A lens or two

[Walrus]

Hi everyone,

To start, I'm very much a beginner. While I've garnered some experience taking pictures, I have little knowledge of photography. I'd like to change this.

I recently came into some money, some of which will be allocated to hobbies (including photography). I will be enrolling in university next term, so I won't have much expendability as far as money's concerned for a long while. As such, I'd like to get myself a nice lens or two to accompany my Canon Rebel T3I, which I hope will tide me over for some time. The only problem is that, due to my limited understanding of photography's more technical aspects, I'm not sure where to start. This is where I hope to garner your collective insight.

I'm most interested in nature photography (animals) and landscapes. I realize that different lenses are ideal for both, but I'd be willing to buy two as long as it doesn't break the bank. Speaking of which, I have a budget of $1000.00 (for each). The T3I, I realize, is basically an entry-level DSLR, and I'd like to someday upgrade. It would be great if these lenses could be used with whichever model I buy down the road. In other words, I want to get a good lens or two whose usability will exceed my T3I's.

Does anybody have any recommendations? If possible, I'd love to see what the lens(es) can do as well. I should note that I'll also be buying a tripod should I decide to concentrate on landscapes.

Thank you so much.

- Walrus

 

[table1349]

It's a little hard to say. If you stay crop sensor then the Tokina 11-16 would be a good landscape lens. With the savings you could get a Sigma 50-500.

 

[TCampbell]

You're in luck. Sports lens... particularly lenses for night games and indoor sports... break the bank. Landscape lenses and lenses used to photograph subjects outdoors during the daytime... they are a little kinder on the pocket book.

Your T3i probably came with an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. The lens will provide a wide-ish angle of view and landscape photography typically wants a large depth of field and not a shallow depth of field. This means the 18-55mm isn't a bad start. The EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 IS is a better lens, provides the ability to shoot in less light, and provides a shallower depth of field which in turn translates to the ability to do selective focus (the ability to focus one subject, but blur the background or another subject at a different distance.) But that's a bit over $800.

You *might* like one of the MANY lenses offered in the roughly 10-20mm ultra-wide angle zoom lens range for landscapes. Quite a few lens makers offer a few lenses in that range.

As for the wildlife lens... that's a bit different. It can be difficult to photograph wildlife without disturbing it in which either (a) the wildlife leaves the area fearful that you intend for it to be your next meal or (b) the wildlife intends for you to be its next meal. Either way... longer focal length lenses tend to be preferred here.

A 300mm focal length is "ok" for wildlife... thought usually a 400mm lens is preferred. The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4-5.6L IS USM is about $1550.

I do not own this lens (although it is Canon "L" glass which has an extremely good reputation) but you can check out other lenses ... specifically both Sigma and Tamron make zoom lenses that cover the 400mm focal length (e.g. 150-500mm, 150-600mm, 50-500mm, 200-500mm, 120-400mm... most of these lenses are in the $900-1500 price range. But just for fun check out the the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF. That last lens is available at the bargain price of only $26,000 so be sure to buy 2 so you have a backup. I should warn you... it looks a bit like military artillery -- so be careful carrying it around. If someone tries to mug you, just hit them with the lens... I guarantee it will damage them more than it damages the lens -- it weighs nearly 16 kg. Its like buying a lens AND a gym membership at the same time.

I can't speak to the quality of any of these lenses.... read the reviews to avoid buyers' remorse.

 

[Gavjenks]

Generally it's easier to design telephoto lenses that cover large sensors. Long focal lengths inherently cover bigger sensors without needing to try very hard when making them. Therefore, almost all telephoto lenses work with full frame or crop sensors, with the exception of some that have huge zoom ranges and begin on a very wide angle, which are usually only for crop sensors (more because of the wide end). Like an 18-200 or something, or sometimes even 50-200s. But if you are planning on going full frame later, it's easy to get a quality tele lens without spending much or any extra for compatibility.

