Lens suggestions

[FlakMunky]

So I started getting into photography last year. I bought a Rebel XT with the kit 18-55mm lens. Over Christmas time, I bought the 50mm f/1.8. I love that 50mm lens. I have been looking at 3 different lenses to buy next.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Macro
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro

Each is beneficial for different things I would like to try. I want a wider lens than the kit lens to try my hand at doing some landscapes. At the same time, I want a longer macro lens because I think that is really where I want to go. In the end, I would like at least one of each (never know when you might need each one). There is so much I want to try and it is hard to not just buy two or three lenses at one time.

Suggestions on which way to go next would be helpful. I have seen quite a few pictures from each of those lenses and they all look fantastic, which makes it harder to choose.

 

[ElFenix]

you don't need wide lenses for landscapes, just get out there with a tripod.

rather than the super zoom, you should have the canon 55-250 IS on your list.

 

[996GT2]

May I suggest the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro? It's really like having a little bit of everything all in 1 lens:

-17mm is decently wide for landscapes
-70mm is long enough for portrait work
-The lens focuses as close as 1 cm or so in front of the front glass element...max magnification of 1:2.3 without any extension tubes
-Lens is built much better than your kit lens, and autofocus is pretty snappy (although a little bit loud)
-Moderately priced...as little as $300-350 new

Here is a sample macro shot I took with the 17-70. This is at about 1:3 magnification.

 

[FlakMunky]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
May I suggest the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro? It's really like having a little bit of everything all in 1 lens:

-17mm is decently wide for landscapes
-70mm is long enough for portrait work
-The lens focuses as close as 1 cm or so in front of the front glass element...max magnification of 1:2.3 without any extension tubes
-Lens is built much better than your kit lens, and autofocus is pretty snappy (although a little bit loud)
-Moderately priced...as little as $300-350 new

Here is a sample macro shot I took with the 17-70. This is at about 1:3 magnification.

Interesting... I don't remember seeing that one, but I'm sure I did at one point (been looking and debating for a couple weeks). That is a very nice mix of what it can do. It goes into the list for consideration now.

 

[angry hampster]

Sigma 18-50 macro.

Or:
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 24-70/Tamron 28-75

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you don't need wide lenses for landscapes, just get out there with a tripod.

rather than the super zoom, you should have the canon 55-250 IS on your list.

I just read the 80+ page thread of sample pics on photographyonthenet.com and I will be buying that lens for sure!

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
Sigma 18-50 macro.

Or:
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 24-70/Tamron 28-75

Sigma 18-50 Macro: definitely a good choice along with the 17-70. It costs more than the 17-70, but you get even better build quality and f/2.8 throughout the range
24-70 and 28-75 are both a little too long for an APS-C camera. On full frame those focal lengths are very ideal, but on a crop camera they're more like 45-120mm lenses which aren't quite as useful.

I had a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 on my Nikon D200. Got rid of it because the 24mm just wasn't wide enough on a crop sensor camera.

 

[Demo24]

If all you're going to use the 10-20 for is landscapes then I'd spend the money elsewhere first. I found mine very useful for city shooting as you can get a lot of a building in a shot without having to be ridiculously far away. All kind of depends on how you want to shoot that building though. However when I was in Europe I walked around with my wide angle just for ease of framing.

a 17-70 sounds fantastic though! I would definitely like a good lens in that range!

 

[FlakMunky]

Too many choices. Hard time resisting buying more than one.... Need to give it all a little more thought and see what I would be most likely doing in the near future so I can get the most out of what I would be purchasing.

 

[TheDrake]

Tons of choices but if I was in your position I would choose either between the 55-250 IS that was already suggested or go with the tamron 17-50 2.8

 

[kyzen]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
Tons of choices but if I was in your position I would choose either between the 55-250 IS that was already suggested or go with the tamron 17-50 2.8

I'd also suggest the 55-250mm IS; I absolutely love mine... if you don't plan to upgrade to full-frame soon, it's an excellent, affordable lens.

 

[jpeyton]

No comment on the 28-300mm since I've never used it, but the rule of thumb on 10x zooms is that they're adequate at everything, and excel at nothing.

Sigma 10-20mm - an ultra wide zoom like this isn't really a "landscape" lens. Ultra wide angle photography is more about composition of foreground and background elements. I try to avoid Ken Rockwell references if possible, but he has a pretty decent write up on ultra wide angle photography with some good basic pointers.

The Sigma 10-20mm on your Canon XT translates into a 16-32mm lens (because of the 1.6x crop factor). You'll find that for landscapes, you'll end up using only the very longest focal lengths on the lens, between 24-32mm, and in some cases you'll want a little more reach. But for what it is, the Sigma is an excellent value at a couple hundred dollars less than the Canon EF-S 10-22mm.

The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro is an amazing lens; I wouldn't hesitate recommending it to anyone. Super sharp at any aperture all across the frame. It's great for macro, but also great as a telephoto for portraits, critters, etc. I would highly recommend looking at the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro as well; you'll find the extra reach useful for macro and general telephoto use, *AND* it has HSM focusing which is incredibly faster than non-HSM 105mm.

Ultra wide photography was never my thing; I had a Sigma 10-20mm, but ended up selling it and buying a Nikon 105mm Macro instead. I've been very happy with my decision.