I picked it up and its just what i imagined - im looking forward to Santa bringing me one.

It felt really solid and the screen was bigger than i expected, the mode dial and twisty thing were good to turn instead of being really loose. (i cant stand small parts of cameras, mobiles, etc that turn with little force)

the kit lens felt ok also, i also tryed out the 50-255mm IS, this felt solid enough.


So heres what i need to think about:
What lens i want after mastering the kit lens.

If i like macro best, which is the best lens?
If i like landscapes best?
If i want a lens for fast action, which i can zoom right in on.


Even with the kit lens you have 10x zoom in live view mode, to check precision details. Imagine what that would be like @ full zoom in 200mm!!

So what lens can you guys (as pros) reccomend for a beginner photographer with a canon 450D.
Ive looked at the L series lens' they look rather sexual - but i dont think im advanced enough for them

remember that time in the shop today was my first touch of a DSLR.

Please take into account things like USM and IS, and other stuff like that.





Cheers!

This post was edited by doyleo on Dec 6 2008 09:44am

I dont think you can afford the best lenses for macro, landscape and zoom with f-2.8. You should think how much your willing to put for these lenses and think what lens you want to put the most money in. I assume you mean 55-250 is, you should try other lenses that the kit lens and that one and ull notice that the 55-250 feels like really cheap plastic toy, but it does the job if you dont need faster focus or smaller f-number. Same thing on 450d and its kit lens, or well doesent feel like that much of a plastic toy than the 55-250, but still feels like a toy compared to more expencive cameras. Usm is ultrasonic motor and the focus on those is usually much faster than non usm, it focuses inside the lens so there isnt eny parts moving outside the lens, allso you can focus manually at eny time with them, non usm you need to switch to manual focus to turn the focus wheel. Is helps for hand shaking only and wont stop the motion of moving objects, so if your shooting some moving things it will be useless, since you need to use fast shutterspeed enyways.

You should get the 50mm 1.8 lens if your not going to buy 50mm macro or other primes for about same focal lenght.

What he said. Don't go without the 50mm 1.8 Lens. Cheap and awesome. Amazingly crisp for the price, and the depth of field is awesome aswell.

is the 50mm 1.8 II high build quality?
what sort of photography will it take?
and why is it better then the 18-55mm IS kit?

!!! !!!



Cheers guys




e/ if i really want a tele lens, would u recommend the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM Lens over the 55-250mm IS?
(even though it is double the price)

This post was edited by doyleo on Dec 6 2008 10:57am

50mm f-1.8 has quite crap build quality, but its really sharp and good image quality, allso its the cheapest canon lens. In film camera 50mm is "normal" focal lenght, but with 1.6 crop factor its great focal lenght for portraits, but allso handy for much more. 18-55 kit lens isnt good in image quality, even tho its slightly better than the old non is kit lens, allso you can get low f-numbers with it.

Yes 70-200 is much better than the 55-250, but you should think if you want telezoom that much, since you could get some other desent lens besides the 55-250 for the price, for example 50mm 1.4, but i would suggest just get the 50 1.8 if your not into the 50mm focal lenght much.

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Dec 6 2008 11:06am

thanx, ill look into the 50mm - it's only 60 quid so could be worth a go.

the photography im really interested in is:
-macro
-landscape
-action
-night (fireworks, lightning, etc)

if you had €350 to get a lens that would be a good all-rounder for those subjects, what would you get?

please bare in mind:
id already have the kit lens,
and a lens which you think looks loads sharper, in my eye would look identical - coz im retard!!



Cheers Mate

This post was edited by doyleo on Dec 6 2008 11:14am

350€ isnt enough for a good lens. For macro you need one lens, for night you need other lens with low f-number(some 1.8 or less) lightning and fireworks arent something you get to shoot much, so i wouldnt recommend getting a lens just for those, landscapes you can take with the kit lens if your standards arent high, if you mean sports and stuff with action you will need big millimeters and f-2.8 on the lens and those cost alot 70-200 f-2.8 without is costs about 1250€.

Imo it feels like your not being totally realistic on the money issues. Lets say you want some standard lens you can shoot in low light, i would suggest 28mm 1.8 thats around 500€ lens protector and lens hood are about 50€ together, other option would be sigma 30mm 1.4, thats about 50€ cheaper and includes lens hood, but you need lens protector thats about 25-35€. Cheapest macro lens is 50mm 2.5 thats about 300€, but imo thats bit too wide for a macro so you should spend more on it or use it with tele converter that 2x focal lenght multiplier costs 250-370€ depending if you get sigma or canon. 55-250 costs bit over 300€, lens hood and lens protector about 50€ together, but the lens works too slowly for you to react fast for some situations or get the focus right on spot fast, so you should get atleast the 70-200 f-4 costs 650€, lens hood is included, but since front lens is wider the lens protector costs bit more, around 45€. You can count how much its all together.

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Dec 6 2008 12:09pm

when the pound gets a bit better the money i can spend will go up.
so.... if i was going into business and selling prints, id be willing to get loads of lens. But im not, im only starting out - and wondering which lens will be best for me after the kit lens. the 50mm is not a problem because its practically free compared to other lens'
as you said the 50mm is handy for a lot of things, which is great.

im sure its possible to use the 50mm and easily get a nice macro photo, of course not as good as someone with a dedicated macro lens, which i dont think i would buy for the reason that if i was shooting a flower close up, and a long distance once in a life time came, id have to switch lens. But if i had a nice all round lens, id get the picture, even if its not as good as the guy who WOULD have got if he had changed his lens in time.


I greatly thank you for all your advice, and for recommending this 50mm.

This post was edited by doyleo on Dec 6 2008 12:26pm

Dont get me wrong 50mm is bit too tight for most situations, but you can use it for much more than portraits only. That kit lens is better for macro than the 50mm, but you cant get close with the kit lens either, since if your too close the lens simply cant focus on target, macro lenses can focus from way closer than normal lens. Allso there are macro lens kits with for example +1 +2 and +4 diopetre lenses(aloows you to focus from closer lenght), if your tight on the budget and dont mind iq going down a bit you should get some kind of macro lens kit for the 50mm, i had that 50 1.8 and macro kit for it, from soligor kit with +1 +2 and +4 lenses cost about 50€, even tho iq will go down, i think it will be better than the kit lens from the center. Problem with these macro kits is that the edges might get really soft, with ur standards just soft

great! thats portraits and macro out the way. im sure both them lens' will get me going really well!
so then you think i should start saving for one of the big L series lens' if i wanna shoot nice landscapes/wildlife?