Which lenses?

[Applejack]

Well Thank you all!! I'm getting some good advice but to be honest I'm not even sure what type of shooting I really want to get into. For now I like everything.:sombrero: I do mostly shoot out doors and shoot a lot of landscapes and all I Know is that the kit lens is too grainy.

It looks like I'm going to need a second job.

 

[MatthewThompson]

Well Thank you all!! I'm getting some good advice but to be honest I'm not even sure what type of shooting I really want to get into. For now I like everything.:sombrero: I do mostly shoot out doors and shoot a lot of landscapes and all I Know is that the kit lens is too grainy.

It looks like I'm going to need a second job.

This doesn't add up. You mean the images come out grainy? If so, you're looking at an ISO problem and not anything to blame on the lens. Like I said above, grab a how-to book that explains everything and then make a call on where you want to go and with which lenses.

 

[off-roader]

I suspect you've probably got your ISO too high (keep at lowest setting possible).

Lenses don't add grain to an image. They may make them out of focus though but that's about it.

Definitely need learn the basics of photography before you buy more lenses or much else for that matter. I recommend you either take a community college course on photography, pick up a good book/video on the basics of photography, or better yet, talk to a buddy who knows how to shoot before you start buying stuff.:ylsmoke:

 

[Lost Canadian]

I can appreciate the sentiment, but this is pretty poor advice for somebody looking to learn more about photography. Learning exposure, focus and composition is simplified by repeatable results.

Repeatable yes, but using a lensbaby forces you to slow down and actually pay attention to what's happening when you make certain adjustments because it communicates nothing to the camera. As far as focus goes, it facilitates a better understanding of why it's important or why it's not. Using a lensbaby quickly teaches you the difference between subjective and objective composition. In short, you could consider it a tool to expedite the process of learning.

I'm not sure what application a Lensbaby has in the real world, but I'm a bit of a curmudgeon too.

LOL, expand your horizons you crusty fart.:sombrero: In all seriousness though, a lensbaby is applicable and as relevant as any other choice of lens or camera, and best of all you can typically pick up a used one for under $50. Simply consider who uses them, pro's from all walks. The lensbaby gurus gallery is a good place to start. Some of my favorites are users not mentioned, users like Nat. Geo photographers Nevada Weir and Tom Bol for instance.

off-roader makes the most valid argument and points however. If you can't take good pictures with the kit lens, save your money, because spending hundreds or thousands on more gear isn't going to improve anything.

 

[nwoods]

Applejack, what did you shoot with before? I have found that most people gravitate towards one of three areas, zoom, wide, or portrait. People tend to have a particular focus on one of these three formats. Perhaps you do also.

A lot of people recommend a moderate sized walk-about lens, such as the 24-105mm F4 L, or the really sharp 24-70mm F2.8 L. These are excellent lenses, but don't do any one thing really well, so I never enjoyed them much. Others swear by them and use them everywhere and anywhere.

Personally, I like wide. I love my 10-22mm Canon lens, but what I get the most use out of is my almost as wide 16-35mm MkII L F2.8. I also have a 70-200mm L F2.8, but don't get as much use out of it, though it is without a doubt the sharpest lens I own.

Here is a good site to learn some general info about lenses:http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

[shawkins]

I would go with a 17-40mm f4L and a 24-105mm f4L IS. These also use the same 77mm filter size which is great because filters ain't cheap!

 

[ywen]

The main thing I really don't like about lensbaby is that it gives that motion blurred look in the out of focus area.. other wise, it would be a great alternative to the T+S lenses... I'm not sure what it is about the optics that creates that distracting blur..


To the OP: The Canon 18-200 IS lens is great lens for all purpose shooting in day light.. Great for road trips I would think. Add a fast 28mm f/1.8 and you'd be set for any travel shooting.

 

[JohnLemieuxPhotos]

IMO; f1.4 thru 2.8 is for people who shoot for a living. I own 3 of these and they never go camping/offloading with me. Thats 'cuz they're way too heavy and I don't need " fast glass" to shoot such outings. Instead I love my 18-200mm f5.6 for it's versatility. It's still ain't cheap ($800 used) but at f8-16, it's plenty sharp.

I wouldn't hesitate to be out in the wild with a kit lens. When you know it's disposable, you are more inclined to use it in clever (risky) ways to get more interesting photos.

Astrophotography is a lot of fun and fast lenses are good for that.

 

[08whitex]

Great light painting ^^

 

[Applejack]

Applejack, what did you shoot with before? I have found that most people gravitate towards one of three areas, zoom, wide, or portrait. People tend to have a particular focus on one of these three formats. Perhaps you do also.