Wide angles are a totally different story. Affordable zoom lenses that work with full frame start at about 24mm, and sometimes 28mm, and no wider. There are plenty of things wider than that, but they all start costing hundreds more, or have significant drawbacks. You can get a high quality autofocus 12mm-24mm (Sigma) for full frame, but it will cost you $1000, or you can pay only $300ish for a 14mm full frame lens, but it's only that focal length and its only manual focus (Rokinon). 28mm is equivalent to about the "normal" wide end for crops of 18mm, so you'll find similarly priced cheap FF lenses starting at 28mm for zooms just like they start at 18mm for crop. This is not a coincidence. Designers have to fight for every millimeter on the wide end, because wide angle lenses inherently have limited coverage.

So for future upgrades, you'll have to make your decision to invest now for compatibility or not at the wide end, but not the tele end.




Wide, stay with crop only: get one of the many 10-20ish mm lenses from various companies for around $400, and spend the extra on a really nice tele.
Wide, full frame compatible: I'd suggest one of the two I mentioned above. Affordable but manual focus 14mm for $300, or all bells and whistles 12-24 auto for $1000.
Tele, full frame compatible: one of the Sigma long range zooms is probably the choice I'd make. 150-500 for example. Or cheaper, something like the Canon 70-300 IS USM. Depending on whether you got a budget or an extravagant wide angle.

 

[Walrus]

You know, I almost feel bad responding because, frankly, the information you've all provided has gone over my head. Do folks normally pick up on this information quicker? Nonetheless, I appreciate all of the advice. I'm very much a beginner, but I'm looking to invest in a camera/lenses that will last a long, long while. In the interim, I'll try to take into account the advice you've imparted without being overwhelmed by information, hahaha.

Speaking of which, I'm contemplating the purchase of a new body to replace my T3I. As previously mentioned, I have some money to spend and am looking to purchase one that will carry me through the next several years. The combination I currently have my eye on is the Canon EOS 6D with the Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L without IS. Now, will the Non IS be problematic if I'm looking to shoot birds/animals? I've read that the lens can falter in low-light settings, but the 6D thrives in them. That's not to say I'll be shooting animals in low-light situations, but I don't want all of my images to be blurred if I can't, say, keep my hands steady. Would it take a lot to rattle the camera's image quality?

Again, forgive my amateur capacity.

 

[ronlane]

Walrus, welcome to the site. The 6D with a 70-200 f/4L will be something that you will be able to use now and grow in for some time. Keep in mind that the 6d is a full framed camera so it will require all EF lenses for it. (Generally speaking, more expense to purchase) Any EFS glass that you currently have will not work on that body.

To be perfectly honest with you, to learn on, the T3i is going to be just fine and you will be able to grow with it for a few years. (I am still using it after 2 years).

 

[Walrus]

Unfortunately, I won't have any expendable income for longer than a few years. Did you take the photographs in your Flickr with the T3i? It might sound pretentious of me to want to purchase such equipment as a beginner, but I'm really just thinking ahead.

 

[vimwiz]

. The combination I currently have my eye on is the Canon EOS 6D with the Canon EF 70-200mm F/4L without IS. Now, will the Non IS be problematic if I'm looking to shoot birds/animals? I've read that the lens can falter in low-light settings, but the 6D thrives in them. That's not to say I'll be shooting animals in low-light situations, but I don't want all of my images to be blurred if I can't, say, keep my hands steady. Would it take a lot to rattle the camera's image quality?

Again, forgive my amateur capacity.

Ive got the T3 (1100D) and the 75-300mm non-IS and I find the lack of IS a pain handheld. I like to shoot the ducks and find I need a lot of light, particuarly on the long end, or to really ramp the ISO, to get a shake free shot. Maybe this will be less of an issue at 200mm, but still go for the IS.

 

[ronlane]

Unfortunately, I won't have any expendable income for longer than a few years. Did you take the photographs in your Flickr with the T3i? It might sound pretentious of me to want to purchase such equipment as a beginner, but I'm really just thinking ahead.

yes, all my photos are taken with the T3i.

 

[ronlane]

Unfortunately, I won't have any expendable income for longer than a few years. Did you take the photographs in your Flickr with the T3i? It might sound pretentious of me to want to purchase such equipment as a beginner, but I'm really just thinking ahead.

