Lens suggestions for canon 600D (t3i)

[love2learn]

I would really like some suggestions on what reasonably priced lenses I should consider buying for my very first dslr.

I'm planning on purchasing the canon 600d (t3i) with the 18 - 135mm IS kit lens instead of the 18 - 55mm one. I need more range and I feel the 18 - 55 mm would require me to constantly change lenses.

I'd like a second and a third lens (if I can afford it). I know all beginners end up getting the nifty fifty and 55 - 200 mm lens but I'm not sure if I want to get it just because everyone else does. But if you recommend it, I will go for it.

My requirements are:
1. A zoom lens with a macro capability. I LOVE getting up close with my P&S.
2. Lens that can take good bokeh
3. Something also good for night shots (which is when I happen to shoot a lot of my pictures).

I don't really know how to take great portrait shots and usually it's not something I focus on. I don't need something specific for that as long as the other lenses do a decent job. I mostly like taking pictures of nature or night shots like fireworks, lights, cars, lightning, etc.

If you have a similar suggestion in another thread (I'm sorry I haven't read it), it's fine to just link it to me so you don't have to retype if you think it suits my needs.

Thanks in advance!

[RichardTaylor]

Zoom lenses for DSLRs do not focus as close as a "macro" on a P&S camera.
For that you need a macro lens.

The 18-135 is fine for night shots (in cities and using high ISO), and ok for everywhere else if you are shooting on a tripod.
However if you are shooting hand held in low light then you will need a fast lens of an aperture of around F2 preferably - that means a prime. The focal length will depend on your subject. What were you wanting to shoot at night?.

Good bokeh (depending on the background and light) may cost $$$. What sort of budget do you have.

[love2learn]

Thank you for such a fast reply.

By night shots it's mostly the city, buildings/street lights, fireworks, lightning, moon, etc.

I'm okay with an average bokeh. I was testing out I think the 18 - 55mm kit lens and I was happy with the bokeh. Can the 18 - 135mm do a similar bokeh or better?

I'm just a beginner and I'll probably take time before I buy more/better lenses. Right now more than primes, I'd prefer to invest in a zoom lens of upto at least 200mm range.

Well, my budget isn't all that much. I think I can spare about 2000$ for camera + 2 lenses. I can aim for slightly more if required but preferably I'd like to stay in this range or under.

I'm sure I saw a zoom lens with macro settings. But it might have been a sigma lens. Any ideas?

[RichardsonPhotography]

With your budget I think you should chose cityscapes or macro, one or the other, for the time being until you can afford a good second lens (or third counting the 18-135). For cityscapes I'd go something wide like the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (which would keep you in your budget). If you decided you wanted to use your kit lens, the 18-135, for cityscapes and wanted to go the macro route, I'd get the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens which will again keep you within your budget.

On a side note, with your mention of night photography, you'll want to make sure you have a good tripod and possibly look into getting a remote trigger as well.

Hope this helps.


Tyler

[RichardTaylor]

On the macro zooms. The word "macro" is used very loosely as a marketing term.

See this DPS rgread.

'Macro' = 1:1 ?? What does this really mean

[inkista]

If you get the EF-S 18-135 IS or the EF 18-200 IS, you probably don't need to get the EF-S 55-250 IS. The 55-250 is generally for folks who get the 18-55 and then need more reach, don't want to spend much, and don't mind changing lenses. If you really do need more telephoto reach, you'd probably be better off saving for an EF 70-300 IS USM or EF 70-200 f/4L USM. The superzooms like the 18-135 and 18-200 are more convenient, but the 18-55/55-250 combo has more reach, costs less if you get the 18-55 kitted with the camera, and has slightly better image quality, because the smaller zoom ranges on the lenses makes it easier to design lenses with fewer image quality compromises in terms of distortion and chromatic aberration (no such thing as a free lunch).

If you need an all-in-one lens solution (e.g., for travel), then a superzoom is a great solution. But SLR lenses are typically best as special-purpose tools, and being able to change lenses is one of the biggest advantages of the system.

