Photographers - Please help me with first DSLR lens selection

[stormyClouds]

I just picked up my first DSLR - a Canon Rebel Xt 350d.
I have the body only and no lens yet.

At this point, I am looking to pick up a decent all-around lens for general use. I have young kids and occasionally shoot at sporting events, car shows, nature hikes, etc. (and bikes/parts, of course).

I am just getting my feet wet with this hobby and not looking to spend a ton of dough on a bunch of specialized lenses (yet:).

Was hoping for a little advice on what to look for:
1. Best to stick with Canon lens or is that unnecessary?
2. If I look for used, what do I want to ask about/look out for?
3. Where are the good places to look for something reasonably priced (i.e.something like this place)?
4. Any recommendations on specific lenses that would be a good value for general use?

Thanks in advance for your help!

[thegunner]

nifty fifty :)

[tuxbailey]

nifty fifty :)

+1.

One of the best place to pick up used gear is Fred Miranda's B&S board (although not many entry level stuff are being traded there.)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

Just never wire money directly :)

[mgm777]

1. Stick with Canon
2. First lens...should be a 50 mm prime, as fast as you can afford...1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2
3. Later on, for more versatility...you will need two lenses:
Walking around: 24-70 mm, f2.8
Kid's sporting events: 70-200 f4.0

[johnmdesigner]

A 35 MM is considered an "all rounder. Wide enough for landscape and adequate for street scenes and portraits.
I am not familiar with Canon's offerings but they must have several. I don't like off brand lenses so I would go for the Canon that you can afford.
You will get up closer with a 50mm but It won't be as useful in other situations.
I carried a Leica with a 35mm for years. Never felt like I needed another lens.
Google "Ken Rockwell" and read his thoughts on which lenses to own. Man knows his business.

[tuxbailey]

I think for general use and trying to "get your feet" wet, you should get some kind of kit lens (not necessary Canon.) Since the XT's usable ISO is around ISO 800 (I have one) you think get something with IS. And you also want to add a fast prime like to 50 mm for portraits (1.6 x 50 = 80 mm FL.)

That way, you don't have to spend a lot of money up front but you will get a feel on lens/FL are adequate for your everyday usage.

[tuxbailey]

Also, Canon is having sale on refurbished gears:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/subCategory_10051_10051_-1_22751?WT.mc_id=C126149#

The 18-135mm EF-S looks pretty good and you should think about a dedicated flash as well.

[pbarry]

A 35 MM is considered an "all rounder. Wide enough for landscape and adequate for street scenes and portraits.
I am not familiar with Canon's offerings but they must have several. I don't like off brand lenses so I would go for the Canon that you can afford.
You will get up closer with a 50mm but It won't be as useful in other situations.
I carried a Leica with a 35mm for years. Never felt like I needed another lens.
Google "Ken Rockwell" and read his thoughts on which lenses to own. Man knows his business.
+1 on all of the above. Ken Rockwell buys everything he reviews and has a real no-nonsense approach to what works and what doesn't and why. His "user guides" will save you days of tedium leafing through the OEM manual.

[mvrider]

Wise of you not to get the kit lens! It'd be tough to get a high-quality lens that does everything you want, because for sports photography, you'll want a longer focal length lens (200-mm or more).

That being said, when I travel or do all around shooting, there's one lens that's on my Rebel T2i 90% of the time: the Canon 17-55 f2.8. Look up the reviews, especially on photozone.de. The focal length range on a cropped-sensor camera is extremely versatile, images are very sharp, the focus is fast and silent, and the vibration reduction is quite useful. Build quality is not quite up to L level, but then again, you have a Rebel.

In general, you'll want to stick to Canon due its higher resale value. I purchased mine used from the local Craigslist. No problems with the lens whatsoever, but buyer be warned, as usual.

Have fun shooting!

[vqdriver]

Fast prime, no question.
For a cropper, Sigma 30/1.4 or canon 28/1.8

This should just be a sticky.

