Now I want to have some advices which lense(s) to buy. I don't have any lenses as my last SLR was compact one with a non-changeable lense. Most kits and I think I'll buy one too have a Canon EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 USM lens. And I want to have another lense up to 300mm. Which one would you advice me. It should be a good one but not too expensive as I don't have so much money to spent on it now. And I don't have a clue which one is good and which one not. Maybe you will advice me to buy a 350D with another kit-lens, maybe not. Any input is very welcome by me.
Thanks for your help.
Sean377 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, RR: 36
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7640 times:
I've a feeling you're going to get a lot of differing answers and opinions on this subject. But as you are on a rather tight budget, it's going to make your choice a little easier, as you'll probably be buying at the cheaper end of the market, ruling out Canon's 'L' series professional lenses (having said that, give some serious consideration to the 70-200f4L. It's Canon's cheapest L series lens and as such is very popular with many people here. Image quality is excellent).
Of course you have the choice of 3rd party lenses such as Sigma and Tamron. They have many fans too. I don't have any experience with them so I'll let others make their recommendations on them.
The Canon EF-S 18-55mm is not a very good lens, but it's cheap and somewhere to start. Whether you buy it or not depends really on what other good deals you can get with another lens.
Looking forward to seeing the recommendations.
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!
Manc From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7633 times:
I have the Canon 70-300mm IS USM III lens, no complains from me so far.
latest shots from me, its a little cheaper than the 70-200L lens previously mentioned but by the sounds of it most peoples choices for the first lens its either the 70-300mm IS USM III or the 70-200L. L range is optically better but the Image Stabiliser helps. I had the same tough choice.
EDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7626 times:
Wouldn't recommend the 18-55 kit lens. Go for the 24-85 or 28-105 on the wide end (would keep the 18-55 though for the 18 mm end though). Both lenses are excellent value for money. For the long end get a 75-300 III USM (non-IS) if you are on a really tight budget, otherwise go for the 70-200 f/4 L or the new 70-300 IS. You are going to replace your 75-300 later anyway.
I had the same problem when buying my first DSLR (never had a SLR before, so no glass), and went for the Canon 24-85 and the 70-200 f/4 L. Absolutely no regrets so far ...
Later on I added the 1.4x Extender to get some extra reach. Well ... now the 70-200L is collecting dust in my backpack as I have a new toy: Sigma 50-500EX DG (optically inferior to the 70-200 though).
Phil / EDDL
EDIT: don't forget to look for used glass on ebay or a similar site ... many people are replacing their wideangle lenses with the new 24-105L. No problem to get a good deal on a 24-85 or 28-105 ...
Morvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7611 times:
Hehe, I was in the same situation you are in right now!
So, I woke up one morning and ordered a Canon eos 300D kit with the 18-55 Lens and a second lens that was the 75-300 USM III. I can be very simple about the 18-55.. Don't buy it.
I never used it with spotting. There are just better ones available in a bigger range (up to 75mm or SO to fill the 55-70/75 gap).
About a 300mm. I bought the 75-300 USM III and I was totally not happy about it.
Simple as that. I didn't got many good results with it, at least not with fast moving objects. Both DTM and planes potting that was.
If you are on a really tight budget, buy a Sigma 28-300. Not to expensive and all the range you need, but also not very good. Buying this lens will give you time to learn and spent money on a IS lens (100-400 or 75-300 USM III IS) or a L lens.
If you are having a little bigger budget, go for the canon 70-200 F4 L
If you have a lot of time spending around an airport, the 75-300 USM III maybe can do the trick for you to come home with some very descend shots SO now and then. I just didn't had that time to have that with my lens.
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7605 times:
Quoting EDDL (Reply 6): You are going to replace your 75-300 later anyway.
Absolutely 100% correct. I just sold my 75-300 IS on E-Bay, and for an extra $100 I had a 70-200 F4 L in my bag. Much better image quality - although I will admit I really miss having image stabilization.
As for a good lens for the 350D - I'd say anything with the word "Canon" on it is a good lens! Don't let anyone here trash-talk the 18-55mm kit lens - just do a search and see how many tens of thousands of airliners.net photos were taken with that lens (myself included). Yes, the 17-85 IS and other short L lenses are great - but man what a budget you'd need. If he's going for the 350D and not a 5D - he may not have the budget to buy a bagfull of L's.
One of my most popular shots was taken with the 18-55 - at 55mm - on a 300D, and was accepted at 1600 wide. Trust me - it's a decent lens!
WhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 days ago) and read 7591 times:
I absolutely agree with Drew. Don't under estimate the 18-55 kit lens. I've taken some stunning personal shots (none aviation related, I don't think), but another EXCELLENT photographer here has some other stunning shots with the lens, here's one of my all time favourites...
WhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7527 times:
Quoting Sean377 (Reply 12): Quoting WhyWhyZed (Reply 10):
Canon 70-200L f/4 (At first I was concerned about this lens, but I'm starting to enjoy it)
What were your initial concerns Jason. That it was actually any sharper than your non-L glass?
Well I never really had a chance to play with it too much at the airport, because seeing as I live in the great white north, the days I had a chance to, were always crappy.
Even with non-aviation photos, I never noticed anything to spectacular, but my opinion is really changing, as I'm getting used to the lens. I just had to work myself in.
The things I do miss between the 70-200 f/4 and the 75-300 USM IS that I had, are...
1) The 100mm extra length
2) The IS really helped me, I tend to have shaky hands... And it allowed me to be a bit more creative with motion blurred shots.
But all in all, the 70-200 is growing on me. I think I still might eventually get the 100-400L mostly for the length and IS, but I'll probably keep the 70-200 f/4 also. We'll see.
Willo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7499 times:
If money is very tight, I can recommend the latest version of the Sigma 75-300 APO DG Macro. OK, it's not "L" glass but it isn't "L" glass price at about 230 dollars. This lens also gets far better reviews than comparable (i.e.non "L") Canon lenses in various on-line photography forum.
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7478 times:
Thanks for the many replies. I think I'll give the 18-55 EFS a chance as it's normally included in the kit available here. I'll also go to a good camera shop in Dresden and ask what the have on offer. Maybe I can get a good deal there including a bigger lens, better than a Mega-Electronic market with no service.
Thanks again for your input guys, it's good to know I can get help here on Anet whenever I need it.