Which lens for beginner DSLR user?

[ProudTexan]

I'm about to purchase a Canon T3i body and was wanting some advice on which lens to go with. I'm a newbie to DSLR so I don't need an "L" lens or anything that costs $1000. I'm contemplating the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens or the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. Is the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II worth the extra money or is the same as the original?

Which is the better lens to start with? A friend of mine recently purchased a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens but I've read a lot of reviews that say it isn't worth wasting money on. He said he uses it more now than the 18-55mm that came with the kit.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[RichardTaylor]

See this thread re a general purpose (18-55) lens.

New to DSLR - T2i or T3i?

Stay away from the 75-300 (I own one). There are at least 3 better lenses, covering this range, in Canon's line up.

Re the latest version of the 55-250, generally (and there are one or two exceptions) the latter versions of lenses are better.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by ProudTexan

I'm about to purchase a Canon T3i body and was wanting some advice on which lens to go with. I'm a newbie to DSLR so I don't need an "L" lens or anything that costs $1000. I'm contemplating the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens or the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens.

The 55-250mm lens is a "telephoto zoom"--it's a lens with higher magnification that will "bring objects closer". The 18-55 is a "walkaround" lens--something that can do wide angle shots, like landscape shooting and across-the-table portraits. Which one would be better as a first lens depends on what you plan to shoot, but most folks would probably go for a walkaround as a first lens, and add the telephoto a little later. Someone who's using a telephoto zoom all the time is either shooting wildlife or sports, or has not yet learned you can just walk up closer to your subject.

Is the 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II worth the extra money or is the same as the original?

It's an updated design, and should be slightly improved, given the MTF charts. They also added a UD element, vs. the Mk I's single ASPH element, so the chromatic aberration should be slightly better controlled. Overall, though, there's probably not a huge difference between the original and the Mk II.

+1 with Richard's advice to stay away from the 75-300 III. It's good at being cheap, but after a while, nearly everyone who gets it ends up upgrading to something nicer. I know I did.

[CaptB412]

Originally Posted by inkista

It's an updated design, and should be slightly improved, given the MTF charts. They also added a UD element, vs. the Mk I's single ASPH element, so the chromatic aberration should be slightly better controlled. Overall, though, there's probably not a huge difference between the original and the Mk II.

.

I bought the MK I version for my brother at Target when they were blowing them out (for use on his T2i). It is an adequate lens and I would suggest saving the money versus the MK II version and purchase the 50 1.8.