I'm not judging you for wanting to purchase the 6D, but honestly, unless you are getting the 24-105 f/4L kit lens to go with it and the 70-200 f/4L, you are shorting yourself for what you are wanting to shoot. The 70-200 just isn't wide enough. You can get the 50 mm f/1.8 but that still isn't the superwide that you would need/want for landscape.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[Nevermore1]

I personally think that the T3i should last you quite a while. I used a 20D for 9 years and have just recently upgraded it to the 70D. I upgraded because I wanted to, not because there was an issue with the 20D. I treated the 20D like crap (tossing it on the bed as I walked into the room, accidentally banging it against walls, etc) and it still works great! My daughter will be using the 20D for her HS photography class next year.

I would recommend that when you do decide which lenses to purchase that they have the EF mount as opposed to the EF-S mount. With the EF mount you could upgrade the body to one with a full frame sensor and all the lenses you have invested in will work with it, if you invest in lenses with an EF-S mount then those will not work when you upgrade the body unless you go with one that has a crop sensor.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well my recommendation would be to put that money in savings for now.

Learn to get the most out of the equipment you already have and once you get to that point you'll have a much better idea as to what your needs are before you upgrade.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Walrus]

Unfortunately, I won't have any expendable income for longer than a few years. Did you take the photographs in your Flickr with the T3i? It might sound pretentious of me to want to purchase such equipment as a beginner, but I'm really just thinking ahead.

I'm not judging you for wanting to purchase the 6D, but honestly, unless you are getting the 24-105 f/4L kit lens to go with it and the 70-200 f/4L, you are shorting yourself for what you are wanting to shoot. The 70-200 just isn't wide enough. You can get the 50 mm f/1.8 but that still isn't the superwide that you would need/want for landscape.

Good luck with your decision.

I should note that my primary incentive for purchasing that lens is for birding and animals in general. I understand that the lens wouldn't be ideal for landscapes. Wouldn't it be appropriate for that type of photography?

The lens is compatible with the 6D, furthermore. You're all right, though, but I still want to get a body that's a step up from the T3i. If not the 6D, any recommendations?

 

[Gavjenks]

Unfortunately, I won't have any expendable income for longer than a few years. Did you take the photographs in your Flickr with the T3i? It might sound pretentious of me to want to purchase such equipment as a beginner, but I'm really just thinking ahead.

That's not pretentious at all. Pretentious would be getting all of that stuff a week before you promised to shoot a wedding with zero experience
Getting good gear if you can afford it makes perfect sense.

FYI, though, lenses tend to hold value really well. So if you really would struggle to afford something, it's not a huge deal to go through lenses in smaller steps, because you can sell them at almost no loss (if you're willing to buy used, that is!). Getting the best right away is fine if you can, but I wouldn't strain my pocketbook too much worrying over efficiency of investments or anything. As in, if you'd have to dip into savings so far that you're endangering your ability to make emergency car repairs or pay for a trip to the ER if necessary, then don't get something that fancy yet.

 

[Civchic]

I'm a big fan of birds. I also have a limited budget and am pretty much still a "beginner". I got my T3 in October of last year with the 18-55 kit lens. I outgrew that lens pretty quickly (the bird thing). Most of my photos are either of my kids (a lot indoors) or birds/wildlife. Therefore my first lens purchase was a 50mm 1.8 for the indoor/kid shots. Then I added a 55-250mm IS for the birds. It's not ideal, since you still have to get pretty close to the birds to get good detail, but it's a really good beginner birding lens (and I live in an urban area, so the birds I'm shooting are less squirrely about being close). Those are both very affordable lenses and will teach you a lot - and as Gav said, if you buy them used you won't do too badly on resale when you outgrow them. I can see that I will outgrow them, because I'm ambitious to do well with my photography, but honestly for most hobbyists those three lenses would be a complete bag.

As for the body, my T3 is alright. It does what a camera needs to do. The one area where I find myself coming up short is on ISO - you really can't bump it up above 1600, and preferably 800 without significant noise. So low light is a challenge. Of course someday I will outgrow it, but if I never get another camera, it is a solid tool.