously but i meant in quality and versatility and price...

Well now that you put it that way, I'd have to go with the...Nikon 50mm f/1.8

You've got to be kidding me. Are you dense?

fvck you. when you originally replied you made it sound like it would just be the nikon 1.8 because its the same specs as the canon. if thats still what you mean, you're just a retard.

yllus posted this:
Walkabout Lenses

So far we?ve looked at the ultra-wide (10mm - 20mm) and zoom (70mm - 200mm) lens ranges. How about that crucial in-between area for stuff that?s not too closeby and not too far away?

Good: Once again, we go first-party with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens. On a 1.6x field of view crop body like the Canon EOS 350D, Canon EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XT, Digital Rebel XTi) or Canon EOS 30D, that works out to a 27.2 - 64mm focal range; just what we?re looking for. Located squarely in the medium price range for quality lenses (especially considering its ?L? status), the 17-40mm will run you about $680 USD.

Almost as good, but cheaper: The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC actually takes an advantage on the score of maintaining a large aperture of f2.8 over its entire range of focal lengths, but takes a step back in its lack of high speed autofocusing mechanisms (especially when compared to Canon?s USM technology) and in that nearly unmeasurable ?sharpness? attribute. However, at $360 USD, how can you complain?

The dark horse: This is a lens that belongs in every single Canon SLR owner?s backpack - bar none. At a mere $80 USD, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, a.k.a. the ?Plastic Fantastic?, offers an incredibly large aperture, stunningly sharp visuals and a fanastically low physical weight at the cost of a fixed focal length, plastic construction and a sometimes frustrating stepper-style autofocus motor. But for the price and versatility, you simply cannot go wrong.

he made it sound like the 1st 2 lenses were the ones to get but the cheap 50mm was super great compared to the others. i'm just asking if Nikon had something similar. so get off your fvcking elitist, know-it-all, high horse.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show...ct.php?product=61&sort=7&cat=12&page=2

The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is better than the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Would you please just STFU already. Geez.

Damn tfinch, you attacked him first. I'm not sure why you decided to be an ass in the first place, then decide to be an ass to defend yourself. He asked a simple, legitimate question, all you had to do was answer and not start calling names (EDIT: well, you didn't call him a name, but asked if he was dense, still a retarded response to a legitimate question).

pontiflex, the Nikon 50/1.8 is typically considered the best of the best among all camera manufacturer offerings. Just like the OP stated about Canon owners, you'd be silly to be a Nikon DSLR owner without this cheap, awesomely sharp lens.

 

[Justorq]

Hey guys,

What do you think about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Autofocus Lens?
I've been interested in it since it came out.

Thanks

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Justorq
Hey guys,

What do you think about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Autofocus Lens?
I've been interested in it since it came out.

Thanks

I love it, I can't fault one thing about it. It focus fast, quiet and very accurate. One the sharpest zooms I have shot with. And I tried two copies of the Tamron 17-50 prior to this purchase.

 

[Boo Boo]

yeah the kit lens rocks the 50 1.8 is by far the best value out there.

the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 F4l thos e2 are under 600 and give you great shots

 

[mrrman]

right when I bought mt XTi..I dumped the 18-55mm and picked up a 75-300mm and 28-135mm...these are the only 2 lenses that I will need plus the bought the 580ex flash

 

[DeviousTrap]

Originally posted by: mrrman
right when I bought mt XTi..I dumped the 18-55mm and picked up a 75-300mm and 28-135mm...these are the only 2 lenses that I will need plus the bought the 580ex flash

I disagree. You're missing out on a lot of shots when your widest lens is 28mm (on a 1.6x crop camera).

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: mrrman
right when I bought mt XTi..I dumped the 18-55mm and picked up a 75-300mm and 28-135mm...these are the only 2 lenses that I will need plus the bought the 580ex flash

I disagree. You're missing out on a lot of shots when your widest lens is 28mm (on a 1.6x crop camera).

I STRONGLY concur. I didn't know what photography was until I bought a 24mm prime. This was on a film camera, so my results will be slightly wider, but it's no different. I had a 28-105mm as my primary lens. I bought the 24mm f/2.8, an 85mm f/1.8 and mostly stopped using the 28-105mm zoom.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DeviousTrap

Originally posted by: mrrman
right when I bought mt XTi..I dumped the 18-55mm and picked up a 75-300mm and 28-135mm...these are the only 2 lenses that I will need plus the bought the 580ex flash

I disagree. You're missing out on a lot of shots when your widest lens is 28mm (on a 1.6x crop camera).

ya really. sometimes it's really hard picking my 28-75 over my 10-20 just for carrying around. the 10-20 is just awesome. standing at a street corner and capturing the whole frickin' corner is great. one day i'm going to take it over to the train tracks and get some freight trains.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Boo Boo
alot of what your telling people to buy are over priced and not nessascery to be a good photographer and for what theyd be used for

Originally posted by: Boo Boo
yeah the kit lens rocks the 50 1.8 is by far the best value out there.

the 70-300 IS or the 70-200 F4l thos e2 are under 600 and give you great shots

I like how you called my recommendations overpriced and unnecessary, and then recommended two of the three in your next post.

 

[Entity]

Any opinions on the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM as a walkabout?

I'm considering getting it as a kit lens paired with the 30D. I haven't shot SLR in quite a while, but I do miss it, and am looking at getting 1x Wide Angle (likely the Sigma 10-20mm) and a Telephoto before too long (mostly for photographing Ultimate Frisbee), but I've noticed that I can get the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM paired with the 30D for about $1300, when the body itself is going to cost me ~$1050.

Should add that regardless of what lens I get "paired" with the body (looking at Amazon right now FWIW since there isn't any gear on Craigslist ), I will be getting the 50mm, a 10-20mm wide angle, and eventually a zoom lens.

Any advice for a beginner getting back into the game would be appreciated.

Rob

 

[SaigonK]

good read!

I have the 10-22 and it rocks, though it is a bit soft when open wide...
I am going to jump into the L series soon, just need to part with the $$ from my wallet

And for those who dont have it go and buy it now!! The 50mm F1.8 is a great lens for the money...sure itsplastic...but the optics rock!