Difference in lenses?
 

Ive been looking round t'internet recently with the intentions of chosing my next lens to purchase and a couple of things strike me:

1. L series lenses are bloody expensive and sadly, out of my price range

2. IS USM lenses seem to be a little cheaper, but still expensive

3. USM lenses seem reasonable

4. Aspherical just confuses me?


Which lenses should I save up for do we think?

Im open to suggestions :)

~S~

Depends what area of photography appeals to you most.

Yes,as Mike has said,which is your main area of photography.Wildlife,portraits,landscapes?.Or general purpose,ie a zoom lens which will take in all aspects,and do a reasonable job for all occassions.

Most of my time is around vehicles, especially motorsport and I do enjoy motorsport photography, but I cant limit myself to a single type of photography as since I bought the SLR, I feel compelled to have a go at everything.

I would say though to narrow it down so recommendations can be given my main areas would be

Motorsport - soon to try aircraft
Static/Wide angle (anything from landscapes to car shows)
Portraits - I spend a lot of time photographing my nephew :)

Well you need a good wide-angle zoom as priority I would guess as the other two subject areas are covered at the moment though I reckon you might be tempted by something longer eventually for motor sport/aircraft. The 18-55 is not that wonderful according to what I have been told and read so in time that might be worth upgrading if you find you use it a lot. For my wide-angle zoom I have a Canon 10-35 EF S which is superb. There are other very good alternatives by the independent manufacturers.

Sigma do a great 28mm~300mm lens that would cover quite a lot of what you want to photograph, its not too slow either. I use a sigma 28~70 f2.8 as a prime lens on my canon 400d and find it pin sharp

The only problem with the Sigma that Chris W mentions is that it does not extend the focal length range over what you have already got so does not open up new photographic possibilities. The 28mm end becomes a 44.8 when you factor in sensor size.

I would like a nice wide angle lens and although the quality of the consumer lenses is satisfactory for the time being (well, almost ;)) I do intend on buying one of the Sigma EX lenses at some point

I quite like the APO 70-300 and it produces a decent quality image, but I would consider the Sigma 28-300 F2.8 to replace the 70-300 unless I can get a L series lens on the cheap :D

Three of the lenses I definitely would like are the Sigma 10-20, Canon 50mm II and a nice 100mm prime, but I want sharper images straight from the shoot rather than using PS

The Sigma 10-20 is v good. If I was going to buy a 100mm prime I would buy a 100mm or there abouts macro lens (Canon, Sigma or Tamron) which would give me two uses in one. All razor sharp.

Sigma 10-20 definitely a good buy.

Yep - agree with the Sigma 10 - 20.

Also love the Sigma 105 mm F2.8 macro.

Can't go wrong with them. Won't necessarily break the bank either.

Lesley

Another vote for the Sigma EX 105mm f2.8 Macro
Wonderful bit of glass, picked up for a song.

For portraits Canon 50mm 1.8 I believe it's the predecessor to the mark II---It's rated higher than than the mark II. Excellent portrait lens for less than $80.00 here in the US. The old one would probable be 30.00 or 40.00 US These 50mm are the best lens value you will get. It looks to me like you need a wide angle Zoom and for that I would recommend the Tokina 12-24. check out this link for a comparison. These are good lenses and should be a lot less than the canon. hope this helps, Jack http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...out/index.html

I'd agree that both the Sigma 105 macro and the 10-20 are excellent lenses... but how about a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It's an outstanding lens, a good fast lens for motorsports (works well with tc's when you need more reach) and very nice for portraits/candids.

I'd second a sigma 70-200 f2.8. Really nice lens - good handling, quick focussing, good sharpness and contrast even wide open. When I'm not photographing birds, it's the lens that stays on my camera the most. It's also quite rugged - when Sheffield and Barnsley suffered the flooding back in the 'summer' I spent all day out in the steady downpour taking photos, sometimes with a binbag over the camera but often not; no problems and very little condensation at the end of the day.

Well, I shall be buying a new lens this week in the guise of a Canon 50mm prime F1.8 Mk2

I aim to do some portraits and I always luurve a shallow DOF on portraits and the 50mm prime comes highly recommended from photographers of all levels :)