Lenses to 'cover the bases'

[crystalb]

I was wondering what the more experienced photographers( than myself:) ) on the forum would consider being the 'must have' lenses. Is there a brand of lense that out does the rest? I currently have a Canon with the basic 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 kit lense.

Thanks in advance!:thankyou::clap:

[casil403]

I'm no expert but for me, I have a macro...(50mm but should have got the 100mm...next on the list for me anyhow) and a 70-300mm zoom for wildlife/distance shots.
I would like a wide angle but that's gonna have to wait a bit as I don't really have a huge need for it.
I guess it depend on what you enjoy shooting really. I think a zoom is kind of a first must have...next depends on what you like....do you like macro or wide angleshots? Go from there :) is what i would recommend.
Mind you for macro you can start with closeup lenses which are about a 1/3 the price and you can screw them right onto your 18-55.

[Mad Aussie]

This is one of those questions that depend.

It depends on things like how serious you are? How much money you have to spend? The type of shooting you enjoy?

That little Canon 18-55mm kit lens is something else! It's an amazing little lens for something worth so little AND being physically so little and light. I had one. And now Chantelle has it. And she does amazing things with it.

I've purchased a few lenses for our kit ... some are L Series lenses (ouch in the pocket) and some are more std EF and EFS lenses. And unless I really needed something the L Series could give me that the others couldn't ... I wouldn't spend the dough.

My lenses cover from 10mm through to 400mm but then, as you have seen, I shoot everything from cycling events to wildlife to forest scene close ups to portraits to landscapes. I'm hardly what you'd call a specialist!

A jack of all trades and master of sweat f all is closer to the mark I guess ;)

One thing I will warn you about though is it is always tempting to try to go for that do it all lens. Now depending on your skill, money, etc this may be the best decision.
However, those lenses are always a compromise in some way.
A specialist lens like a prime lens or even a zoom with less range will tend to do a better job than an equivalent priced lens that has a bigger zoom.

I have a Canon 100mm-400mm L Series lens because I wanted that big range but I had to pay the big bucks to get something that would do the job well. Having two lenses that cover this range would more than likely do the job better.

Also beware of 2nd hand lenses you can't see and test out before buying. There is a few problems the lens may have you can't see on the internet or in a newspaper.

[crystalb]

That's just it, I photography anything that catches my eye, not just one area. I want to be able to take pictures and not have to compromise the shot because I don't have the suitable lense.

For example:
This was the sunset last night, would have alot better with appropriate lense :headslap:

[hodaka]

Just my opinion: that sunset, on a tripod, slightly recomposed (same lense), and different exposure - would have been dynamite!
What do you think you would have changed with a different lense, though? Zoomed closer? Wider angle?

[crystalb]

haha yes a tripod is on my list also :)
I realise with a tripod I could have slowed up the shutter speed to get a better exposure and less shake, but I was thinking more for zoom I guess, to eliminate the house and other distractions in the foreground.

[casil403]

haha yes a tripod is on my list also :)
I realise with a tripod I could have slowed up the shutter speed to get a better exposure and less shake, but I was thinking more for zoom I guess, to eliminate the house and other distractions in the foreground.

IMO, if you don't have a tripod then I think that's what you should consider getting first. You can get a pretty sturdy velbon tripod for about $100 or less. or you can spend a lot more on a Manifrotto. :)
As for zooming in on that photo and eliminating distractions in foreground, that's what cropping is for...;)
Again, I'm no expert or anything but I am with Hodaka on that above being if you had a tripod, that would have made a signaficant difference in the shot more than a zoom.
Hope that helps....:)

[crystalb]

Well I am headed to the city this weekend......:) I'll check some out
Thanks peoples.

Now getting off the topic of my crappy pic,
You all must have more than one lense.......what do you recommend? (For those who haven't told me already ;) )

[Mad Aussie]

I wouldn't write off something like a 70-200mm Crystal if you can afford to get one new instead of spending similar dollars on a 2nd hand (possibly defective) more expensive lens. That way you'll cover 18mm through to 200mm with two lenses pretty much. And at 200mm the image stabilising isn't paramount so you can save dollars there.

You will beg for 300 or 400mm if are shooting birds though but I'd rather have a good lens at 200mm than a bad one at 300mm.

Tripods ... well you'll need a good one if you are planning on having a long lens ... especially if it's something with decent size about it. They can get quite heavy so a good tripod is needed especially on unstable ground.

[JAS_Photo]

I just bought myself my first really good piece of glass for my D300, a 17-55mm f2.8. (See photo of Sadie (http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f20/pet-pics-5414-3.html#post35995) in pets to see one of the first pics taken with it. Window light at f2.8)

But I would recommend a 35mm F1.8 prime lens or (50mm if you are using full frame.) They are small, fast, light and relatively cheap. You can just toss it in your bag and it's there handy if for some reason you need a fast little lens.

[hodaka]

I have the 18-55 kit lense (VR), the 35mm 1.8, and a 70-300 VR. I mostly use the 18-55 and the 35, but the 70-300 is awesome when needed.

[F8&Bthere]

...I would recommend a 35mm F1.8 prime lens or (50mm if you are using full frame.) They are small, fast, light and relatively cheap. You can just toss it in your bag and it's there handy if for some reason you need a fast little lens.

I agree with Raiven- sometimes you find yourself wanting a fast lens, for either low light or background bokeh. And of course fast zooms are usually big, heavy, and expensive. So a 35 or 50mm/1.8 is a nice inexpensive little lens to toss in the camera bag in case you need it.

