New to DSLR's - Lens Advice

The23rdman

The23rdman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
Hi Fellow Travellers :)

I've just dipped my toes tentatively into the waters and bought a refurbed Canon 350D body. I'm on a very limited budget right now and could use some lens advice.

I've a couple of friends who're real Canon freaks who're both suggesting a f/1.8 50mm Canon II lens as a starting point. I can see the merits of this, but know I'm going to want to play around with basic wildlife photography too so will want a zoom lens.

I'm looking at EF 28-80's or 28-90's at the mo as a cheap way in, but don't know if it's worth going with the 50mm for now and waiting till I've a little more money for a slightly better zoom lens?

All and any advice gratefully received.

Cheers,
Dean
 
The 50mm with probably be sharper (and almost defo faster) than a cheap zoom, but a zoom will almost certainly give you a bit more scope for you in your early days. So I'd try to go for a zoom myself.

You should be able to pick a second hand kit lens quite cheaply I would think.
 
Thanks, Badger, that's my feelings too.

I'm also really inspired by some of the macro stuff people have posted so will have a little look at those lenses too.
 
anyone in your position (new to dlsr's) should buy the 50mm f1.8 - it is such a great little lens, especially when you consider how cheap it is.

when it comes to something longer for wildlife i would really advise you to wait and buy something decent.

alternatively i have the canon 100mm f2.8 macro. The beauty of this lens is that it is a great macro lens, work well as a portrait, has a nice wide (f2.8) aperture, and its 100mm may also work for you as a wildlife lens. it's a great lens.
 
Thank you, Camera, this is exactly what I have done. I've seen some pictures taken with the 50mm f1.8 and I'm sold. In fact I've just bought one. :)

I'm going to follow people advise and get to know my camera with this lens first before moving on to something with more zoom.
 
I think you have done the right thing in getting the 50mm f1.8 for now.
I have found that wildlife needs a minimum of at least 300mm. I have a 400mm and would still like a longer focal length.
 
When you get tired of that 50mm f/1.8 as your solo lens, which will not be long, get an 18-55 IS kit lens. Which is what you should have done in the first place.

When you have worked your way around that for a while, you should be in a much better position to know what other lenses you want.
 
HoppyUK said:
When you get tired of that 50mm f/1.8 as your solo lens, which will not be long, get an 18-55 IS kit lens. Which is what you should have done in the first place.

When you have worked your way around that for a while, you should be in a much better position to know what other lenses you want.
Click to expand...

I'd tend to agree with the principle of that. I'd have opted for a different lens, probably the 28-105 (won't be wide enough for some :p ) which is a cracking lens for the money.
 
HoppyUK said:
When you get tired of that 50mm f/1.8 as your solo lens, which will not be long, get an 18-55 IS kit lens. Which is what you should have done in the first place.

When you have worked your way around that for a while, you should be in a much better position to know what other lenses you want.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion, but the reason I chose to go the route I did was my limited budget. I could afford a factory refurbished body, but not along with the kit lens. My friends and my own research led me to conclude that the kit lens wasn't a great lens and I'd probably disregard it quickly and I couldn't afford to have a redundant lens.

This way I've bought a cracking lens that I can enjoy for a long time and I still have some money to save towards my next next. Also I can borrow an 18-55 on long-term lone from a friend anytime I wish - as well as try out any of his numerous lenses.

By the way, I'm not a naughty schoolboy so please don't condescend me by telling me what I should or shouldn't do. Advice is appreciated, condescension rarely is.
 
If you want to add Macro to that, then a set of tube rings will get you up and running. The cheap ebay ones will work for a really tight budget (I have a set and can confirm they do work), the downside is a loss of control of the lens, not insurmountable though.
 
jgs001 said:
If you want to add Macro to that, then a set of tube rings will get you up and running. The cheap ebay ones will work for a really tight budget (I have a set and can confirm they do work), the downside is a loss of control of the lens, not insurmountable though.
Click to expand...

Thanks, John. Yes, I've been reading about them and I'll probably go that way to begin with as a way to experiment.

Basically, I'm just REALLY excited about the potential of this as a hobby after finding my health meant golf was too frustrating right now.
 
The23rdman said:
Thank you for your opinion, but the reason I chose to go the route I did was my limited budget. I could afford a factory refurbished body, but not along with the kit lens. My friends and my own research led me to conclude that the kit lens wasn't a great lens and I'd probably disregard it quickly and I couldn't afford to have a redundant lens.

This way I've bought a cracking lens that I can enjoy for a long time and I still have some money to save towards my next next. Also I can borrow an 18-55 on long-term lone from a friend anytime I wish - as well as try out any of his numerous lenses.

By the way, I'm not a naughty schoolboy so please don't condescend me by telling me what I should or shouldn't do. Advice is appreciated, condescension rarely is.
Click to expand...