[phcollard]

nifty fifty :)

That's a cool lens for cheap but not really what I would call an all around lens. Especially on a crop factor body. :)

I would stick with the cheap 18-55mm IS. Better buy it new, you won't save much by buying used and you have a warranty. If you really want a prime as an all arount get the 24mm IS. Not the same budget though. That will be a 38mm equivalent on your camera.

Best place to find used gear - the classifieds there is even worse than here, in a good way I mean :D - is http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

[Len J]

A few comments from experience.

Until you really know what you want to shoot, it's hard for anyone to give you advice on what lens to buy. Do you want long or wide? Low light or daylight? Etc, etc. most new DSLR owners don't know what they will gravitate to. So IMO its best to get a versatile kit lens set, (Nikon has an 18-55, 55-200 set that's a great starter set, I'd suspect Canon has the sme) that let's you experiment and see where your eye gravitates too.

Avoid ken Rockwell until you know more, his advice is a mix of insight and real crap designed to elicit strong responses and traffic.....until you can tell the difference, there are better sites out there. IME.

Len

[jds108]

get the 17-55 or 18-135 or something along these lines first. Because if your only lens is a fixed length, you'll immediately be frustrated trying to take action shots as you have so little control over your subjects.

Chances are that you'll also find yourself wanting a larger zoom to get the action shots when the subject isn't right in your face. So if you're wanting to get all of this in one lens, keep that zoom in mind.

But if you're taking pics inside the house for example, you'll usually be wanting a lens a the opposite end of the spectrum.

I'm a truly crappy photographer, but lens length and potential subject matter is a fairly straightforward topic.

[gunder]

Some good advice has already been given but I'll add my two cents...

The fred miranda board that tuxbailey mentioned above is an excellent resource. Try to buy from someone with a fair amount of feedback.

Your camera body has a cropped sensor with a 1.6x crop factor. What this means is that the sensor in your camera captures a smaller area of the image circle the lens projects onto the sensor. A 50mm lens is considered to have a "normal" field of view (FOV) on a true 35mm or "full frame" camera. That same 50mm lens on your crop sensor camera will have a FOV equal to that of an 80mm lens on a "full frame" camera (50 x 1.6 = 80).

For a decent all around lens you probably want a zoom. My two suggestion for you is:

Canon 24-105 IS L f/4

With the 1.6x crop factor, this lens on your camera will have an effective focal length range of 38mm-168mm. You lose some on the wide angle end of the focal range (24mm is now 38mm), but you gain a bit on the tele end (105mm is now 168mm). This could be a good thing if you are shooting sports. The lens also has image stabilization (IS). This allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds with less chance of image blurriness due to camera shake. In a low light light situation this could come in handy. It is also an "L" lens. Canon L lenses are their highest quality lenses with superior build quality and lens coatings compared to the regular Canon lenses. To put it in cycling terms, you could say Canon L= Dura Ace/Record and the regular Canon lens line = Ultegra/Chorus.

The 24-105 lens sells for about $1,050 brand new, but you can probably get one used (and probably in brand new condition) on the used market. This is because Canon packages this lens as a kit with their 6D and 5DmIII camera's, at a discounted price. A lot of guys buy the kit with the full intention of selling the lens to effectively reduce the cost of the camera. For example, the 6D sells for $1,860 for the camera body only, but you can also buy the 6D/24-105 kit for $2,400. So if you sell the lens for $800, you just bought the camera body for $1,600, $260 less then buying the camera body by itself! All prices I quoted are from the B&H Camera website.

Search the fred miranda board for a Canon 24-105 and you'll probably see quite a few for sale. I'd say $800 is a fare price for one that is brand new, fresh out of the box. You may get lucky and get one for much less.:banana:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/10

[gavingould]

One lens truly does not cover it all, but your best bet is likely the 18-55IS phcollard suggested above.

The fredmiranda buy/sell is as "bad" as here, definitely. I've bought and sold there and had generally very good experiences.

I am a Canon shooter, 5d2 and use a 1d3 for shooting cycling as the AF is light years faster. Prefer full-frame as I came from film and had some lenses already. Realistically I could get by 90% of the time with only 35 f1.4 and 135 f2 primes, but often need the wide option of a 16-35. Prefer not to use flash (and neither of my bodies have a built-in anyway) so I go with the biggest apertures possible.
I've experimented with other lens makers (Sigma mostly) but probably best to stick with Canon. Happy to talk shop!

