must have lenses

[sk66]

The Sigma EX line is really VERY good.
The Tokina Pro line is also VERY good.
In some cases these lenses are even better than the big names.
I love my Sigma 10-20

[harrypalmer044]

Well I did post a thread similar to this one today so I will ask this question and hope I get an answer from someone far more knowledge than I have. Is this lens any good?
SIGMA 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG. I am starting a small project taking photo's of the insides of churches and chapels here in my home county of Derbyshire UK. I want a lens that can cope with low light if needs be and saw this one at a good price. Any advise would be greatly appreciated,

[RustySterling]

I like having zooms for the versatility but I also like primes for sharpness. So here is what I have and why:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 widezoom (gives me some great wide angle choices on APS-C)
Canon 17-40mm f/4L zoom (good range for a walk around on APS-C)
Canon 24-105mm f/4L zoom IS (pushes the focal length out a bit more and very sharp glass)
Canon 35-350mm f/4-5.6L (a super-zoom that gives me lots of versatility)
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro (great prime for macro and portraits and one of the best non-L lenses out there)
Canon 200mm f/2.8L (just a great prime for lots of reasons and great for sports -- sharp, sharp, sharp -- one of the sharpest L lenses available in it's range)

I'll likely get a Canon 400 f/4L in the long term and may even go for the Canon 70-200 f/4L or f/2.8L for a bit more zoom versality but with the 35-350 I'm not in a hurry on the 70-200 (even though I know that the glass will be much sharper than the 35-350). I also plan on getting the Canon 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, since this is one of the most versatile lens around.

Frankly, the biggest factor I see hampering me is having only one body. I plan on getting another body in the future (hopefully near future but not too sure right now) and would lean toward a full-frame over an APS-C body to get fuller advantage of some of the lenses I have. However, I went for good glass first because of a lot of advice on this website.

Like others have said, each of us has different needs. I'm a former reporter/photojournalist (worked as a double-threat man in newspapers for 15 years) and made my lens choices based on that experience. They are choices that others might not make but it works for me.

[Denise]

The 70-200 f/4.0L is a great lens to start with from what you have mentioned that you want and your price range. I had a Rebel about 4 years ago and this was one of the first lenses I got. It's got great distance and the 4.0 fstop will allow you to shoot in lower light and provide that great depth of field you want in portraits. I actually know of someone who is selling his used one for $525 including shipping and paypal fees. If you are interested, email me and I'll email you his info.
The 50 1.8 is great as well. For $100 you can't beat it, but it is a fixed lens, so that takes some getting used to.
Denise Skelton
denise@skeltonphotography.com
www.skeltonphotography.com
www.skeltonphotographyblog.blogspot.com

[finkployd]

Originally Posted by ntinlizi

just did some research..that really is a huge price difference! i was under the impression that the 10-22mm was only like $500, but its about $700! and the Sigma is around $430! i will deffinately be looking at the sigma in the future! thanks

Yes it's significantly cheaper! As I mentioned, the trade-off's with this particular lens are minimal for most photographers. Both Sigma and Tamron made some decent quality and affordable glass, they tend to make less expensive versions of popular Canon and Nikon lenses. OTOH, I would be careful to make sure I did some research first on a particular lens before purchasing, quality from 3rd party manufacturers can vary significantly... eg: you get what you pay for. There are several websites and photographers who review all sorts of lenses, I've even seen sites which will give you actual graphs of the image quality characteristics (blur, CA, vignetting, etc) of the lens at various focal lengths and apertures. Lots of information out there if you have the time to sort through it!

[jelyon]

Originally Posted by ntinlizi

what are the must have lenses that every one uses? i have a canon rebel xsi with a 18-55mm and a 55-250mm (which im now thinking wasnt the best choice). i mostly shoot landscapes, portraits, close ups/macro. and dont have a whole lot of money to be spending... so i guess im asking what you guys think is the best lens to buy for all these photography types.

I have the original Digital Rebel, and I too started with the 18-55. My first lens was the 50 1.8. It can be used as a portrait lens on our cropped sensors. I use it in low light situations as well (which is the main reason I got it.)

My next lens was a 28-300 Tamron that is a good "walk around" lens. Excellent for outdoor family outings. Not so great in low light. But it's good enough that the 18-55 kit lens has been consigned to permanent retirement.

My next lens was a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens. For doing macros. This is a fine piece of glass, which can be used as a stand off portrait lens and a moderate telephoto, albeit with no zoom. I really love this lens.

My most recent lens is a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0 which I got because I wanted a wide angle lens for landscapes and for tight spaces - in particular for a trip to Disney World last fall. This is the lens I've been using most often lately - probably because it's the newest lens.

[Oranse Taylor]

Just keep taking pictures until you wear out the camera body. Its mostly about whats happening in front of the lens anyway. The camera is just a tool. Get the fifty and sell the zooms or put em away. Then try and recreate photos that you like. Magazines, Flickr, whatever. Dont have the right focal lenth or f-stop? Figure it out. Work it out. Dont have enough light? Start thinking about how you can get more light.

Get a prime. 35, 50, 85mm. Do photography. Throw that selector to Full Manual, and figure out exactly what the heck has to go right to get a decent exposure. After say 20 - 100 mini projects like that. Reward yourself by selecting one of the zooms. Do you need more or less than 50? Then when you are shooting you will be making lens choices due to what you want to accomplish. Do you want the f-stops or the wide/long? Then you will better understand what lens you need and why and what you expect it to do. Good luck.

[cronjob]

I agree you should have a 50 mm prime ... I just got one a few months ago and cannot tell you how useful I find it... especially over the kit lens. It does take some getting use to and your zoom is your feet. I would say if you can afford a 1.4 (faster lens) then do so (paid about $325). I shoot without flash almost always now. I've even shot some photos with light so low that it was hard to even manually focus. To my surprise the shot was much brighter than I could see with my eyes @ 400 ISO. Anyhow I could go on and on. The 1.8 is cheaper and I am sure would be almost as good. Read reviews and I am sure you'll figure out what's best for you as I am sure you'll enjoy either. I've attached a sample from my XTi, 50mm 1.4:

...5342.jpg : reduced size, no adjustments. Low Light Ex.
...5335.jpg : levels adjusted. Close up (not macro) of flower on dinner table, shallow DoF.
...5326.jpg : vibrance & saturation adjusted, shallow DoF.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by harrypalmer044

Well I did post a thread similar to this one today so I will ask this question and hope I get an answer from someone far more knowledge than I have. Is this lens any good?
SIGMA 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG. I am starting a small project taking photo's of the insides of churches and chapels here in my home county of Derbyshire UK. I want a lens that can cope with low light if needs be and saw this one at a good price. Any advise would be greatly appreciated,

I have that exact lense and compared it with my Nikon 18-200. I know, 2 different lenses, but none the less, I wanted to check out the quality of my Sigma since I picked it up for $150 online.
The Sigma came out just a little ahead of my Nikon in sharpness. At about f4.0 the Sigma is tack sharp all the way to the other end of the f-stop spectrum. Only drawback is the fact that it doesn't have the HSM, so you have the switch the camera to "M" if needed.
Hope this helps