Lens advice

Jeremah1977

Hey, first time I have posted on this site. I am trying to get into photography and have scraped enough sheckles together to get a second hand Canon eos 450D.
I have started to get to grips with the fundamental controls and am looking for advice on what lenses to invest in.
Cheers

Calina

Do you have any lens at all? For the most part I believe that 450D was usually delivered with an 18-55mm so I would generally recommend that you go and have a play with that and decide what it can't do that you want to be able to do.

A lot of people here will recommend you get the money together for a 50mm 1.8 lens - this is a good idea but I'd generally learn the limitations of what you have first before spending more money.

CabanSail

What area of photography are you interested in?

When you get a Kit Lens will be the Jack of all trades. So for most things it will do well & great to learn with.

The thing about SLR Photography is that you can add lenses & other items to specialise. The thing about a specialist lens is that they are designed for particular roles or uses. For example a 400mm f2.8 prime lens would be great for Wildlife, but not what you would pick for Portraits or a lens to walk around with.

So if you are learning then the Kit Lens is probably as good as any. If there is an area you want to explore then there will be lots of advice for a set up to suit.

Jeremah1977

Originally I started off some years ago with an old 35mm Pentax K1000. I still have it and still use it from time to time. It definately qualifies as a vintage camera at this stage.

The type of photography I really enjoy is landscape and macro photography. I spend a lot of time in the wicklow mountains and this would be my main focus of interest.

silverside

get the 50mm f1.8 - 70 quid odd from the UK

the quality from this is stunning(and it lets you be creative with aperture) and will probably make you want to upgrade the kit lens - a good choice would be the sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5

you might also want to get a longer lens - long lens suitable for fast sport are expensive, but you can get something adequate for long still shots (zoos etc) for under 100 quid - i got the tamron 70-200 3.5 - 5.6 (i think) for 70 poundws sterling

Jeremah1977

Thanks guys. I have another question. Is a macro lens only for really close up shooting or can they be used for normal shooting also.

Aaand one final question. What are your opinions on photography clubs? Are they worth attending, what kind of things do you discuss at them and do you find them benficial?

oshead

Jeremah1977 wrote: »

Thanks guys. I have another question. Is a macro lens only for really close up shooting or can they be used for normal shooting also.

Macro lense sizes can be anywhere from 50mm to 180mm. They can be used for normal (non macro) photography and are usually a bit more expensive than other consumer prime lenses due to their high glass quality. One of my favourite, the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lense is also excellent portrait lense.

Sometimes the manufacturers of lenses add "macro" capability to zoom lenses. From my experience, these lenses usually have very low macro performance.

In general macro lenses can be used for almost any type of photography, the one exception is the very specialized macro lense Canons MP-E 65mm. This is purely for macro photography and cannot focus further than 101 mm from the front of the lense.

Hope this helps.

Dave OS

Pivot_Al

Like silverside, I have the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 macro. I think its a great alternative to the Canon kit lens- better image quality. Very usable at all apertures- some barrel distortion at wide end but not a problem in most circumstances.

The *macro * facility is surprisingly good. Its not a lifesize true 1-1 but its a great way of finding out whether you want to splash out on a dedicated macro lens. Here's an example of what sort of quality you can expect (using tripod)