New to DSLRs, looking to buy a second lens.

purpleperson

TPF Noob!
Joined
Apr 13, 2016
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi! This is my first post, so sorry if this is in the wrong place! I am new to DSLRs. I recently got a cannon rebel t3 as a gift. I have the 18-55mm kit lens. I am interested in getting a new lens but I'm not sure which one would better suit my needs. I love to take pictures of wildlife but it is hard to get close to them and my lens just doesn't zoom enough. I also love taking close up photos of my pets at home.

I am interested in these two lenses.
-Cannon EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS STM
-Cannon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

Which one do you think would better Suit my needs? What are some pros and cons of both. I am not overly familiar with everything yet but I am trying my best!

Here are two sample pictures I've taken, any pointers would be much appreciated. I've only been trying to figure things out for about a month now.
c48315f1cb52230c7cbd1c0ee24aeacf.jpg
1842c91d732f232b0abf57a905152b3a.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
250mm of zoom on a crop-body camera will bring you in much closer!

The f/1.8 lens, on the on the other hand, would be nice in low light.
 
In my opinion the 50mm f/1.8 should be an excellent second lens. Good for low light. Better pictures. My personal second lens was 75-300mm and I found that the 50mm f/1.8 is a lens I should have bought earlier.

Close up you can use the 18-55mm but for wildlife you may need a zoom lens.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Zoom for number 2 and macro-prime for 3.
Then a fisheye, a longer zoom or prime, a hyperzoom, another prime, a faster lens.......it has no ending, you know.
 
You don't advise your budget. I would opt for a zoom lens, however I would suggest one of the 70-200's. Yes it's a bit shorter than then the lens you listed but the IQ is outstanding in any of the 4 Canon models. Also the difference in range is actually pretty insignificant for what you are going to be able to shoot in terms of wildlife. Sigma and Tamron also make fine quality 70-200's that are usually under $1000.
 
I agree with the 70-200. I have the f4 and it is a properly sharp lens plus it works well as an all around lens.
If you decide that you really want to shoot wildlife the absolute best bang for the buck is the Canon 400mm f5.6. Can be had used for a good price and is tack sharp.
 
I agree with the 70-200. I have the f4 and it is a properly sharp lens plus it works well as an all around lens.
If you decide that you really want to shoot wildlife the absolute best bang for the buck is the Canon 400mm f5.6. Can be had used for a good price and is tack sharp.
Tack sharp or razor sharp? Or is it in fact pin sharp? :)
My lens is as sharp as a bowling ball. :)
 
I agree with the 70-200. I have the f4 and it is a properly sharp lens plus it works well as an all around lens.
If you decide that you really want to shoot wildlife the absolute best bang for the buck is the Canon 400mm f5.6. Can be had used for a good price and is tack sharp.
Tack sharp or razor sharp? Or is it in fact pin sharp? :)
My lens is as sharp as a bowling ball. :)
floyd-facepalm.jpg
 
If you really want a wild life lens look at the sigma 150-600 or 150-500. Or the tamron 150-600 .. even with 600mm zoom on a crop sensor camera often I still wish I had some more zoom. You could get by with a 250-300mm lens but at 200mm. I have a hard time getting close enough, most of my shooting is between 300 and 600mm for wild life

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 
I shoot at 300 f4 prime. With or without a 1.4tc. Shorter than that would be hard to justify for me.
 
I've got a 50 1.8 STM I'll part with for $80 shipped (if you're in the US). It's a great lens-I just never use it. It's like new. Box and everything.
 
Here's a few lenses to look at. If you're looking for shots that you'll be happy with, you'll need better than a 'Kit' lens. You need real 'L' glass. The Tamron and Sigma higher end glass lenses are nice for the price.
Buying used from Adorama or b&h is a pretty safe way to save money some extra $$. CL is a crap shoot.

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS (IS) 'L" glass Sigma 70-200mm L
Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3 VC (IS) 'L" glass Tamron 150-600mm
Canon 70-200 f2.8 non-IS ' L' glass Canon 70-200mm F
 
The only glass that's marked L is Canon.
 
Yes the 'L' indicates professional quality Canon glass. The Tamron and Sigma professional glass doesn't have the 'L' in the model description, but they are disputably on par in clarity. Maybe not in build quality? Of course, white is so pure.......
 
The Sigma isn't quite on the same level (unless we're talking primes) as the Tamron or Canon.

The 70-200 f2.8 lens is a good example. At 200mm wide open, the Canon IS II is quite sharp in the center, gets a little soft in the corners. No vignetting. The Tamron VC at 200mm wide open is slightly SHARPER (well, my Tamron copy vs my boss's Canon copy) in the center, noticeably sharper in the corners, but there's quite noticeable vignetting. Build quality is pretty much a wash, but if anything, the Canon feels ever slightly more solid. That's the 70-200 f2.8 though-I can't speak of the other lenses, like the 24-70.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top