recommended lenses for everyday shooting?
 

ive decided to pick up the new cannon digital rebel and should be getting it in the next few days.

being that im fairly new to the world of camera lenses, i just wanted some input on which lenses i should carry at all times. i basically want maybe 3 lenses for different applications. i do alot of portrait work and pictures of cars and some action photography. i also like to take pictures of scenery and sunsets and what not. i also want to get at least 1 macro lens. which lenses should i get? budget is tight, so i need to make wise choices. thanks in advance!

For me, if I had to choose: a 28mm, a 100mm and a macro---since you said you wanted a macro. Note: I'm not familar with new Canon lenses, plus I'm not into zoom lenses---but 1 zoom lens may be all want you need + a macro.

I really like my 28-135 IS. Of course it's the only lens I own other than the 300mm and 1.4x :)

John, another thing you might want to do is check out some of the lens test/ratings websites. Many times the expensive lens will not be as good as the cheap lens. I've found this to be the case with Nikon lenses, and others.

Following up on Frank's suggestion, you may want to check out Photodo for comparisons.

thanks for all the tips! any more suggestions!? post what you have! thanks in advance...

Depending on how tight your budget is, you could look at getting a set of diopters for whatever lens you go with. That will give you pretty good macro capabilities for a fraction of the cost. Some people don't like them, but unless you're doing at least 50% of your stuff in macro they should be fine.

If you like low light or available light photography, the 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 are great lenses. Both are very sharp and make great portrait lenses (80mm effective focal length). The F1.8 can be had cheap too.

hmm...thanks for all your suggestions!

i got my camera setup, finally, and now, i have to do some studying!

my camera came with an EF-S 18mm-55mm lens. Ive taken over 600 shots with the camera over the past 2 days, and i realize that i need a lens with more zoom capibility...i went to the zoo and had a hard time zooming up on the animals...the lens is good for closer photography...maybe 4 or 5 feet away from the subject.

hmm...how much does the 28-135 IS lens go for? I know IS stands for image stabilization. Ive seen the difference between the IS lenses and lenses without IS, and it is a big difference. I also notice that alot of my shots are a little blury. hmm...well, here are some pics that ive taken thus far...

Any tips on which lenses to get would be awesome. Thanks in advance...

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6
Image 7
Image 8
Image 9
Image 10
Image 11

Post your thoughts...

I'm not into zoom lenses at all. The typical basic kit is a 28, 50 and 85. For action it depends on how far from the action. Professional sports from the stands will need a 300 or more to get close.

Just looked at yourshots and noticed on 4,5 and 7 a lot of problems, I think, with bokeh and multiple images. If it was film I would point to your lens.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : Just looked at yourshots and noticed on 4,5 and 7 a lot of problems, I think, with bokeh and multiple images. If it was film I would point to your lens. -->>>

could you explain the problems to me, please?

John,

If your looking for a macro lens then I would seriously consider the 100/2.8. It's a very nice lens and with the 50 you would probably be finding your self looking for extension tubes.

The 50/1.4 is also a great lens, just as Jeff suggested, it's fast, sharp and light. It produces beautiful images and makes it very easy to control the DOF.

There's nothing wrong with zooms providing you stay away from the bottom of the barrel. The 28-135 is a nice lens with a good range and IS to boot. However, if your budget can stretch a little further I'd look at either a second-hand 17-35/2.8 or the new 17-40/4 as your primary lens to give you wide angle view due to the 1.6 multiplication factor.

On the big and expensive side the 70-200/2.8 is a lens any serious amature/semi-pro shouldn't be without. You can pickup a second hand non-IS version for less than a grand if you shop around. This is the niceest lens I have ever owned. It gets a bit heavy after a long day of lugging it around but the images are worth it. It's fast focusing and extremely sharp for a zoom, just as sharp as many non-L primes, and if you get the IS version well, you get IS.

Your shots look pretty good. The 18-55 lens that came with your camera could be the reason some of them look a little soft. It's a low-cost lens designed for everyday use with that camera. THe shot of the dog looks good, which is the type of shot this lens is designed for. Maybe the flowers look a little soft because it's not a macro lens and maybe you were a littel too close.

Look at the out of focus areas in the background. It seems there are 2-4 reflected images coming from the same point though there's only one true background image. Also, one of the pictures seems to show a small white flower that's out of focus but has a black hole in the center. I can't tell if that's because the flower has a dark center or the lens is creating that (it shouldn't).

The small white flower with a dark center may be a dust spot on the CMOS sensor. When the scene is exposed with a small diameter lens opening (lens stopped down to F32 for example) dust spots sometimes show as the anomaly Rob describes. Check the procedure for cleaning dust spots. I use a large blower to clean the sensor. Do not use liquids, q-tips, dust-off or any other canned or compressed air.

John's lens is very modestly priced in the Digital Rebel package. It only adds a $100 USD to the total cost. The images look very nice and show off some of the advantages and disadvantages of digital and modestly priced lenses. I would suggest the 28-135mm IS lens or follow Adrian's advice. You might also look for a used 20-35mm lens.