If I was condescending I apologise, but the advice you have been given is 'unusual' to say the least, given that the 50mm f/1.8 is your only lens. Any criticism is directed at your advisors, not to you. You can do far more with an 18-55 lens and the IS version is both very good an affordable. You don't say why in particular you chose the 50 1.8, which is a very specific lens if you are to make the most of it, so in the absence that information it doesn't look like the best chocie. Not a bad choice as such, just not the best as starter lens.

It is extremely limiting, quite a lot too long as anything like a general use lens on crop format and not the most versatile introduction to DSLR photography at all. It is very much a one trick pony - it does f/1.8, that is it. Good for portraits mainly. It is a throw-back to the standard lenses on film cameras from the 1970s before zooms existed and the format was larger.

The 18-55 IS kit lens is very good quality and equally good value. It sells for similar money to the 50mm f/1.8. There is one for sale in the Classifieds here for £70.
 
John, thank you for your more in depth and considered answer. I apologise for getting shirty before. :)

I think Joel recommended the 50mm because my initial conversations with him involved me being inspired by some of his low light portrait stuff. I recognise the 50mm is limited and I also now acknowledge the IS lens is a different beast to the II version.

I can still go to the 18-55 within budget, but now am not so sure what to do as I really can only afford one other lens for the foreseeable future.
 
The23rdman said:
John, thank you for your more in depth and considered answer. I apologise for getting shirty before. :)

I think Joel recommended the 50mm because my initial conversations with him involved me being inspired by some of his low light portrait stuff. I recognise the 50mm is limited and I also now acknowledge the IS lens is a different beast to the II version.

I can still go to the 18-55 within budget, but now am not so sure what to do as I really can only afford one other lens for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

John? I'm Richard, but no worries :)

When it comes to lenses, as a starter package you cannot beat the kit lens. Have a good go with that before getting anything else. It will do landscapes and portraits, reasonable close ups and general walkabout stuff. Quite a lot really, but the thing most people want next is usually reach, from a 50-200mm zoom or similar range. Good sport sport, cars, general action, the sort of thing you can't get close to.

When it comes to lenses, the choices boil down like this.
Kit lens, versatile general purpose as discussed.
Tele-zoom, getting closer, as above.
Super-wide, 10-20mm, get everything in from close up, dynamic perspective effects. Drama!

Then it gets more specialised. Macro for ultra close ups. Low f/number for shallow depth of field like the 50 1.8 (there are other ways of shooting just low light). Super tele for wildlife. And don't forget a decent flash gun, which can make a huge difference to your photography.

Good luck :)
 
Tbh i dont think the 50mm is a bad starter lens, yes you are limited with it being your only lens and having no zoom, but this means you will have to concentrate on your composition and i think it will help your photography in the long run.

an 18-55 would have given you more at the wide angle but if your looking at macro and wildlife then that might not be very useful to you and i think the 50mm will be a lens you keep rather than a starting point.

Now if you can get hold of a cheep second hand 17-85mm EFs you might find it more useful as it has more reach. However, in the same sort of range as the 18-55 there is the 55-250 EFs which given you want macro and wildlife might be a better starting point.
 
HoppyUK said:
John? I'm Richard, but no worries :)

When it comes to lenses, as a starter package you cannot beat the kit lens. Have a good go with that before getting anything else. It will do landscapes and portraits, reasonable close ups and general walkabout stuff. Quite a lot really, but the thing most people want next is usually reach, from a 50-200mm zoom or similar range. Good sport sport, cars, general action, the sort of thing you can't get close to.

When it comes to lenses, the choices boil down like this.
Kit lens, versatile general purpose as discussed.
Tele-zoom, getting closer, as above.
Super-wide, 10-20mm, get everything in from close up, dynamic perspective effects. Drama!

Then it gets more specialised. Macro for ultra close ups. Low f/number for shallow depth of field like the 50 1.8 (there are other ways of shooting just low light). Super tele for wildlife. And don't forget a decent flash gun, which can make a huge difference to your photography.

Good luck :)
Click to expand...

Oops! Sorry about the name!

Thanks again - all very useful stuff.
 
Toothie said:
Tbh i dont think the 50mm is a bad starter lens, yes you are limited with it being your only lens and having no zoom, but this means you will have to concentrate on your composition and i think it will help your photography in the long run.

an 18-55 would have given you more at the wide angle but if your looking at macro and wildlife then that might not be very useful to you and i think the 50mm will be a lens you keep rather than a starting point.

Now if you can get hold of a cheep second hand 17-85mm EFs you might find it more useful as it has more reach. However, in the same sort of range as the 18-55 there is the 55-250 EFs which given you want macro and wildlife might be a better starting point.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I'll consider both of those.

My reading also made me aware that using the 50mm will mean I'll have to work on composition more and this is an area I's like to work on early anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top