That said, I have been one of those people who wants fast glass but can't afford it so I bought primes. And then I regretted buying the primes because I hardly ever put them on. I hate changing lenses on the go. I love having the versatility of a zoom to frame whatever subject I happen to stumble upon without having to run back and forth (mostly laziness, but sometimes you can't).

The fast 35/50 is an exception though...almost a must have. I think the 50/1.8 is the standard, small, cheap, great quality and just incredible bang for the buck lens for all the major equipment manufacturers

18mm on your 18-55 is fairly wide so unless you're one of those ultra wide nuts, I doubt you need to go wider. That leaves longer, so I'm guessing a 55 -200 or something along those lines in your future? I'm a Nikon and Pentax shooter and I'm not so familiar with Canon's offerings but if you do go longer and can afford IS (I think that's equivalent to Nikon's VR) I would recommend it.

That brings me to a mini rant digression....am I the only one who thinks that in a DSLR world that has up until this point been mostly crop sensor, why didn't the mfgs just stretch the low end of the zooms a bit more to 16mm or so? For those who like shooting wide angle the standard 18mm is just so close but yet so far from not requiring another lens purchase. End mini rant.

OR if you can afford one pro caliber lens to start with and to be your next purchase, spend your time shooting to figure out which focal length will be the most useful to your shooting habits and style and stretch the budget to get that. That exercise for me has been easier said than done though. Per my last paragraph if Nikon made a 16-85/2.8VR lens, I don't care if it's $2000+ and almost 3 lbs, I'd be writing Santa Claus a letter instead of this post. But I don't really want their slow 16-85 nor do I want their fast 24-70 without VR.

Although I often regret pissing away money bit at a time instead of buying the good glass up front, I also realize that even when I do have the pro glass I'll still sometimes want my good ole' kit lens to travel light (or when I'm somewhere that I don't want to attract too much attention, if you know what I mean...)

[Mad Aussie]

18mm on your 18-55 is fairly wide so unless you're one of those ultra wide nuts, I doubt you need to go wider.
I tend to agree with this statement.

My first DSLR was the Canon 400D with the kit lenses (18-55mm and 70-200mm) which Chantelle is now using.

When I upgraded to the 40D's I use now the widest angle I had was 24mm ... and I missed the 18mm often. It was enough of a difference to be noticed.

I now can go much wider than that again and love it but that's a whole new step so I do tend to think that 18mm is wide enough if you are short on the long end of your lens inventory.

Also on the 18-55mm lens ... I've been out there with Chantelle ... her on the 18-55mm and the 400D and me with the 40D and the 24 - 70mm L Series lens and she has seriously beaten me with her image quality. Use that little lens right and it's $250 value can outstrip a lens of $2000 ... I've seen it and been on the dumb end of that! :headslap:

The same goes for the 70-200mm she has in fact.

I also have the little plastic 50mm 1.8 worth about $150 at best and it is a fast little lens indeed. Small light and very sharp with a get dof. It has all the qualities of much dearer lens. And I hardly ever bother with it. I probably should but I'm a zoom junkie. I'm always re-composing my shots in the field so zoom works so much better for me.
However, I do use it for portraits at times where moving around with the camera is not a big deal.

Up to about 200mm I don't put much stock in spending money on IS (VR on Nikon) as I find I can hold steady enough without a tripod but some people need it.

[F8&Bthere]

Up to about 200mm I don't put much stock in spending money on IS (VR on Nikon) as I find I can hold steady enough without a tripod but some people need it.

The real value of VR/IS is always a debate, but I think most people either need great high ISO performance (800+) or IS/VR or both at some point in the longer focal ranges if you don't have a tripod with you. If you can handhold up to 200mm when say you have set ISO 400 to keep noise down, you're max aperture at that FL is 5.6 and you'd rather stop down at least a bit cuz you're lens wide open fully zoomed is not it's best, and the ambient lighting is giving you 1/15th - 1/30th shutter, that's impressive. I use this example because it's something that happens to me a lot. Luckily I have a D300 which is pretty decent over 800 ISO

[crystalb]

Thanks for all the opinions/info guys, I appreciate it.:D
I guess I should do a bit or researching 'homework' before the city this weekend, maybe I'll come home with a lense too.....;)

[Mad Aussie]

I still try to adhere to the adage of keeping your minimum shutter speed around the focal length and hope I have either enough ISO quality to compensate, or enough flash finese.

[hodaka]

I have shot my 70-300 at 300mm, ISO100, f5.6, handheld. I was very pleased with the results!

My lense choices happened like this:

I bought my D60 with the 18-55, because I knew it would cover most of the range I had been using with my Pentax ME Super.
I then wanted more reach, so I bought a Sigma/Quantaray 70-300, after deciding I could not immediately afford the Nikon 70-300.
When the 35mm 1.8 came out, I had already been looking at the 50mm offerings, so it was a no-brainer considering the price - I had noticed I was shooting a lot of things at about 35mm on the 18-55, and I needed something a little faster.
Then, the local camera shop needed another iMac, and I happened to have a good used one that fit their budget - worked out a trade for the 70-300 Nikon, and sold my Quantaray a couple days later for almost what I had paid for it.
Now, I have ordered a Lensbaby Muse - because it looks like a lot of fun!

I should mention that I bought two tripods before I bought any extra lenses. One lightweight compact one for general use, and a nice heavy-duty one for more serious work.