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!

[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

[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 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.