Choosing a good lense to start off with

[Rellion]

I am going to buy a 350D body, not kit because I have heard many people complain about the kitlense. So, I will have to buy a lense with it.

At first I was looking at the Tamron 28-75 because there were so many positive reviews on it, but I decided not to buy it because it has a short zooming distance. I am looking for something that let's me zoom in (probably something about 28-200/300mm), it doesn't have to be a wide-angle, as I will probably buy a prime for that later on. It would have to be a nice compact lense, that is comfortable to take with me. Also, because the camera I am planning to use it on is a 350D, there is the 1.6 magnification factor so I want the lense to be atleast 50/1.6=about 30 mm.

I am considering to buy a Sigma lense but I read that their customer support is bad, could anyone confirm this?

Can you guys recommend me some good quality lenses?

edit: Another question: Is it worth paying alot more for a lense when it has F2.8 instead of something a bit higher? Can anyone explain to me what effect the F-value can have on pictures? I have a rough idea of what it means but I don't really understand what effect it can have on images.


--
By the way I found a cheap webshop that sells the 350D for about 700 Euro, the website is www.filmdiscount.com. I'm posting it here so that it may help others. It is the cheapest webshop for the 350D that I could find. I am also buying a 1 GB extreme sandisk there for 89 Euro.

[Newby]

Hey Rellion,

OK, First up F-stop values (AKA Aperture Size). Basically this controls your Depth of Field. The lower the number example 2.8 the more the background behind your focal point is blurred out. If you shot with a high F-stop say 16-22 you’ll get more of your background in focus with your main subject.

So what type of photography do you want to shot??
Portrait – a low F-stop lens would be handy, you don’t have to go into PS to blurr out the background.
Landscapes – you don’t really want a low F-stop. This way you can get more depth of field in the picture and have a wonderful scenic shot that looks in focus out to infinity.
Night Photography – You want a lens with a low F-stop, High F-stop lenses will give you horrible pics at night.

I don’t know if you read this post ( http://www.pixeladdiction.com/bb/showthread.php?t=2828?do=markread) but it had some useful info in it. It covers some really good lenses.

Sigma does make some great lenses. I own a 28-200 and it works great. It’s light weight and compact (which is great for hiking or walking). As for the customer support I have never had a problem with them so I wouldn’t know.

I would go with the 28-200mm Sigma it shoots great shots. Since you read my tutorial one of the last pics with the white duck was shot with that lens. If you want to get more range Sigma has just released an 18-200mm F3.5-6.5 lens made for digital cameras. You can check it out here ( http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp). This will cover the range that you’re going to lose by not getting the lens that comes in the kit and will give you a focal length of 28-320mm.

For a wide angle lens I would go with a Canon, but that’s just my preference. Both Tamron and Sigma make wide angle lenses, but one that you may want to look at is the Canon’s EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ( http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=10510) this is going to give you more freedom than a prime lens and a focal length of 16-32mm.

With these 2 lens you could cover the focal range from 16-320mm, which is great coverage.

I hope this helps some

[Rellion]

Once again, thanks for your help. You have helped me greatly.

[QUOTE=Newby]You want a lens with a low F-stop, High F-stop lenses will give you horrible pics at night.[/quote]

I want to be able to make good quality pictures at night. What is the minimum F-value my lense should be able to handle?

For a wide angle lens I would go with a Canon, but that’s just my preference. Both Tamron and Sigma make wide angle lenses, but one that you may want to look at is the Canon’s EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ( http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=10510) this is going to give you more freedom than a prime lens and a focal length of 16-32mm.

I can't afford spending over 500 euro for a wideangle lense. I'm not really looking for a wide angle lense now, I will probably buy one later on when I see a good one at a good price.

With these 2 lens you could cover the focal range from 16-320mm, which is great coverage.

Since I'm not really looking for a wide-angle lense, I think that I can go with the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di Zoom since I have read very good reviews on it, I have seen some people claim that this lense is capable of shooting pics of better quality than the way more expensive canon lenses of comparable length.

I also want a macro lense and I have chosen the Tamron 70-300 again because I have read many excelent reviews on it, and people claim that it outperforms the 2/3x more expensive canon lenses of comparable length, even those with the IS/USM features. I have read this sort of thing in more than one review, I have been researching this stuff for almost a week.

With this I cover the focal length of about 50 to about 500, and the 2 lenses together should cost about 500 euro together, this is exactly the price I was aiming for.

Is there anyone here that has experience with these lenses and/or that can give me some feedback on them? Or anything else that I should know or consider before buying these lenses?

[Newby]

F2.8 should do it for night photography. As I'm sure you know it the exposure time that is critical. Anything above 3 seconds (this of course varied depending on the lighting). But in doing this you're going to increase the noise in the photo, so give it a few test shots and check your exposure with the histogram before you take your main shot.

As for the macro are you talking about the AF70-300MM F/4-5.6 LD Macro?? If so have a minimum focal length of 37.4 inches (0.95m) in Macro mode isn't that close. I had a Tamron 70-300mm a while back and while it did get you close it is not a true macro. Plus since its macro mode is set at it's longest focal length it was always necessary to mount it on a tripod. Otherwise you're going to get blurry shots. An alternative to the tripod would be to shoot at a higher ISO, but that is going to increase the noise in the pictures.

[Rellion]

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/assets/pdfs/28_300xrdi.pdf

The new Tamron 28-300 would be ideal for me if the picture quality is great. It has a nice price and huge zoom capabilities. And it is small. Does anyone have experience with this lense?

It's F3.5-6.3. I assume that means that the lense supports 3.5 at 28 and 6.3 at 300? In that case, is F3.5 enough to shoot good pictures at night? The minimum object distance is 0.49 meter but would that also be the case at 300mm?

By the way! I am planning for an 20D instead of a 350D because I now have the opportunity to get the 20D for real cheap.