Whats a good lens for a novice photgrapher
 

im getting into photography...

I picked up a Canon XT for cheap, its good... didnt want to spend a lot because im not sure if im really going to like it all the much.

it came with a stock 18-55mm. good but need a good zoom lens.
again i dont want to spend a whole lot, something good for my to get a feel before i start dumping money into it.



also, i read about this Adapter Ring that can fit a Nikon mount lens onto the Canon body, Is this good? ive been looking around and there are sooo much more nikon lens for sale then canon. does it only work for Nikon brand lens or 3rd party like sigma/tamron...


another question is, i also read about an extender for lens, does this work for all canon lens or certain lens?

Stay with canon lens.
You prob don't need a zoom lens, a great starter lens is the 50mm 1.8. You'll be amazed at the quality and flexibility of it
Posted via RS Mobile

zoom lens are expensive. like for a decent lens such as a 18-200mm willl cost you around $700. But you won't need to switch lenses with your kits.

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/nv...965999803.html

although with a 18-200 don't expect the greatest quality throughout the range

Tamron also makes an 18-270 is another extremely flexible lens


For the adapter rings I don't think they have actual autofocus, at best is an AF confirm which tells you it is in focus, don't quote me on this cause I haven't looked into it. >.<

The extenders only work with certain lenses. As well there are drawbacks. Any imperfections will be more noticeable and you'll lose a stop of light. Extenders are usually only good with f4 or faster lenses.

Don't bother with the adapter. It'd be more worthwhile to just get a Nikon instead.

I'd get a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4. They're a lot of fun to shoot with and really flexible and you'll get a nice bokeh at the wider apertures.

My 50mm 1.4 is still my favorite lens and I usually always have it on my camera

TBH in your situation you might want to get the captain obvious 55-250 if you don't mind having to switch lenses, then you have a good amount of range. I have the 55-250 myself and it has very good image quality and IS, there are a lot out there on craigslist so shop around, you'll probably find one under 250

imo, 1st lens is a 50mm f1.8 then try to save up and get yourself some f2.8 lens

I would say get either the 50mm f1.8 and/or the 55-200mm.

Then you will start to feel the first symptoms of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and lust after the higher end bodies and lenses! There is no cure, only the suppression of the symptoms via the purchase of more and more gear! :D

^ this is no joke. once you make up your mind, welcome to the dark side of photography :(

I got baaaad GAS :rofl:

I also say the 55-200mm would be a good choice.

I nearly spent all of the money I earned over the summer because of GAS... it was well worth it though!

18-200 is a pos.

Dont bother with the 50mm 1.8 as a beginner, you wont be using primes much.

go with the 24-105L f4, best all round carry lens ever. When you get more advanced start moving into primes if u like that route.

i bought my 50mm 1.8 2 months after i got my first dslr because it was the "thing to have" and everyone loved it. Although a decent lens, I used it once to test out and never touched it again until i sold it 2 years ago. Loved the versatility of zooms much more as a beginner/amateur. Gonna be getting a 50L and 85L in the near future and ditch my zooms now as they fit my work now more.

I have a 17-85. I'm loving it
I also have a 28-105 mk II that I used as my primary up until I got the 17-85mm. Great quality (for what I use my pictures for...) and quite cheap (costed me $300 and the thing was practically brand new)

i started out with a sigma 17-70mm. it had a good range and i like the warmth it provided the pictures. the contrast was good and so was the sharpness. back then it was about 450+ taxes (about 3 years ago) and to me the pictures were sharper than the canon 17-85.

i liked that it was f2.8 even just between 17-20mm, since mostly indoors i would use the 17mm and the 2.8F was great to have.

i think sigma came out with a newer version, with stabilization, but im not sure how much it would cost now.

^ I bought the sigma 17-70 macro OS 2.8-4.0 in HK for about $400.
I love that lens, really good macro and such versatility good walkaround lens,
my 17-40L is just sitting around collecting dust because of it.

As for the 50mm prime, I wouldn't suggest the OP getting it, even though the quality is good the versatility definitely isn't, and 50mm on a crop sensor is pretty damn long for normal use. I still want one though as I covered most of the focal lengths I need, right now for my prime I'm using an old Contax 50mm with an AF confirm adaptor. I'm pretty happy with it and don't really need the AF either.

i just picked up the Canon 55-250mm IS for $225. Playing with it at work.. very very nice zoom... now if i have a more steadier hand.. haha...

the image stabilizer doesnt work that well..

My first Lens was a 50mm 1.8 nikkor....then I sold that to get the Sigma 50mm 1.4....probably the best 700bux I ever spent.

not to mention, the bokeh in a 1.4 at wide open makes the girls you shoot.. get into ur bed...no joke.

If you think the 55-200 is nice, try the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. :p

Congrats on the new lens.



Is it a big improvement over the original? Haven't been able to compare the mkII against my mkI. Hardly touched mine since I got the 300mm 2.8 IS though... :bigthumb:

Here are some pics I took with that lens @ QE This summer, some of the resolutions aren't that great cos I shrunk them to upload, I'm not really good at editing so these are just straight out of iphoto with maybe some brightness/contrast tweaking
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/20..._justoncha.jpg
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/20..._justoncha.jpg
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20..._justoncha.jpg
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/i/20..._justoncha.jpg

I'm pretty happy with the control you get with it, but I definitely don't use that lens enough, it's tremendous value IMO

The mkII is noticeably sharper and much faster to acquire focus.

you knw what fast in aquiring focus? the 400L. omgwtfbbq. Was playing with it at PDN expo.

Which 400L?

Nikon's 400mm f2.8 is lightning quick on a D3s too.

canon one