What new lenses should i buy?

pulser9 · May 24, 2008

This summer my grandmother decided she is goign to take our faimly to lake pal in utah and rent a house boat for a week and then travel around the national parks and such out there. So far iv bought all my own photo equipment but my mother and grandmother told me that anything else that i think i might need like lenses filters and such to take beter pictures during the trip that they will purchase them for me. So im going to get some new stuff.

right now i have the folowing
Rebel xti 10mp
canon efs 18-55 lens
canon efs 75-300 lens
canon ef 50 mm 1.8f lens
canon 580 xII flash (i think thats the name)
canon batery grip

The things i know i defnetly am goign to buy are a new sturdy tripod because the one i have now is flimsy because its protable and it scares me at times. I defnetly want to get some difrent filters and such but idk what ones i should get if someone could point me in the right direction. And they each siad that they would buy me a lens. So what would be some good lenses that arnt super super expensive that would be best for taking nature shots, secenic shot, All types of things that i will be taking pictures during the type of trip i described.

Any help would be great. I know a decent amount about photogrophy but i need alota help when im trying to pick stuff out becuase im not positive what lenses will do best in what situations.

Thanks
Kevin

Peanuts · May 24, 2008

I would probably ditch the kit lens (18-55) and pick up a better lens in that range, for instance the 17-85mm USM IS. Otherwise, you may want to pick up filters such as a polarizer (decide which lens you will be likely to use it on to choose the right thread) and ND Gradient filter

Rogan · May 24, 2008

well while they're buying may aswell pick up a few discounted L lenses

/back to real topic

Overread · May 24, 2008

You seem to have a decent spread of lens apatures at the moment - I think firstly you really need to decide if you want to go longer or shorter.
There are some - like the canon 70-200mm f4 IS L USM that would probably work very well for you - can do scenic shot decently *especially if you stick shots into a panorama - that tripod will get use here!* and also get you good quality 200mm - add a 1.4* teleconverter and you can get more length out of it.

It might be time to get family together and rather than lots of "cheap" lenses start gunning for the expensive L lenses - its worth considering if you enjoy for photography - as you clearly do

JIP · May 24, 2008

Honestly unless you plan to move up to a "super expensive" lens you might as wel stick with what you have. What you have already is decent and anything would be just a slight move up if not just a lateral move.

Josh66 · May 24, 2008

You might consider the 85mm f/1.8.

Mav · May 24, 2008

The EF-S 10-22mm ultra-wide would definitely come in handy. That and a good tripod and I think you're set.

pulser9 · Jun 6, 2008

someone was telling me that a sigma 10-20 mm lens or the canon 10-20mm lens would be a good buy. WHat do you guys think.

pulser9 · Jun 6, 2008

i also have a huge thing for taking close up pictures of bugs. what would be a good lens to get realy good close up pictures. Id be willing to splurge on this one also and spend a good amount to get a real nice lens

Mav · Jun 6, 2008

LOL, well I just recommended the EF-S 10-22 above. If you're really into macro, I've heard a lot of great thigns about the Canon 100mm macro. On more of a budget, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is a great lens too. I wouldn't recommend the cheaper 50-60mm range macro lenses since you have to get way too close to your subject at 1:1 and way too close for bugs. Another thing to consider is that if you put a Canon 500D close-up filter on your 75-300mm lens, it'll darn near get you to full 1:1 macro. It won't be as good as a dedicated macro lens, but worth considering. A 500D is way cheaper than a whole lens. I have a 500D for my Nikon 70-300VR and it works great. I only have limited interest in macro photography so that's my only macro setup.

pulser9 · Jun 6, 2008

i think im going to look at the sigma 10-20mm its expensive tho for 4.5 f i think. its like 480 i think.

what would be the best marco lens to look at.

pulser9 · Jun 6, 2008

Mav said:
LOL, well I just recommended the EF-S 10-22 above. If you're really into macro, I've heard a lot of great thigns about the Canon 100mm macro. On more of a budget, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is a great lens too. I wouldn't recommend the cheaper 50-60mm range macro lenses since you have to get way too close to your subject at 1:1 and way too close for bugs. Another thing to consider is that if you put a Canon 500D close-up filter on your 75-300mm lens, it'll darn near get you to full 1:1 macro. It won't be as good as a dedicated macro lens, but worth considering. A 500D is way cheaper than a whole lens. I have a 500D for my Nikon 70-300VR and it works great. I only have limited interest in macro photography so that's my only macro setup.

I didnt even see your post before. i think im goign to go to a store and try out that ef-s 10-22 and the sigma 10-20mm Im probaly going to go with the sigma due to it being like $200 cheaper.

Mav · Jun 6, 2008

Both are good. The Canon is probably a little nicer and the Sigma a little cheaper so it just depends on how much you're willing to spend.

pulser9 · Jun 6, 2008

what price range is that Canon 500D close-up filter in. maybe thats worth trying before i jump $400 into a lens

djacobox372 · Jun 6, 2008

I'm really happy with my lens set--covers a broad range with quality, yet inexpensive, glass:

Sigma 10-20 f:4-5.6

Sigma 24-60 f:2.8

Tamron 70-210 f:2.8 (<$400 on used market, but hard to find for canon; try keh.com)

Throw in a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and you're set. A 50mm prime is also a nice addition, but not 100% necessary if you have a 2.8 zoom that covers that focal length.

Good luck!