What lens should I buy

[Jill H]

I received some money at Christmas and I would like to spend it on a lens or two for my Canon EOS 450D. At the moment it has a couple of kit lenses with it. (18-55 & 55-250)

Whilst I think the bigger lens is "ok", I am not that happy with the smaller one - but then they are "kit" lenses and from what I read kit lenses are poor substitutes.

I love macro photography (flowers, light box work, etc - though not into insects) and also landscapes - I think I would like a little more zoom - so two extremes.

What would you consider would be two good lenses to buy?

I look forward to hearing others opinions. Thanks!

[wulf]

You've already got quite a long zoom range with your 55-250mm lens so it is going to start getting expensive to reach beyond that. What you don't have is a prime lens - one with no zoom at all. In exchange for giving up the zoom you often get improvements in other areas, not least because manufacturers can focus on a narrower range of parameters rather than trying to get a solution that works across the zoom range.

For example, one of the benefits is that most prime lenses can open to very wide apertures, making them great when the light is failing.

For your interests, there's probably something around the 85-105mm range as a fast prime with macro-focusing ability which won't break the bank.

Wulf

[BCampbell]

Canon has a 50mm Macro but it's a 1:2 magnification so it's not "true" macro. There are a range of other focal lengths that are true 1:1 macros: 60mm f/2.8 ($400), 100mm f/2.8 ($550), 100mm f/2.8L ($950), 180mm f/3.8L ($1400). There are lots of third party options, too: Sigma 50mm f/2.8 ($300), Tamron 60mm f/2 ($500), Sigma 70mm f/2.8 ($500), Tamron 90mm f/2.8 ($450), Sigma 105mm f/2.8 ($500), Sigma 150mm f/2.8 ($750), Tamron/Sigma 180mm f/3.5 ($700), lots more...

So, you obviously have a lot of options there. Many of those double as good prime lenses (macro lenses usually get a little more attention paid so the optics are better than decent), and the normal-to-telephoto range (say 50-100mm or so) make good portrait lenses.

There are zoom "macro" lenses but they usually don't go above 1:4 magnification.

For landscapes, it depends on what you're doing. Most people say go wide; you probably won't find a lot of primes that you'll love because you're on a crop body, but Canon makes some good lenses in 24, 28, and 35mm lengths, and there are some third party lenses in that focal length range that are worth looking into also. If you want to replace the kit lens, there are some great zooms for that; Sigma has an 18-50mm f/2.8 for about $400, Tamron has a 17-50mm f/2.8 for around $450, And Canon has the very impressive 17-40mm f/4L for $750 or so.

But it also depends on what you need. You don't have to go wide angle for landscapes. I'd say use your kit some more and see what you gravitate to, then look at what can fill that need.

[Jill H]

thanks guys - you have given me a lot to think about. So if I want to do macro light box or flower work, what would you consider to be the ideal macro lens? To go up to a pro lens I would need the 100mm f/2.8L ($950) is that price US$ ? I am in Australia - I should look on the Canon website - I just wanted some opinions from other photographers.

[RichardTaylor]

From all reports the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Autofocus Image Stabilizer Macro Lens is one of the better ~ 100mm macro lenses around, (I don't own one), and super sharp general purpose tele.

$AU1390 at Quality Camera Sales (In Western Australia). I don't work for them, however I have made purchases from them in the past.

If your budget doesn't stretch that far the other offering from Canon and Tamron around the same focal are good lenses.

I am happy with my Tokina 100 F2.8 macro although it doesn't see a lot of use..

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by Jill H

thanks guys - you have given me a lot to think about. So if I want to do macro light box or flower work, what would you consider to be the ideal macro lens? To go up to a pro lens I would need the 100mm f/2.8L ($950) is that price US$ ? I am in Australia - I should look on the Canon website - I just wanted some opinions from other photographers.

Yeah those are approximate prices in US$. You can probably find them a little lower if you shop around.

The 100mm f/2.8L is pretty amazing, by all accounts. Any of the others are very good as well, really. It mainly comes down to what focal length you need.

If you're comfortable with fully manual settings, there's a quick, dirty, and cheap macro workaround, too. Get a fully manual lens -- focus and aperture ring, you'll probably have to get an adapter for an old film lens -- and some extension tubes. Since the lens is manual, you don't need electronics in the tubes. So, something like an old Pentax k-mount 50mm f/2 is about $30 or so, a k-to-EOS adapter about $20 and the tubes about $20. You can even get magnification beyond 1:1, but it can get tricky with no autofocus and it might take a bit to figure metering out. Lots of trial and error down that road.

[raylfreeman]

I would not spend anything until I learned to produce good results with the "kit" lens. It is actually a very good lens that produces good photos. The "smaller" one is a better lens than the "larger" one.

If you are not getting above average results with it (small one), spending money on more expensive glass could be in vain.