What kind of lens should i get

[JamesG]

I want to get a new lens for my Canon Digital SLR. Something versatile that will do more than the bog standard kit lens. What shall I get?

[SteveT]

The best one you can afford is my advice, and try a few out at the shop and see what they do.

The disadvantage of course is the size, weight, and bulk when you carry them.

[HAL9000]

Probably more than any other factor, it depends on what kind of photography you wish to engage in: close up, landscape, architecture, portraiture, sports, fashion, photo reportage, wildlife - optimised lenses are available for each type of pursuit.

[JamesG]

not close ups or wildlife

[red devil]

A photographer friend recently puchased a 120-400 Sigma lens for his Nikon, and raves about it.

You need to check on compability with your specific camera but here's a link to check out prices...

120-400 Sigma lens prices...

[Sue]

I used to have a Canon non-digital SLR. I used a Canon-compatible Tamron zoom lens, can't remember the exact spec, 35 - 200? That's probably showing my ignorance!

It was reasonably light and easy to carry, very versatile, and took excellent pictures of people, landscapes etc when I went travelling.

It was also very reasonably priced.

ETA: And I only needed to carry one lens so didn't need to keep changing over lenses.

[JamesG]

Erh, oh dear. Thanks but ?600 is too rich for me.

[SteveT]

There are loads around secondhand James just don't be in a hurry to purchase.

Camera clubs are a good source as they are buffs and always wanting the latest thing they tend to sell on stuff.

[peckhamboy]

I've got a Sigma 18-200mm lens for Canon - covers pretty much everything you could want for day to day photos. Quality is not quite as sharp as a Canon lens but more than adequate, and significantly cheaper at about ?250-300. At f3.5, you still need a reasonable amount of light although it's got optical stabilisation as well which helps a little bit.

Check out camerapricebuster for best prices - it's a specialist camera equipment price comparison site which keeps up to date with latest offers etc.

[globalskier]

I second that. 18-200 is great because you get wide angle right through to a decent zoom, and you don't have to dick around changing lenses. A good multi-purpose choice and miles better than the kit lens.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'd suggest a 35mm-75mm lens (from experience). The problem with long zooms (up to 200mm) is that unless you pay a good whack for it you'll find loss of sharpness at the edges at some focal lengths and will always need a tripod. A 35-75 is more affordable and will give pretty good results at every zoom, whilst being versatile (and light) enough for landscapes through to snapshots and semi-close ups.

[mockney piers]

Prime lenses are the best bang for your buck and versatility comes with your feet rather than a zoom.

50mm 1.8 is probably the best value canon lens there is at under a ton. If you're feeling fruity the 1.4 has better build quality and slightly sharper, but comes in at about ?250

[ianr]

James, you don't say what your current lens is (and hence what it's not). If it's choice of focal length(s) you're principally uncertain about, is there really any substitute for a hands-on trial?

[mockney piers]

Here's DP Review's lens buying guide.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/lens_buying_guide_01.htm

I can't help but notice they have a photo of the 50mm F1.8 hint hint ;)

[peckhamboy]

I agree that the 50mm f1.8 is a great bit of kit for the price, but for versatility something like the 18-200mm is unbeatable. I basically use it for about 90% of the time now, with the 50mm on for the other 10%. It's surprisingly good at all focal lengths, and it's light enough that I very rarely need a tripod.

I would say that for a relative novice on a budget it's probably unbeatable.

[mockney piers]

In all fairness I do actually use my 24-70 f2.8 more than I use my prime, it's such a beautiful lens, the image quality is astounding, but it also weighs half a ton.

My 50 f1.4 died on honeymoon, the autofocus stopped working and if you're not composing a still life or something, autofocus is absolutely vital on those wide apertures.

Then all of a sudden it came back to life a couple of months ago for no particular reason. Colour me very happy indeed!!

[felt-tip]

i use a 35mm f.1.8 for baby pictures and its great.

[mockney piers]

indeed, with the 3/4 sensors in most DSLRs that makes your 35 effectively a 50 and my 50 an 80, so your 35 is a great portrait lens.

[copleston_charlie]

Another vote for a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8 prime lens.

a) they're cheap

b) big max aperture, (so you can shoot indoors over the winter months without a flash) - blows the background out of focus so lovely for portraits

c) Check the reviews but you should find the 50mm 1.8 has pretty sharp optics

d) The fact you don't have a zoom will force you to think more closely about the composition of the shot, rather than just zooming away and snapping. (Nowt wrong with zooms, it's just nice to try something different sometimes)

e) Not too risky. If you buy the official Canon lenses you can use them for a few months and then flog them if you don't like them and you'll still get a decent resale price.

[mockney piers]

All good advice.

Oh, and if you're looking at pricier lenses you can hire them from places like Calumet which I highly recommend before a huge outlay.

You're more than welcome to test drive my 50 though. Fear'n'Boozing has it a the moment *another hint hint if he's lurking*

[DJKillaQueen]

The OP did ask for something other than a basic kit though, which is what prime lens are...basic kit. If you don't want to carry three lens then a zoom is the only answer. The short zoom is always going to give better results than a long zoom (photographic science was part of my degree) and prime lens (depending on the quality of the optics of course) will give even better results. The shorter the focal length the sharper all round a lens tends to be (for reasons of pure maths and physics). A decent 35-75mm though will still give excellent results at all focal lengths. No 200m zoom will keep it's properties, esp at 200m and esp at the edges of the lens. That's why wildlife photographers use primes...not zooms.

[mockney piers]

The 'kit lens' the OP refers to is these days the general purpose lens that a DSLR ships with.

In the case of budget Canon DSLRs its the 18-55 f3.5-5.6

A good starter lens for learning composition and techniques, but the optics aren't good and image quality suffers significantly.

The 50 f1.8 is an excellent lens at a very cheap price. To get similar quality from a zoom would be minimum double, nay triple, the price, obviously as you say the trade-off is quality vs flexibility.

Also agree with avoiding the longer zooms, they cost ALOT for decent quality.

[Huguenot]

I think what JamesG was saying is that he's got a Canon with a 'starter' kit lens, and he would like to see if he can move on to more creative and engaging photographs with a new lens.

If he's got a 40D, the he could have either one of the 'kit' lenses: theCanon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

If he's not an expert and if he's got either one of those then probably what he'd like is something that gives him a fundamentally different feel to the shot.

In that sense I'd be trying to recommend a lens that can deliver a shallow depth of field (a small f number) and still be sharp. Because he's low on budget it'll be difficult to get a good one with a zoom facility, so that effectively means he's going to be in 'prime' territory.

For that reason I'd plump firmly for the 50mm f1.4, and you can pick it up for around 250 quid.

I'm guessing Jimbo will derive an extremely pleasurable 6 months getting immersed in portrait and indoor flash free photography, and he'll have a lens that he can treasure for ever!

[Huguenot]

cross post

[HAL9000]

In my experience (as a one-time professional), most photographers usually develop an interest in a particular subject or style and then acquire a lens that will facilitate their creative vision.

Buying a new lens merely in the hope that it will inspire some previously latent creativity seems rather forlorn to me - just my two cents' worth.