lookin to get new lens'

[blacknightteg]

alright so lately i have been trying to promise myself that i am going get back into photography. i got my camera started taking pictures and then just kinda stopped. i want to start taking pictures again, when i have free time. ill be taking pictures of stuff out doors, cars of course and lord knows what else.

so right now all my set up consists of is a canon xs and the standard out of hte box lens. from you sem-pro/pros point of view's whats good lenses to start out with.

[blacknightteg]

anyone?

[james]

i would go with a longer lens. like 70-200 f4. but thats just me. you could cheap out and get the 55-250 for like 250-300 bucks.

[Tarzanman]

It depends on what you're going for. If you want a longer zoom, then the Canon 55-250mm IS f/4-5.6 is the most logical step (only ~$250)

If you want image quality and low light performance, then the Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens is the way to go (~$110)

I would not bother with the Canon 70-200 f/4. It is big (physically), lacks the speed of the 70-200 IS f/2.8 and only has half a stop advantage over the 55-250.

IMO, the 70-200 f/4 is just not the best way to stretch your dollar if you are interested in fast lenses. If you need great image quality at that range, then get a long prime (85mm, 100mm, 135mm) and use sneaker zoom.

My advice: Get the 50mm f/1.8 so that you can get a taste for what a fast, sharp lens can do for you. Its also the cheapest option.

-EDIT-

As an aside, I have a Tamron 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 I am willing to part with (Canon mount) if you're interested.

[A.A]

my replacement for the kit-lens was the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 link to review site (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=321&sort=7&cat=37&page=1)

This review site has served me well... fredmiranda.com

I have had mine for like 4 years now and it is still in working order. If I were you I would start by getting a replacement for your kit lens in its usable range and then fill in the gaps with an ultra wide when it is time and a longer lens when it is time. It does suck not having the length to get those far away shots but it sucks even more to have too long of a lens and you can't frame a shot.

in a prefect world I would get all primes because hands down they are just better.

and finally... if I had the money to do it I would get 3 lenses that cover all your ranges (up to 200mm) a wide 10-20ish, a 24-70 2.8, and a 70-200mm 2.8... all would run you $1,500 to $2,000 if you use sigma glass.

most of the things I shoot are with this lens... a cheep ass $350 lens
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v459/kurtscarpics/DHS-26-17-copy.jpg

[uproot]

Get either a long lens 70-200 or 55-200; or a nice prime lens (fixed focal length), like a 50mm f1.8 or something like that. Primes will force you to compose by physically moving around and generally are sharper and faster.

[james]

I would not bother with the Canon 70-200 f/4. It is big (physically), lacks the speed of the 70-200 IS f/2.8 and only has half a stop advantage over the 55-250.


holy contradiction.:rolleyes:

[Nemesis]

holy contradiction.:rolleyes:

After a while of not visiting this section, I was hoping he would have disappeared into the black hole he came out. But... :no:

[Tarzanman]

holy contradiction.:rolleyes:

Clearly I'm missing something here. Care to point out the contradiction (i.e. both things I said that were opposite)?