[thwart]

I've got an old original Digital Rebel, and the Canon 28-135 IS lens (paid ~$400 maybe 8 or so yrs ago) has allowed it to take some great pics over the years at many sporting events... and it's a pretty easy carry as well. Here's one from last month.

I've shot with the 'kit lens' as well, and the comparison really made me believe that phrase "it's the glass, not the camera"...

[fatallightning]

Have to kind of chuckle at recommending a Canon L as a first lens. Kind of like recommending a $4000 bike to a first time rider, not that there is anything wrong with that if the money isn't an issue.

I'd personally find a cheap kit lens to get used to the body, functions and SLR technique. It'll also give you some time to see what kind of range you tend to shoot in (wide, tele, etc), and then get the pricey glass that makes sense. Modern DSLRs shoot clean enough for web work at ISO3200 so having a super fast lens isn't as imperative as it used to be. Kit lenses are $100 used all day long.

I love my 50, but I wouldn't want it as my only lens. Too tight for shooting any kind of group or landscape. If you want that shallow DOF for portraits and people though, it's awesome for that.

KEH.com is awesome for used camera equipment. Fair prices, very conservative rating system for condition (when they say mint, they mean it), and liberal return policy, especially if you're not comfortable with the sometimes anonymous forum buying and/or unscrupulous eBay sellers.

[gavingould]

i'll second the reco for KEH.com too, bought from there several times too.

though my current lenses are all very pricey L series, i wouldn't recommend them for anyone just getting started unless they have unlimited budget.

the need to cover a range says go with a zoom, and first DSLR says probably not a candidate for a lens that costs 3x what the camera did.

for low cost primes, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8 are fine recommendations though the 50 (as pointed out by others) will be on the long side. good for portraits and low light, but wider is more likely to be useful at this stage.

18-55 IS is dirt cheap used... KEH - their ratings are very conservative, ie 'ex+' has been in my experience 'like new' and even 'bargain' rated are likely very good still if you don't mind scuffs on the outside. the glass is what counts.

i'm considering picking up the 40mm pancake for a super light walkaround lens - also pretty cheap and decent quality.

[ergott]

Canon 15-85mm IS and 85mm 1.8. The zoom covers most bases especially if you buy a flash like the 430ex. The 85mm is excellent for portraits and fast action. Go Canon refurbished or hunt for a deal on Fred Miranda. I've purchased a lot of my equipment there.

Trust me, I've been through a lot of lenses and the iq of those two are stellar. The focus is fast and reliable as well. Plus, the combo of those lenses and a good flash will continue to serve you well if you upgrade to something like a 7D which is an incredible camera body.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[neiltron]

There's been a lot of recommendations for a 24-70mm and 24-105mm lens - these are designed for full-frame camera bodies, not the crop-sensor Canon Rebel XT you have. If you use those lenses on your camera, you will have a very awkward zoom range that does not produce the "wide to telephoto" zoom range they offer on a full-frame camera body.

Instead, look at the 17-40mm lens. It's a bit cheaper and designed to give the same focal length range (24-70mm) on a crop-sensor body.

My recommendation is to get a prime lens. I normally advise against buying 3rd-party lenses but the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is a great lens and will give you a ~50mm field of view.

The other recommendation I have is to download the trial of Adobe Lightroom. It is designed for quickly and efficiently organizing and editing the thousands of photos you will take.

[HenryA]

Please take into account that this camera is a 1.6 crop factor camera, so a 50mm lens will not have the same view as it would on a 35mm full frame body. You likely do not want a 50mm for your only lens. Many comments so far have overlooked this fact.

For simplicity, I'd go with the Canon 28mm f1.8. Its quite compact, light and not too expensive. I suggest you buy a brand new one from a place like B&H and buy the Canon lens hood for it as well, don't bother with a filter.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html

A 28 on this camera is about equal to a 44mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera. A nice slightly loose, normal view of the world. Once you get used to it, you will find yourself more and more automatically standing in the right place for a picture. Standing in the right place relative to your subject is perhaps one of the most important decisions a photographer can make.

