my head hurts =(

[qtox91]

ok, ive already been cramming my brain with everything i can about photography, and i have noooooo more room for lenses lol. so i need some help picking my first lens for my canon xs i have a minimal budget.

[The_Geek]

Canon's EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens is a great start for a beginner. For the price it has excellent image quality, and it will cover most of your 'every day' shooting situations.

Once you get out and start shooting you'll know what you want in your second lens.

[cowsled]

I agree with Geek, 18-55 would be a great lens to start off with. If ever you need anything faster, the 50mm 1.8 is also excellent (and cheap!)

[BCampbell]

Depends on what you want to shoot.

I have four recommendations, but they're all for different applications. Thankfully, they're all great lenses for under $1k.

Canon 10-22mm: Get this if the 17mm end of your lens isn't wide enough for you. If you want to shoot wide landscapes or interiors, this is probably the second lens you should get. Plus a tripod, probably.

Canon 50mm f/1.4: Skip the 1.8 if you can, the 1.4 is not that much more expensive. Get this if you want to shoot in low light, but beware, 50mm is fairly long on the crop bodies.

Canon 17-40 f/4L: Get this if the kit lens seems to work for you as a general-purpose lens. This is a great walk-around lens on the cropped bodies, and the optical quality is hard to beat for the price. You can later supplement this with the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 if it's not long enough for you.

Canon 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS): Get this if the kit lens isn't long enough. One of the best lenses you can get for under $1k.

[qtox91]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

Canon 10-22mm: Get this if the 17mm end of your lens isn't wide enough for you. If you want to shoot wide landscapes or interiors, this is probably the second lens you should get. Plus a tripod, probably.

whats the apeture like on this lens? i shoot alot of concerts and so a low apeture is very important. i defiently need a 50mm and thats prolly what im going to get now. is there much of a difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8?

[AlQ]

Has anyone had any experience with both of these lenses?

Canon 10-22mm, f 3.5 USM and the Canon 20 mm f/2.8 USM

will the 20 mm get you wide enough for landscapes, etc.? Which one should I sink my money into?

thanks!

[natek313]

Originally Posted by qtox91

whats the apeture like on this lens? i shoot alot of concerts and so a low apeture is very important. i defiently need a 50mm and thats prolly what im going to get now. is there much of a difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8?

You don't want the 10-22mm for concert photography; it's not a low-light lens. I would say go for the 50mm f/1.8. Optically, it's a great lens, and it's super cheap.

At B&H, the 50mm f/1.8 (USA) goes for $99.95, and the 50mm f/1.4 USM (USA) goes for $349.00 - a significant price difference. The biggest difference you'll probably see, aside from the price, is the build quality. The 50mm f/1.4 is built much better than the 50mm f/1.8, but, if you take care of your lenses like you should, I don't see you having any problem. The f/1.4 will focus faster since it has the USM. If you do a lot of manual focusing, then you may want to consider the f/1.4, since the f/1.8 has a focus ring like the 18-55mm kit lens - not very comfortable.

I hope this helps somewhat.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by qtox91

whats the apeture like on this lens? i shoot alot of concerts and so a low apeture is very important.

It's not a low light lens, unless you can shoot longer exposures with a tripod. I have a friend that uses it almost exclusively when we do urbex shoots and he loves it for this.

i defiently need a 50mm and thats prolly what im going to get now. is there much of a difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8?

Make sure 50mm works for you, it can be hard to work with on a cropped body. The 1.4 is leagues better than the 1.8. As mentioned, build quality is up there, but contrast and color are better reproduced, the bokeh is better, it's less prone to flare and purple fringing. More than worth the price difference.

You might also want to look at the Canon 35mm f/2.0, and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, if you want a wider field of view (which, in my opinion, works a lot better for concert photography, though ideally you'd have a fast mid-tele zoom in the L-series).

The 50mm 1.8 will work, for sure. But you're going to be at high ISO, and you want all the help from your lens that you can get.

[qtox91]

thank you everyone for all of your help, id done my research and thought about the shoots that i would most likely be using it for, and i just bought a 50mm 1.8 from b+h. it just came in the mail yesterday, and i love it!!! im still getting used to the fact that its a prime lens, but ill get there!

[NathanO]

I have both the kit lens (18-55) AND the 50mm/1.8. I highly recommend both of them BUT it depends on what you're gonna be doing most of the time. The 18-55 is a perfect everyday lens but it's not that great in low light. The 50mm is good for low light but if something is being shot like a concert, remember that on a cropped sensor, 50mm equates to roughly 80mm. And since you can't zoom, that might not be the best all around lens as the subject will be very close. My overall choice would be getting the kit lens. I agree that once you have your first lens, all of your complaints about it will really help you decide what you want in your next lens. Thats what happened to me and one lens turned into 5. Awesome explainations to the wife......

-Nathan