A lot of people recommend a moderate sized walk-about lens, such as the 24-105mm F4 L, or the really sharp 24-70mm F2.8 L. These are excellent lenses, but don't do any one thing really well, so I never enjoyed them much. Others swear by them and use them everywhere and anywhere.

Personally, I like wide. I love my 10-22mm Canon lens, but what I get the most use out of is my almost as wide 16-35mm MkII L F2.8. I also have a 70-200mm L F2.8, but don't get as much use out of it, though it is without a doubt the sharpest lens I own.

Here is a good site to learn some general info about lenses:http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

I just had a Canon ELPH point and shoot which did well enough I suppose.

 

[off-roader]

Perhaps something like the Sigma 18-200 hsm(hyper sonic motor) os (optically stabilized) lens is a good option. At $480 it's relatively inexpensive for a lens of it's range (the Nikon equivalent is $700). Is available for canon shooters. Gives you a decent focal range from wide to telephoto, is optically stabilized and has a quite in lens focus servo so it will work with both lower end bodies that don't have a built in focus motor (does Canon also do that the way Nikon does?) as well as higher end bodies that do.

Nice all around lens IMHO thats useful for most general shooting needs.

HTH.:ylsmoke:

 

[goodtimes]

IMO; f1.4 thru 2.8 is for people who shoot for a living. I own 3 of these and they never go camping/offloading with me. Thats 'cuz they're way too heavy and I don't need " fast glass" to shoot such outings. Instead I love my 18-200mm f5.6 for it's versatility. It's still ain't cheap ($800 used) but at f8-16, it's plenty sharp.

I wouldn't hesitate to be out in the wild with a kit lens. When you know it's disposable, you are more inclined to use it in clever (risky) ways to get more interesting photos.

The problem with 'slow' glass is that it is, well, slow.

Shooting in low light (dawn, dusk, deep canyons, etc) with slow glass pretty much requires you get out the tripod -- which may or may not be realistic. Even at F4, I find myself skipping a lot of shots because I've already missed so many because the elk is gone before I can set everything up, or the group of kids playing have moved out of the sunlight, or I don't want to get out of the truck in the rain, or . . .

Fast glass is not just for the pros, it's for us hacks too . . .

As for the kit lens in the wild -- I agree. My 18 - 55 is a POS, but I still use it in rough conditions because I'm less concerned about it than any other lens I own (which isn't many . . .).

 

[goalie39]

I was going to recommend the same thing, the Sigma 18-200 -- awesome all around lens for a relatively cheap price. I've been using one for a few years now in all kinds of conditions. Be sure to add a polarizing filter though if you're going to be doing landscapes (especially with water in the photo).

As others have said, since your just beginning, it's probably not your lens that's the problem. A real pro photographer could probably take great shots with your gear -- technique is so much more important with a DSLR.
So just keep experimenting and read lots of photography books. After awhile you'll learn what the real limits are of your lens and equipment -- and then you'll know exactly what you need to do to upgrade to get the types of photos you want.

Perhaps something like the Sigma 18-200 hsm(hyper sonic motor) os (optically stabilized) lens is a good option. At $480 it's relatively inexpensive for a lens of it's range (the Nikon equivalent is $700). Is available for canon shooters. Gives you a decent focal range from wide to telephoto, is optically stabilized and has a quite in lens focus servo so it will work with both lower end bodies that don't have a built in focus motor (does Canon also do that the way Nikon does?) as well as higher end bodies that do.

Nice all around lens IMHO thats useful for most general shooting needs.

HTH.:ylsmoke:

 

[MatthewThompson]

I was going to recommend the same thing, the Sigma 18-200 -- awesome all around lens for a relatively cheap price. I've been using one for a few years now in all kinds of conditions. Be sure to add a polarizing filter though if you're going to be doing landscapes (especially with water in the photo).

As others have said, since your just beginning, it's probably not your lens that's the problem. A real pro photographer could probably take great shots with your gear -- technique is so much more important with a DSLR.
So just keep experimenting and read lots of photography books. After awhile you'll learn what the real limits are of your lens and equipment -- and then you'll know exactly what you need to do to upgrade to get the types of photos you want.

I disagree. Having a lens that tries to do everything means you have a lens that does nothing particularly well. You run into things like chromatic aberration, distortion, slow aperture, dust inhalation, rotating front elements, etc. You're right on two counts, technique is the key and it's not the lens that's the problem. Why spend the money on something we've just agreed won't help the problem (that the OP hasn't properly identified yet)

I stand by my recommendation: learn what to do and how to do it, then you're far more educated and prepared to pick out a proper lens for yourself.

 

[ETAV8R]

Enjoy:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php