As everyone else is saying, for macros, you'll need a macro lens. And a true macro lens that magnifies 1:1 will always be a prime (fixed focal length), not a zoom; most typically they're 100mm f/2.8 lenses. Wait on this one, use your P&S in the meantime, and consider a few of the poor man's macro tricks like extension tubes or lens reversal after you get an EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

For "good bokeh" (cheap), well, that's generally why folks buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

The 18-135 IS is a great kit lens and pretty much does what the 18-55 does, but with a longer range. However, it is a slow consumer-grade lens. Its maximum aperture is relatively small. While you can use it for nightshots of cityscapes, trying to get clear pics of moving subjects in low light is going to be tougher.

[love2learn]

Originally Posted by RichardsonPhotography

With your budget I think you should chose cityscapes or macro, one or the other, for the time being until you can afford a good second lens (or third counting the 18-135). For cityscapes I'd go something wide like the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (which would keep you in your budget). If you decided you wanted to use your kit lens, the 18-135, for cityscapes and wanted to go the macro route, I'd get the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens which will again keep you within your budget.

On a side note, with your mention of night photography, you'll want to make sure you have a good tripod and possibly look into getting a remote trigger as well.

Hope this helps.


Tyler

I have an average tripod but I'll definitely look into buying a better one. Thank you for mentioning the remote trigger. Always wanted those!

I guess macro isn't that important but I'll definitely look into your suggestion. If I had to choose I'd probably go for a macro lens over a wide lens. Perhaps it's because I am not so much into architecture and I don't know what I'm missing with a wide lens? lol.

By the way, do these lenses have autofocus?

Thank you so much for responding.

Originally Posted by RichardTaylor

On the macro zooms. The word "macro" is used very loosely as a marketing term.

See this DPS rgread.

'Macro' = 1:1 ?? What does this really mean

Never knew that! Thank you for sharing!

Originally Posted by inkista

If you get the EF-S 18-135 IS or the EF 18-200 IS, you probably don't need to get the EF-S 55-250 IS. The 55-250 is generally for folks who get the 18-55 and then need more reach, don't want to spend much, and don't mind changing lenses. If you really do need more telephoto reach, you'd probably be better off saving for an EF 70-300 IS USM or EF 70-200 f/4L USM. The superzooms like the 18-135 and 18-200 are more convenient, but the 18-55/55-250 combo has more reach, costs less if you get the 18-55 kitted with the camera, and has slightly better image quality, because the smaller zoom ranges on the lenses makes it easier to design lenses with fewer image quality compromises in terms of distortion and chromatic aberration (no such thing as a free lunch).

If you need an all-in-one lens solution (e.g., for travel), then a superzoom is a great solution. But SLR lenses are typically best as special-purpose tools, and being able to change lenses is one of the biggest advantages of the system.

As everyone else is saying, for macros, you'll need a macro lens. And a true macro lens that magnifies 1:1 will always be a prime (fixed focal length), not a zoom; most typically they're 100mm f/2.8 lenses. Wait on this one, use your P&S in the meantime, and consider a few of the poor man's macro tricks like extension tubes or lens reversal after you get an EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

For "good bokeh" (cheap), well, that's generally why folks buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 II.

The 18-135 IS is a great kit lens and pretty much does what the 18-55 does, but with a longer range. However, it is a slow consumer-grade lens. Its maximum aperture is relatively small. While you can use it for nightshots of cityscapes, trying to get clear pics of moving subjects in low light is going to be tougher.

Great suggestions.

Not sure if it sounds silly to get the 18 - 135mm. I had borrowed a nikon dslr for a bit and I felt quite happy with the 18 - 135mm kit lens in terms of being able to take portrait as well and zoom shots. I liked the wide range and not having to change lenses very often which is why I am seriously interested in this specific lens for canon as well. Occasionally, I do need more reach. I was looking into the 70 - 200mm lens. There are more than 1 kind so it makes it hard to choose. I would prefer the IS one but they all seem pricey. What do you think of the sharpness of the 70 - 300mm lens vs the 70-200mm ones?