Later on, you might get a zoom of some kind. Maybe a 24-105 or similar. This will be useful for kids sports and such things. But you will probably make better pictures and more of them if you start with a fixed length lens of normal focal length that is easy to use and easy to carry around.

[stormyClouds]

Wow, great stuff!

Thanks to all for the helpful suggestions and for boiling down a ton of info into some bite-sized chunks that will make the decision easier.
I think that my biggest challenge will be making the decision of whether to look for a prime or zoom lens.

I think that it is safe to say that I will eventually add some versatility down the road. For now, I have dropped less than $200 on the body and while I want something decent, a $1,000 lens isn't in my near future.

I do also have a Canon G10 which has quite a bit to offer - admittedly I need to spend some time learning more about it's capabilities.

Anyways, thanks again for the suggestions and I am happy to hear/learn more from some of the collective knowledge here!

[thegunner]

Please take into account that this camera is a 1.6 crop factor camera, so a 50mm lens will not have the same view as it would on a 35mm full frame body. You likely do not want a 50mm for your only lens. Many comments so far have overlooked this fact.

I'm of the opinion that the 50 isn't an 'all around' lens, but still one of the best as a starter (to learn framing, composition, and general skills)

[twangston73]

My take FWIW is that one of the Canon zooms in the 15 to 55 or 85 range is the way to go depending on price sensitivity.

The smaller sensor's built in zoom factor is an important consideration - the 24 mm wide angle that does so much with 35mm film will probably not be as wide-angle as you like - i would not get something with a wide end more than 20. And, while i started my photographic life with prime lenses, I would not give up the convenience and quality of modern zooms unless/until you are getting really specialized, especially with the great low-light sensitivity of modern sensors. (In the same way i would not recommend a fixie to a novice rider!)

Finally, it is a good idea to try to put your hands on some of the actual items before you buy - you will be surprised at the difference in sizes and perceived quality. Some of the shmancy lenses that folks recommend (or the ones with wider zoom ranges) are like lugging around a brick, so be realistic about how much you are willing to be burdened with this item that, ideally, you will be dragging with you all over the place!

[ergott]

Here's my take on primes (only my take).

In order to understand what I'm talking about you have to understand what aperture means and how it applies to photography. A lens with a bigger aperture will have a f number that is lower. Larger apertures let in more light for faster shutter speeds and they also have a smaller depth of field. That means a smaller amount of the composition will be in focus and the rest will be blurred. Larger apertures lenses can always be stopped down (bigger f number) by the camera.

The best zooms now offer excellent image quality. For general photography, primes which usually have a larger aperture end up being stopped down for greater depth of field so they are not fully utilized all the time. An example of this is taking pictures with more than one person in frame. At a small f number, you won't get them all in focus unless they are perfectly in plane with the camera and it's not a natural photograph. A fast prime wide open will only get one eye of one subject in focus if they are not looking directly at the camera. It's a nice effect, but you have to be sure you really want that.

A good zoom like the 15-85mm (designed for cropped sensors such as yours) will give you a wide variety of compositional choices at apertures you will end up stopping down to most of the time. I think too much emphasis is placed on wide apertures. I look back at my images and many of my best shots are not wide open. Another benefit of that lens is its image stabilization. It's a relatively new lens that gives you 4 stops of stabilization. That means you can use a shutter speed that is the cube of what is normally acceptable. For example, at 85mm focal length it's recommended to have a minimum shutter speed of 1/250-1/320 for sharp pictures. With 4 stops of stabilization, you can drop your shutter speed to 1/15-1/20 with good sharpness which is excellent for shooting still subjects in low light.

The best uses of a prime are for stopping motion, low light photography, or individual portraiture (not necessarily human subject). You can isolate your subject from the surroundings better. Image stabilization can't do that and you can't replace a fast shutter speed for stopping motion. Evaluate your needs and see how useful a fast prime will be. Then figure out what focal length a fast prime will be most useful to you. Normal focal length primes (50mm full frame, 35mm on a crop) are beautiful lenses to have, but I think they are more specialized than a good zoom these days.

