New to DSLRs..

[shuveshek]

Hi,
I am very new to photography but i am very passionate abut it....After an extensive research I have now invested in a Canon 1000D(Rebel XS)....I just want to know what kinda photos can be taken best using the standard Kit lens(18-55mm)....

I want to invest in another lens coz i am interested in nature and wildfile photography as well as potrait photography.So,can anyone suggest which will be the best Lens for the purpose.

[Elmo]

Your desires cover quiet a range. Generally landscape is considered to be a wide angle endeavor low mm numbers. For your camera a FL range of 10 to 28mm would be good starting range. For portraits the normal range would be from 35 to 100mm. Wild life suggest using FL from say 100 to 800mm. So you might notice no single lens fits the bill. And we have not even mentioned lense speed or quality.

So what am saying is you have a usable body and lens learn to use what you have. Do not get caught up in the equipment races. I was a successful photographer for many years (had images shown in galleries all over the world) and had only one single FL lens (not even a zoom).

As you learn to use what you have you will learn what you really like to photograph and what the right equipment will be. I currently have over a dozen lenses and use only one of them 95% of the time. This lens gives about the same range as your kit lens.

Save your money until you know what you need.

[inkista]

Yup. If you're still asking what kind of lenses you need, rather than which lens is better A or B, then you probably need a little more time with your equipment and to study up on lenses.

Here's a good basic guide to lenses and what all the numbers mean in practical shooting terms.

Also, while people will make generalizations about things like wide lenses are used for landscape and telephotos are used for wildlife, in individual cases, this may not be true. I know folks who shoot hummingbirds with macro lenses and landscapes with telephotos. Any lens can be used for any subject matter, it depends on how you want to compose it and how you shoot. All anybody can do is tell you what mostly works for themselves, or what popular opinion is, but you may be an outlier.

I know I am. The second lens I bought was an 8mm circular fisheye. Most folks never find a need for a fisheye AT ALL. And if they do, it's typically a diagonal not a circular. For me, it's a staple lens that never leaves my bag.

You have to figure out your own individual needs before you can figure out what's the best fit.

That said, if you're on a budget and you have to spend <$300 on a lens, the ($250) EF-S 55-250 IS is probably your best bet for a telephoto zoom. It won't be ideal for wildlife, since it's slow and has no USM, but it can get you by and it's stabilized. And for portraits, the EF 50mm f/1.8 II is a good low-cost fast prime. Again, not ideal as it's longer than normal on a crop. But the image quality is better than your 18-55, it has a large maximum aperture, and it's cheap ($100).

[shuveshek]

Thanks Elmo and Inkista

Well as i mentioned i am jus abu a toddler here so will time to learn..But thanks so much to both of u for ur inputs..The link which u sent is very helpful and i have started clicking away..I'll soon be posting my captures so pls feel free to comment on them..The harsher the better ...

[bribears]

One more "two cents" opinion. My quick answer to your questions is get a "nifty fifty" for $100 and try the stock lens for outdoor photos. That said, I think you desire to shoot similarly to myself so let me share my 8 month experiences with my lenses.

I too got a Canon 8 months ago with the 18-55mm lens. I quickly found that my interests for shots were majority photos of my kids and wildlife\sports. At first I found the stock lens to be fine for outdoor, sunny day "portraits" It was by FAR not ideal for wildlife\sports. I quickly bought a 55-250mm, because I desired greater reach, did not fully comprehend what a better lens could do in comparison, and, most importantly, it was cheep. The 55-250 expanded my horizons greatly but still left me short of my subjects (mostly birds) and a noticed difficultly in good images at the 250mm range (I eventually bought a monopod which helped).

I took a photography class in the summer and met someone who was my opposite. She did mostly portraits and landscape. We compared notes on our gear. She found that there were applications for the 55-250 in her work that she hadn't thought off. I found that using her 50mm "normal" lens was a big improvement over the quality of my 18-55 pics. I bought the "nifty 50" 500mm lens for $100 and started playing. It is great for landscape and positioned portraits but when dealing with moving subjects the 55-250 was the lens I was using more than any other. Every once in a while I would use the 18-55 lens for wide angle stuff.

By end of summer I sold my 55-250 to that same friend and purchased a 70-300. WHAT A DIFFERENCE in my wildlife photos and abilities. At this time, four months in DSLR I was content. I took a sport photography class and had the opportunity to use an L series 70-200 f2.8 IS lens. The difference in creative ability that this lens opened for me quickly put it on my list as an upgrade for the 70-300. Meanwhile, I still love the 70-300 but having used a 70-200 I know the difference it can make to my sports and wildlife stuff. In particular I know it is a struggle and am handicapped for lower light sports photography (indoor stuff....it is winter where I live now).

I saved up $1000, no where near what is needed for a 70-200. Meanwhile I found myself shooting more outdoor scenes....fall\winter stuff and less sports. A recent trip netted 4 great bird shots with my 70-300. That coupled with a new flash from my wife for my birthday led me to focus on getting a better zoom "indoor" lens since I had become disenchanted with the stock lens. Enter a 24-105 f4L USM lens and a savings balance of zero. this lens is AWESOME for winter shots and great indoors, half the time even without my flash. The 18-55 is collecting dust and will be sold soon.

I am still looking to save up for a 70-200 2.8l lens before some football games and weddings next summer, but in the meantime the 24-105 will be my main lens. I will probably still use the 50mm 1.8 for any "non-moving" indoor subjects this winter and for macro stuff because of the aperature, but I don't see the 24-105 coming off the camera often right now.

So there is my eight months experience. I was blessed to get some extra odd jobs that enabled the funds for my two new $800-1000 lenses so I had the ability to buy, use, resell if needed. Many people would say to shoot, shoot, shoot....shoot some more, and then see where your lens is lacking. The resale value on these lenses is good so I prefer to buy what suits my needs knowing that as my photography progresses I will continue to upgrade and "ebay" my old stuff, but that is my situation. Remember there are many ways to rent\borrow lenses before you buy too.

So i would say, preference in order (assuming a limited budget) are:

Wildlife\sports:
70-200 2.8L (a must for indoor stuff. I plan to get a 2.x converter for outdoor wildlife too)
70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
55-250mm (you you are low on funds and want to try out a telephoto)

Portraiture:
an L series zoom if subjects are moving
a normal lens if subjects and distance is fixed the 50mm 1.8 or the 35mm f2 for a start

[shuveshek]

Thanks bribears for ur awesome input...I am jus playin around with the 18-55 kit lens and i must say its pretty good for wild angle shots..

Will resort to other lens as and when the need will arise...

Thanks for the reply anyways...

Cheerio