You also mentioned the 18 - 200mm lens. How would it compare to getting the 18 - 135mm and then the 70 - 200mm apart from saving money? Pros/cons?

For the bokeh, I can not get a decent one with my P&S. My "dream" is to shoot a bokeh of lights with those beautiful circles. It's silly perhaps which is why any lens that can get a decent affect, I'll probably be happy with. lol.

I'm actually seriously confused over the choices vs budget. Regarding getting clear shots in low light of fast moving objects, how would the 70 - 200mm fair?

Know of any website that does good lens reviews for beginners?

[love2learn]

Also, can someone explain to me what are the benefits of having a tripod ring and what are the uses for a lens hood?

[love2learn]

Anyone know?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by love2learn

What do you think of the sharpness of the 70 - 300mm lens vs the 70-200mm ones?

I don't use either, but I'd gather that the Ls are slightly better in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color. The 70-300 is more convenient, smaller, and lighter, with longer reach. It's up to you what's more important.

You also mentioned the 18 - 200mm lens. How would it compare to getting the 18 - 135mm and then the 70 - 200mm apart from saving money? Pros/cons?

Cons are it's more expensive than an 18-55/55-250 combo, with more optical compromises; pros are that it's more convenient. However, optically, the18-200 really can't compete with the 70-200L. That little "L" makes a big big difference on the sticker price.

For the bokeh, I can not get a decent one with my P&S. My "dream" is to shoot a bokeh of lights with those beautiful circles. It's silly perhaps which is why any lens that can get a decent affect, I'll probably be happy with. lol.

EF 50mm f/1.8 II. While it has many compromises to meet the low-low cost, none of them involve image quality. Usability/build quality, though, is not as nice as with the gold-ringed USM lenses, like the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM or EF 85mm f/1.8 USM.

I'm actually seriously confused over the choices vs budget. Regarding getting clear shots in low light of fast moving objects, how would the 70 - 200mm fair?

WHICH 70-200? There are five of them at this point.

Assuming you're looking at the lowest-cost f/4 non-IS version, it's going to do better than the 70-300 IS USM, and it's going to smoke the EF-S IS lenses (18-135, 18-200, 55-250), none of which have USM.

Know of any website that does good lens reviews for beginners?

Try the-digital-picture.com, and looking through the fredmiranda.com reviews. Just remember that everybody's needs are different, and a pro shooter who can write a lens off on their taxes is going to have a different idea of what's worth it, cost-wise, than a hobbyist shooter.

I'd also highly HIGHLY recommend reading this basic guide to lenses. It describes the basic features of lenses and what they mean in practical shooting terms. Maximum aperture in particular is worth learning about.

Originally Posted by love2learn

Also, can someone explain to me what are the benefits of having a tripod ring and what are the uses for a lens hood?

A tripod ring is for balancing the lens/camera combination on a tripod. Telephoto lenses are big and heavy and long. The center of balance tends to be on the lens, not on the camera body. If you attach a combination like this directly to the tripod, you're going to be putting a lot of weight on one side, stressing out the ballhead. A tripod collar can help ease this by putting the center of balance of the combo directly over the ballhead of the tripod. You typically only get the collar with larger, heavier lenses. Smaller lighter lenses may not need one.

A lens hood shades the front of the lens, which can eliminate glare and increase contrast. It also provides physical protection to the front of the lens, as most lenses are clip/screw-on types made of rigid plastic. The little add-on rubber shades you see where you screw them onto the filter threads at the end of the lens don't protect much, and only give a small amount of shade. Generally, the longer the lens is, the more useful a hood becomes. The wider the lens is, the shallower the lens has to be not to impinge on the frame, so it shades and protects the lens's front element less.

Also, bumping? NOT really going to make anybody answer who wasn't going to before. Give it at least 24 hours before nudging a thread. Everybody else has stuff to do, too. If you're that impatient, google it yourself.