New to DSLR- need help with lens choice

[speciallady]

Ok- I am getting ready to purchase a canon 2ti 550D - I take mostly pictures of my kids, i love macro photography and I love landscapes- we live in the Pacific Northwest and the scenery is amazing. Anyway I am building a "kit" and i have read so many different things on lenses. I know I want to get the 50mm f/1.8 (maybe 1.4) but I am having a difficult time deciding on the more basic lenses. I want something that has wide angles for scenery photography. Most "kits" come with the 18-55 and 55-200 but I have also read that some use the 28-80. I am still learning and don't know the difference i would get between the 18 and the 28--I am so novice I feel like I am asking "stupid" questions. I was thinking about the 18-55 and the 75-300m but what would I lose between 55-75. All these questions and well I could really use some expertise. Thanks so much for your help. Also what are good macro lenses....I could get just the macro filters but i am just needing all the help I can get.

[OsmosisStudios]

Budget?

If you really enjoy macro, and plan on doing a lot, then getting a proper dedicated macro lens will be a huge benefit. You'll likely spend about as much as on that one lens as you have/will on your 550D body.

For landscapes, anything wider than 35mm should do the trick. An 18-55 is a great place to start, but I personally like going REALLY wide and would suggest something in the ultra-wide category. Canon make a great 10-22, but Tokina's 11-16 is also very very nice. You could always go silly wide and get Sigma's 8-16. Again, these will likely cost about as much as your body did.

[inkista]

I'd recommend 18-55/55-250 over the 28-80. The 28-80 was a kit lens designed for film; the 18-55 is the kit lens designed for digital. It has to do with sensor sizes and film frame size.

You'll hear/read the term "crop body" and "1.6x crop factor". What this means it that because of the fact that the sensor in a dRebel is smaller than a frame of 35mm film, lenses don't cover the same field (or angle) of view on a crop body as they do on a "full frame" body (one where the sensor is the same size as a film frame, like the 5D):



Using a camera with a smaller sensor is similar to cropping off the edges of a full-frame image, which is why it's called a "crop body". The 1.6x is how much wider the view becomes on a full-frame. So, 28mm on a full frame will frame the scene pretty much the same way that a 28/1.6 => 17.5mm lens will.

So, if you want a wider view, which you often do for landscapes (although landscapes can actually be shot with telephotos and normal lenses, too), you want a lens with a shorter focal length.

Here's a good demonstration of the effects of focal length, but I'm not sure if it was done on full frame or a crop camera. My gut feel is that it was done with a film camera, since its got a copyright date on it of 2005.

With macro lenses, the image quality is higher and your framing capability is much larger than with "poor man's" macro techniques like filters, lens reversal, and extension tubes. These three methods all limit the subject distance at which you can focus, so you're basically forced to shoot at a specific distance/framing in order to focus at all. A macro lens will still retain focus to infinity even when very close to the subject. Also macro lenses are usually, because of the close focus capability adding floating elements, the sharpest lens in any lineup.

In the Canon lineup, the two most commonly looked at macro lenses (based on price, mostly, I think) are the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro and the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (the non-L, non-IS version). There are also terrific third-party alternatives, like the Tamron 90mm. The choice mostly comes down to working distance. (i.e., a 60mm macro means you'll be pretty much on top of your subject matter. OK for food or flower photography, not so good for wildlife).

One more link for you. A basic guide to lens features.

[dlambert]

I started with the 50mm f/1.8 and 55-250, and then added the 17-85 IS USM. This is pretty close to the setup that inkista recommended. The 18-55 / 55-250 pair is a really common beginning setup, and it's nice because it covers a useful focal length range with decent quality. I skipped the 18-55 because even though the image quality is generally considered decent, it just "felt" sort of cheap when I tried it in the store. You should be able to play with copies of both of these lenses to see how you like them.

The 28mm end of the 28-80 is really not very wide on a crop-sensor camera. If you're planning on supplementing that at some point with a dedicated wide-angle lens, then the 28-80 might be a decent walk-around lens, though.

As far as the 75-300, I don't know that I've ever seen any glowing reviews for that lens. I'd stick with the 55-250 if you want to mind your budget, or look at the newer 70-300 IS USM from Canon. I just traded up from the 55-250 to the 70-300, and it's a nice bump that (hopefully) will tide me over for a bit.

[speciallady]

thank you both for your replies and it gets me heading in the right directions. After doing a lot of reading yesterday I was wondering what your take may be on getting an 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Tamron lens or the sigma. I'd like to stick with one all purpose lens to get me started. I am for sure purchasing the 50mm f/1.8 canon lens- I have used a friends and really like it. I wonder about the f/1.4 also- since I am just beginning will the difference be all that significant? Also, when purchasing off brands I know you are sacrificing sharpness and quality due to "glass" but will I really notice that much of a difference. I typically don't blow up photos to much more than an 8 x10 maybe a few will get 16 x 20 and if I get a really, really good photo once a year I may do a 20x30. Like I said before I am planning on purchasing the 550D-
I don't want to purchase another body for a few years and I want to put any extra $ into lenses over the next few years. I will read the link you sent and get some ideas. I guess all in all...Tamron vs Sigma or should I just stick with Canon lenses?
Oh- and the macro lens will be the next purchase I make will most likely be the macro lens but I'll just start with 2 lenses for now. -- do you think this lens will work for me.

Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon Digital EOS

thanks for all your help. I did read the reviews and most everyone loves it. the only thing that concerns me is the lack of image stabilization. what are your thoughts?

[RichardTaylor]

I own that lens. However I do not use it any more, as it was slow and slow focussing..

It is only a fair, not good, "one lens solution".

See some user comments here.
FM Reviews - Tamron AF 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II

My sister has the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM and she loves it. She mostly shoots landscapes/flowers/cats.

[speciallady]

thanks so much... I will be looking into the Sigma...I was kind of wary about the lack of IS..made me a bit nervous