Serious question...

[NM reef]

...for a couple of years now I've been using a Canon G5 and I'm on the verge of purchasing a Canon EOS XT with the stock 18-55mm Lense. My question is this.....if you were to purchase one additional lense which would you pick and why?

My photography skills are fairly basic and I take a relatively wide range of photos from macro shots of aquariums to photos of family gatherings to scenic shots when traveling and even some local sporting events. I'd like to have a pair of lenses that could accomodate the range of topics listed. So.......which would you pick?

 

[BlueCorn]

I went from the Canon G6 to my DRXT earlier in the year.

What you'll notice immediately is that with that lens, your ability to do decent closeup work goes out the window. Many folks don't like the stock lens (myself included). What I'd do is go to someplace like B&H Photo where you can buy just the body and then a couple of lenses. No need to spend the money on the kit lens that you'll likely not ever use again if you buy anything else.

I have, and really like, the 28-135 IS USM for my everyday lens. Then I'd add the 100 2.8 Macro.

Cheers

 

[NM reef]

Thanks for the response beerguy...I've seen some of your photos and they've been impressive. I've looked at B&H for the combination you suggested and it looks like I can get the XT body and both lenses for around $1600.....at that price I may need to wait a few months. I try to insure my "hobby" purchases are paid for by "hobby" related income....my aquarium maintenance business will generate the funds needed in time....'till then I may just need to be patient and stick with my G5....its been a real good camera so far but I'm definitely ready to expand my horizions a little. I appreciate the sound advice.

Anybody care to add to or dispute the direction so far?

 

[louist]

I would skip the stock lens, and get the 28-135 IS USM for everyday use. Doug has good tastes

For an addition lens on the top of that, I would take the 100 macro in a heartbeat, but then again, I am a macro addict. Seriously, macro lens are one of the most versatile lens you can have in your bag, they are build well and optically superb, great for everyday use too.

 

[Sk8r]

I have the EOS and am looking forward to the day I can get a macro. The standard lens is good for a lot of things, but frustrating within the tank.b

 

[ReefWerkes]

There's nothing wrong with the Kit lens. As a matter of fact, it can take some fairly decent shots - not to mention that at around $80, it's a steal. If purchased without the camera, it is $140.

If you're new to photography, get the basic set-up. You may not end up taking as many pictures as you thought or you might get hooked and want to expand on what you have.

The point is, get the camera and get shooting.

I have both the Rebel XT and the 20D. I have several lenses including the Canon 100mm Macro.. which I highly recommend for the Reef aquarium.

I use the kit lens quite a bit for general shooting. It has proven itself time and time again.

Here is one with the kit lens:

 

[BlueCorn]

ReefWerkes - That's a nice picture but even shrunk down to that size it looks soft to me; which is my complaint about the lens in general. If you're happy with it, you should use it. Photography is art so we don't have to agree.

Cheers

 

[jwedehase]

I'll third the "Ditch the stock lens and go with the 28-135mm IS USM" comments.

I have a 20D and the mentioned lens. Go with those for now, and purchase the macro later.

 

[Mekong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7034589#post7034589 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jwedehase
I'll third the "Ditch the stock lens and go with the 28-135mm IS USM" comments.

I have a 20D and the mentioned lens. Go with those for now, and purchase the macro later.

If you can afford it!

I dont like the stock lens, I have the 300D, but it works!

I recently bought a elanIIe 35mm which came with a 28-80 III USM, a much better lens. The stock one is soft, but for 80$ its a good deal.

Using the 28-135 on a 350D will make it a 44.8-216mm effective, Personaly I would miss not having 28-44.8mm...

Why not a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, and then a macro or a 70-200 L?

Look at how much you want to spend and that will dictate the lens!

 

[louist]

I said ditch the stock lens because I bought a "stock lens" for my 500N, and now looking back, I wish I had just gone for a nicer lens that I would still use now. However that said, I did go from a newbie to someone passionate about photography. The idea of "saving investment" won't work for people who buy a DSLR but never really got into it.

I still use my 28-80 f.35-5.6 II lens, and it's the cheap of the cheapest. I used to do macro with it, with a EF25 ext. tube, thus I have pushed that lens pretty far, but still not pleased enough with it to recommand it.

 

[ReefWerkes]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7034728#post7034728 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mekong
Why not a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM,...?

Probably because it is $1200 and not compatible with anything except the Rebel, 20D and 30D.

The point is that for $80 the lens is a fine all around shooter. I will stand by the quality as I have seen some great shots taken with it. My shot that I posted has a shallow DOF, cause I only had a second to take it - otherwise f/11 would have been good. I did no post sharpening with it - I probably should have.

Is it for the aquarium - no. But that is where a 100mm macro comes into play.