Advise on camera lens selection

[mightec]

I am looking for more advise, this time on lens selection. I have purchased a Canon EOS 50D with 17-85 IS USM kit lens. I chose the 50D over the 7D so that I could afford to buy other suitable lenses. I think in the short term my interest will be taking landscapes, wildlife, family, we have four, soon to be five grandchildren. Later I am looking to take macro photographs. Should I keep to canon lenses and if so which would be best to buy with a budget of £1000.00.

[chris-p]

Thats quite a broad spectrum of potential types of shot. There's no specific reason to stay with Canon branded lenses all the time. It's really a case of how much money you want to spend and what the best options are for that money.

Traditionally for landscapes you want something wider than the 17mm of your 17-85mm lens. You have a couple of options at this end, the most popular of which is the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 which is around £400 new. I bought mine second hand of an old DCM forum member and have always been very impressed. There is also a Canon one (the EF-S 10-22mm) but thats more like £650-£700.

For wildlife, you'd be looking at a much longer lens, usually 200mm and upwards. The best options here (trying to keep within budget that is) are probably either the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS (about £225) or the Canon EF-S 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS (about £425). You can find cheaper third party alternatives but the Canon lenses generally out-perform the cheaper alternatives here.

Macro wise, the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro is popular and costs about £350. Another very popular option is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro which is also about £350. The Tamron is longer (often an advantage especially for insects/animals where you don't have to get so close and run the risk of disturbing the subject) and in a recent review in AP magazine, the Tamron came out better than the Canon 60mm.

You could cover most eventualities for £1000 with the Sigma 10-20mm, the Canon 55-250mm and the Tamron 90mm but that is 4 lenses to cart around...

[mightec]

Chris
Thank you for a detailed response, so it seems possible for my budget, I assume that there is no option to the number of lenses required. Is there any benefit in going for Canon EF-S 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS over the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, how do you choose. Also I cannot find the 55-250mm on Camera Price Buster, but they list a 55-200mm?

[matt wilson]

Hi .

I have the 50 d .

I got the sigma wide angle Chris suggests and am very pleased with it (it consistently gets highly rated in reviews even against the Canon lens which is much more expensive)build quality and image quality are excellent and I doubt you could get better)

In terms of the macro I went for a slightly longer Canon lens the 100mm canon 2.8.It is simply stunning in terms of the quality probably my sharpest lens.(it's not just a macro lens either as it becomes a short telephoto on the 50d.(one thing to think about with macro is that to get the true life size images of the subjects you are after you are often right on top of them,to this end a longer macro lens gives you a greater working distance)

Wildlife wise I would say you could do with something that will extend the range and therefore opt for 300 at the long length.(also if you go for the shorter telephoto you end up duplicating focal lengths,seems silly to have a standard zoom going to 85mm and a tele zoom that starts at 55mm
(i went for a 100 to 400 canon zoom but even second hand that's your budget gone on one lens )

true macro is a specialist field ,if it was me I would perhaps delay that purchase ,it really depends where your photographic preferences are.

[mightec]

Hi Matt
Thanks again for your comments, most interesting, note your point on Macro, it is more of a long term option. You certainly get your monies worth from the forum, thanks again.

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by mightec

Chris. Thank you for a detailed response, so it seems possible for my budget, I assume that there is no option to the number of lenses required. Is there any benefit in going for Canon EF-S 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS over the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, how do you choose. Also I cannot find the 55-250mm on Camera Price Buster, but they list a 55-200mm?

The main factor with the number of lenses is how much kit you want to carry about. Of course, you don't have to take every lens with you everywhere you go.

The main benefit of the 70-300 over the 55-250 is the extra 50mm at the long end. It will make a difference. I'm not sure about any difference in image quality but it might be worth checking out the Fred Miranda site which has loads of reviews from people who actually own and use the lenses.
The 55-250 can be found here

Originally Posted by matt wilson

In terms of the macro I went for a slightly longer Canon lens the 100mm canon 2.8.It is simply stunning in terms of the quality probably my sharpest lens.(it's not just a macro lens either as it becomes a short telephoto on the 50d.(one thing to think about with macro is that to get the true life size images of the subjects you are after you are often right on top of them,to this end a longer macro lens gives you a greater working distance)

Macro lenses are usually sharper than non-macro monofocal optics. The only criticism of the Tamron 90mm was actually that, when used as a portrait lens (it's classic portrait length) it might actually be too sharp!

There is an enormous range of lenses you can choose from, I suppose you pay your money and make your choice...

If it was me I'd have the 70-300mm (which I do - but the Nikon version and I love it to pieces) over the 55-250mm - as Matt has already said, you're not duplicating as much focal length and that extra 50mm is an advantage.

You won't go wrong with the Sigma 10-20mm and there really is no point in spending the extra money on the f/3.5 version. It's not like you can get shallow DoF at that short a focal length anyway.

Macro wise, the Tamron 90mm is the best option while keeping you inside your budget if you were purchasing it now(ish). However, taking a more long term view, there are loads of other lenses you could choose from. The Sigma 105mm f/2.8 is another great macro lens and they even do 150mm and 180mm versions (the 180mm is £480 on WEx - the Canon 180mm macro is nearly £1300!).
Again, a hunt around sites like Fred Miranda will probably yield lots of reviews from users of these lenses.

[mightec]

HI Chris
Thanks again, I have been looking at the 70-300mm lens and have found that Sigma make what appears to be a similar lens, not sure if it is the same spec or not. Does anyone have any experience of the SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG OS EOS which is priced at circa £315.00 compared to the CANON EF 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 USM IS which is priced at circa £430.00. The Sigma comes with a Lens Hood, whilst Canon charge an extra £40.00, making a difference of circa £155.00.

[chris-p]

I's a fair old price difference. I'm not a Canon user so I've no experience of the Canon lens and I've never used the Sigma in any of it's different mounts. I've heard mixed reviews about the Sigma 70-300's though so I would suggest trying the Fred Miranda site for reviews.

The thing to remember is that if you bought the Sigma, for example, you'd not have used the Canon one to compare it against so you'd be happy with it. I'd suggest trying both lenses out in a camera shop on your camera and see what you think.