I have a problem(?) and I think I'll let the masses guide me.

[TheShutterHappyBaker]

So, a few months ago I decided I wanted to wet my photography whistle. I purchased a Rebel XS (ridiculously on sale), which came with the kit 18-55mm lens. Since then I've acquired a 75-300mm (non IS) lens, a circular polarizer and neutral density filter (used), and a tripod that I enjoy using a lot. I've even gone and built a home made light box.

Oh.. I had a point somewhere, ahhh right. I'm interested in adding another lens or two to my bag, but I think my interests are too broad. I like the idea of product photography (but I don't actually use my light box), I like the idea of close up macro photography (botanical gardens etc..). I also like photographing people, both candid and portrait. I like photographing still objects (ei:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_070NO9co6R.../Beer-1148.jpg) . I also enjoy landscapes, sunsets, water and all sorts of scenery. I like blurry backgrounds, and crisp backgrounds, blurry subjects, and crisp subjects.

So, I want to photograph all things that can be photographed. However, I can't just go drop a bunch of cash on every lens that I think I need.

I suppose what I'm asking is: If I want to buy another lens, should I buy a smaller prime lens (28mm? 35mm? 50mm?) or should I buy something like an 85mm? Or, should I go for something in between my 18-55mm and 75-300mm lens, like a Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?

Should I try to narrow down my field of photographic interest somehow? That would certainly help me decide on a lens. Should I wait a while longer, and learn to make the most out of what I have first before buying something new? How did you folks decided what you wanted to photograph primarily?

Any help would be great!

[FDCPR]

What you need is time. Time to determine where your interest lies the most. It's easy to fall into the trap of continuously purchasing a new lens, but I've always felt that the only reason to add more glass is when I can't achieve shots that I continually try to take and cannot. Notice I say continually try to take, when shooting everything there is always a time one wished for a different lens, but when the once in a while becomes the norm it's time for new glass. I suggest learning to shoot with what you have to the full potential first. By the time you reach that point you will know what is more a priority for you and can invest in the correct equipment to improve your shots.

[Henry Wilt]

My first question would be what is it that you feel your current lenses can't do that you want from a lens?

Do you just want to buy a new lens to experience something else? If so, buy a 50mm f/1.8 at around $100. It will give you the experience of using a prime lens, the opportunity to shoot in available light and the chance to learn to use a DOF to create a different look, all at a very low (relative) cost.

Alternatively, stick with what you have until you find there are situations or shots that you can't get satisfactory results with the equipment you already have.

[RichardTaylor]

Re:Henry Wilt's post.

+ 1

[TheShutterHappyBaker]

I think that is exactly what I needed to hear. That was also the answer I was expecting. Holding off on buying new gear and figuring out how to use what I have to it's potential seems like a way better idea than spending money on something I may or may not use.

To answer Henry's question. I think I'm just looking to experience something new. I've been really tempted to just buy the 50mm 1.8 because of it's low price. I read a lot of reviews saying that it's a good lens for the price. If I do go out and buy something, that will probably it.

For now though, I've been doing alright with my 18-55mm lens. THe 75-300mm lens I have doesn't seem to be as sharp as I'd like (fully extended). Though, I only paid $120 for it (seems to retail for around $289) so I shouldn't complain too much.

I shall continue working with what I have, and keep coming to dPS for help

Thanks guys!

[Michael_2010]

That is all very true, but a nice piece of new equipment sure can get the juices flowing! lol

I bought the 50mm f/1.8 after reading many comments here at DPS and I am glad I did. It is a very sharp lens for the money and a good all around focal length for composition. After seeing some of the very fine detail that lens has given some of my shots, I don't even bother with my original 18-55mm kit lens anymore.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by TheShutterHappyBaker

...The 75-300mm lens I have doesn't seem to be as sharp as I'd like (fully extended). Though, I only paid $120 for it (seems to retail for around $289) so I shouldn't complain too much.

Two things that can make a 75-300 III sharper, when fully extended:

1) Using a shutter speed of 1/300s or faster, to avoid camera shake blur.

AND

2) Being stopped down to at least f/8.

[TheShutterHappyBaker]

Originally Posted by inkista

Two things that can make a 75-300 III sharper, when fully extended:

1) Using a shutter speed of 1/300s or faster, to avoid camera shake blur.

AND

2) Being stopped down to at least f/8.

Ahh, yeah, I usually try to shoot outdoors in the sun when I use that lens, and often only on a tripod. I've definitely taken some good photos with it. I doubt I'll replace it anytime soon, Image Stabilization would be a nice feature though, I'm super shaky hehe.

[BCampbell]

This will not necessarily be in order.

The 75-300 III is a junk lens. It's better than not having a 75-300 but not by much. If you find that you enjoy shooting in that range, I would look at upgrading this, either to a better 70-300 or even possibly the 100-400L.

I don't see much point in getting a normal to wide prime unless you have a specific use for it, such as low light shooting. In that range, the kit lens is actually really good unless you find it just won't open up enough for you (which isn't an issue with landscapes, as you are probably going to use a tripod).

For portrait and landscape, the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 are excellent. Yes, you can do landscape with longer lenses, and in fact once you learn landscape a little more you will probably move away from wide wide wide.

That was taken with the 100/2. You will probably be happier with the 85/1.8, I'm on full frame so the crop will probably tighten in the 100 a little too much for you.

Of all your options, I think if you're interested in macro that's the direction you should go for now. It's the only one that you absolutely need the extra equipment for. Avoid the 50mm f/2.5 macro, it actually only has .5x magnification and thus is not "true" macro. The 60 and 100mm f/2.8 models are both great places to start; the main difference is the longer focal length lets you work a bit further from your subject. The 60mm is an EF-S lens so if you think you may want to move up to full frame I would steer clear. These are both also nice primes and could double for portraiture/landscape work.

You may also want to look into some lighting for your portrait work. Getting a speedlite and a way to get it off camera is a good start. I'd also consider some other "extras" before getting a lens; a nice tripod (edit: didn't see you have one already), cable release, a good bag, etc. Investing in a few photo books is never a bad idea; as far as instructional books go there are excellent ones out there but I actually mean photo books. Find a good used bookstore and raid their photography section, pick up anything that looks interesting and study the photos. Something that covers many artists and genres, like PHOTO:BOX is great, too. And reading some theory, like Sontag, or some history like the Ian Jeffries book can't hurt. And of course more experience always helps. I still haven't decided what I want to photograph primarily; I just know what I don't want to shoot.