First lens for my new 350D - DPChallenge Forums

07/20/2007 07:04:43 AM · #1

Hi all

I'm pretty new to the site but am really enjoying entering challenges and picking up new ideas and inspiration from the wealth of talent here at dpc. I'm getting a dSLR soon and have gone for the 350D as I can get it pretty cheaply and have such a huge choice of lenses.

I should point out first of all that I'm a student with a VERY limited budget! To start with, I'm getting the Canon 50mm f/1.8 as it seems like a very nice and highly inexpensive piece of glass. Apart from that I have a budget of about Â£300 ($600) for a standard zoom lens. Up to now, I thought I would go for the Sigma 17-70mm Macro as it starts quite wide and is pretty versatile for the price. But now I'm not so sure.

I'm really interested in being able to do wide angle shots so I could manage the Sigma 10-20mm at a stretch, but would the 20mm end be suitable for the shots I would normally take at the wide end of a 35mm point and shoot? (I know the 20 equates to 32 on the 350) I've also heard good things about the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8...

Could somebody with some experience with one or some of these lenses point me in the right direction, I'm being seriously indecisive!

Thanks very much :)

Jonty

edit: Probably getting body only!!

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 07:14:36.

jaymody

Canon PowerShot S2 IS

07/20/2007 07:09:14 AM · #2

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/20/2007 07:12:41 AM · #3

are you getting the kit lens with the 350?

(can't answer till I know that)

:)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/20/2007 07:14:15 AM · #4

Thanks for the quick replies!

Sorry, should have said that I'm getting the body only, I haven't heard great things about the kit lens (though I might change my mind if contradicted!)

The 70-300mm has definitely caught my eye but without a kit lens it's too long for a standard lens.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/20/2007 07:31:32 AM · #5

in my opinion ... the sigma 17-70 is an excellent choice. It's better than any kit lens, but still priced right. It has good reviews (except wide open at 17mm) and it covers a very useful range.

the 10-20 lens, while good - is more for special situations. i asked about the kit lens only beause if you were getting it, it would be wise to wait and see if 18mm (wide end of the kit) was wide enough before buying the 10-20

Ben

Canon EOS-30D

07/20/2007 07:32:53 AM · #6

Originally posted by jaymody:

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO

Stick an APO in there and you should definately get it.

Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO MACRO, brilliant lens. I love it.

(Shameless plug)

surfdabbler

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

07/20/2007 07:59:30 AM · #7

The Sigma 17-70 is what I was looking at getting, but ended up with the kit lens (basically at no cost). I'm appreciating everything I'm learning from the kit lens, and I don't really have anything really bad to say about it. At this stage, I haven't decided what I will eventually get as a replacement for the kit-lens range, as I can afford to put off that decision while I get lenses to cover the rest of the range.

I'm finding the 18 at the wide end is really good. It's so nice after having a P&S which maxed out at 36. The biggest downside is that most of my photography is handheld, but I'm still tossing up to decide between wide aperture and IS, so I can't tell you which I think is more useful.

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 08:00:03.

07/20/2007 09:12:23 AM · #8

Thanks for all the opinions, much appreciated.

I had a quick look at a catalogue and found the Sigma 24-60mm EX f/2.8 which though with a smaller range does offer the quality of the EX range and obviously the 2.8 aperture throughout the zoom range. If I were to get the 10-20mm later that would seem like quite a good choice. Any thoughts?

edit: On the other hand there's also the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8...

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 09:46:56.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/20/2007 10:04:05 AM · #9

Originally posted by js797:

Along with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP....choices choices... I personally went for the Tammy 28-75mm, the only thing I'd replace it with is the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L which will only happen when I can justify spending over $1000 on a lens. Getting a lens in this range will allow you to set up both a 70-200mm lens and a 10-20/22mm lens in the future and have pretty much complete coverage from 10-200mm. Add in a telephoto extender later on and you'd have either 10-280mm or 10-400mm coverage without a problem. With the 17-50, there would be a big gap between 50mm and 70mm which I personally use a lot.

fotomann_forever

07/20/2007 11:20:14 AM · #10

Seriously, pick up a Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII. You will be spoiled by this sharp, yet inexpensive piece of glass.

anotherday

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/20/2007 11:32:36 AM · #11

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Seriously, pick up a Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII. You will be spoiled by this sharp, yet inexpensive piece of glass.

I'll have to agree. That's exactly what I did! Excellent lens! And very inexpensive! Go for it!

edit: I just realized U said you are going to buy that one :)

My next choice is EF-S 10-22mm (waiting for it to arrive in a couple of days).

Message edited by author 2007-07-20 11:35:45.

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/20/2007 12:03:41 PM · #12

Originally posted by jaymody:

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO

Don't do THAT.

07/20/2007 01:05:54 PM · #13

since you're wanting a wide angle ... and not buying the kit lens ... this would be my recommendation (it'll be my kit replacement later this year) Canon 17-40 f/4 L

07/20/2007 01:42:37 PM · #14

Ah yes, an L lens, would be lovely if I could afford it. One day...

07/20/2007 01:52:28 PM · #15

Originally posted by js797:

Ah yes, an L lens, would be lovely if I could afford it. One day...

Actually, that lens is about $650 ish ... (Abe's has it for $629)... from what your budget said, this lens is barely above it ...

07/20/2007 01:54:13 PM · #16

Ah it must be cheaper in the US, at amazon.co.uk it's Â£530 which is quite a lot more than I can justify spending at the moment :(

07/20/2007 01:56:09 PM · #17

Originally posted by js797:

Ah it must be cheaper in the US, at amazon.co.uk it's Â£530 which is quite a lot more than I can justify spending at the moment :(

Oh, gotcha ... sorry, didn't realize it was so much over there ...