I have a handful of fast primes and I still find the most useful kit to be my 15-85mm with a 430ex flash. I find having more light even more beneficial than a fast lens most of the time, especially indoors.

[vqdriver]

let's not get too far out in the weeds. after all, photography and its equipment choices can get pretty personal and detail oriented. for the op, as are most who request recommendations online, versatility is key until they figure out what exactly they're looking for in their lense. from my standpoint, which happens to be fairly inline with the op's (lots of family pics, kids, some indoors, some outdoors, minimal lens changes depending on situation) versatility means the ability to shoot in changing light. this is far far more important than zoom range. certainly, there are zooms that have large apertures, but those are cost prohibitive for most.

[PQJ]

Good advice, ergott.

Primes are obviously a more specialized piece of equipment and they will have more limited utility. However, if you're interested in learning about what goes into taking good photos/being a good photographer, primes are great precisely because they have only one focal length. As a result you'll have to think much more about composition, framing, etc., and you'll be forced to move around much more to capture the picture you want. You won't be able to stand in one place and just zoom in and out.

If you're just interested in a good lens for general photo-taking purposes and will hardly (if ever) take your camera off full automatic, a prime probably isn't for you.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to learn more about what aperture, shutter speed, bokeh, etc., mean, a prime might be just the thing you need.

[maunahaole]

Consider one of those wide angle zoom lenses like the 10-17 and the like. Wide gives you a lot of DOF and you get a lot in the shot in tight spots. Nice for pics of kids/pets and landscapes.

This should not be a starter, but a second or third. A zoom like a 18-135 or similar is a good starter. Spend extra for image stabilization, as it buys you a stop or two in exposure and the kit zooms such as this are not great in low light.

[krhea]

Canon 15-85mm IS and 85mm 1.8. The zoom covers most bases especially if you buy a flash like the 430ex. The 85mm is excellent for portraits and fast action. Go Canon refurbished or hunt for a deal on Fred Miranda. I've purchased a lot of my equipment there.

Trust me, I've been through a lot of lenses and the iq of those two are stellar. The focus is fast and reliable as well. Plus, the combo of those lenses and a good flash will continue to serve you well if you upgrade to something like a 7D which is an incredible camera body.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

Great response and kept me from writing the same thing. Having worked for "NPS"(Nikon Professional Services) for a number of years back in the day, then switching allegiance to Canon as auto-focus became the standard, I'm still a Canon shooter today, however, when purchasing equipment out of your own pocket as opposed to getting it for free or using it for free you learn real quick that there a ton of great lens options that are neither prime lenses nor "same brand" lenses. I love primes and "L" series lenses, however, there are a ton of really good and affordable lenses available today. One of my favorite family, group, low light carry around lenses is and has been a for couple years the very affordable Tamron 17-50 LD/XR Di2. It's a constant aperture 2.8 lens with excellent coverage and fantastic results. This and my 85 1.8 are my do "most everything" lenses. The 85 1.8 is a great, affordable lens as well with amazingly fast focus, great bokeh and a solid build. By the way, my "walk around" do everything cameras are 7Ds, I rarely if ever use my full frame bodies any more. I sold my 24-105 Canon "L" series lens and purchased the Tamron.
If you're not blowing images up the size of your wall, shooting to put food on your table or editing your shots with micro-fine/critical eye of an SI photo editor "don't believe the prime lens hype" as it won't make a difference with what you're using your shots for. Save the bucks and buy a solid flash like Ergott said and the 430 is a good one, add a bounce device like a Sto-fen, Fong or LumiQuest and go take some great shots. Keep in mind, it's like the difference in buying a $2000 and a $8000 bike...with the same fitness level the bikes will be more than likely equally fast, however, get a bit fitter and you on your $2000 bike might be faster then your buddy on his $8000 bike. A camera is a camera and within reason a quality lens is a quality lens. It's up to the shooter to know how best to use his equip to get the most out of it. A bit slower lens can benefit from a steadier hand, teach yourself to be steady and your shots will benefit and again, you'll save some money over buying the "fastest" primes available.