-
-
02-21-2009 10:37 AM
# ADS
-
Why do you want a third lens ?
You really have not described what you want the lens to do for you ... that your current lenses do not.
Tell us.
Minolta Maxxum 9000/Sony Alpha SLT-A55/Ricoh Diacord/Voigtlander Bessa 46
The best photographs make it look like the "photography" is secondary.
... sometimes our responses may incite riots, but it's your decision to join the mob.
My Website
MIR
-
I agree, you need to define your needs before anyone can recommend something.
And by the way, you camera (nor you) suck because its a Rebel XT. That is still a very capable camera.
Derrick
-
I spend too much of my life on TPF!
What exactly is it that you don't like about your 2 lenses? You say you have to be a certain distance away with the 55-200, but that it solved by having the 18-55. So there must be some other reason you're wanting to upgrade.
-
Keeper of the Padlocks
Site Moderator
I guess the 55-200mm has a long minium focusing distance - and if your taking shots of things like food you are having to stand back a lot more than you desire.
If food photography is an interest have you considered a macro lens?
-
Ahh...good reading overread. I was thinking focal length and field of view, not minimum focusing distance. Now it makes sense, a macro would be your best bet. I would suggest something in the 50-60mm range. I think the 100mm would be too long.
Derrick
-
Keeper of the Padlocks
Site Moderator
for food I would say a canon 60mm or sigma 70mm would be ideal (the canon 50mm is not a proper macro lens and to make it one needs an adaptor = at which point you might as well get a better pure macro for the cost!)
however a 90mm or greater would be more expandable into other areas, like insect macro, It does depend on what the OP's needs and wants are
-
I would say that he should get a 24-70 L, it is not an overly expensive birthday gift.
Nikon:
D3s 85 1.4 AF-S 24-70 2.8 AF-S 70-200 2.8 AF-S 105 2.8 Macro 16-35 4

-
I spend too much of my life on TPF!
Price-wise, you don't save a whole lot by getting something less than the excellent EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (which is under $500). The EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is only $90 less. A used Sigma 105 appears to be about the only really cheap (<$250) macro lens around. The reviews say that the Sigma lens doesn't auto-focus well, but you're likely to be using manual focusing for macro shots, anyway.
Last edited by JustAnEngineer; 02-21-2009 at 03:37 PM.
-
.
thanks for all the suggestion, and as for what type of lense I want,I mentioned what I usually use the camera for. I'm not looking persay to upgrade because im not happy with the lense, its just a matter of expanding my now very limited collection of lenses...