New to photography, got some questions(:

[_Beasty_]

Thank you very much everyone!

I'll be looking up some stuff on how to take care of my lenses and I'll stick with the 18-55 for quiet a while untill I'm ready to move up! Thank you!

 

[Ballistics]

In short, buying expensive lenses doesn't make great photos. It only makes you the owner of expensive lenses.

So are there NO advantages of buying a lens? Because I'd prefer something with a bit more of a optical zoom than the stock 18-55 that comes on the T3

Of course, I gotta disagree. Buying a better lens will allow you to take better pictures once you understand how to take a technically sound picture. Learning your camera will not take very long. On top of that, learning how to properly meter will take a day.

I took this picture of my wife after owning my camera and a 50mm 1.8 lens for 2 weeks.


20110815 by The Photo Major, on Flickr

It doesn't take a lot of time to take a good picture... what takes a lot of time is knowing what to do in any giving scenario. That comes with experience though.
This picture isn't amazing or earth shattering and has it's share of flaws, but this is after having my camera for 2 weeks. I had the lens for maybe 2 days. If I were to start over
I would have gone for the more expensive lenses from the start.

 

[Natalie]

I agree with going with more expensive lenses from the start as long as the photographer knows (a) what they want to shoot, and (b) how to shoot it. That was the case with me... When I got my Rebel T1i I already had some experience with photography from playing with my PowerShot G9 for a couple years, and I knew exactly what I wanted to shoot (reptiles, amphibians, insects, and birds just for identification purposes). So when I was in the market for a new camera, I just got the body and skipped the kit lens because I knew right off the bat it wasn't going to be adequate for what I was doing. I invested in higher-quality lenses right from the get-go, and I'm happy I did that.

But for someone like the OP who is completely new to photography and likely doesn't know what type of photography he is going to concentrate on (if any), going with the more versatile kit lens (vs. an assortment of prime lenses) might be a good idea while he's learning the basics.

 

[Ballistics]

I agree with going with more expensive lenses from the start as long as the photographer knows (a) what they want to shoot, and (b) how to shoot it. That was the case with me... When I got my Rebel T1i I already had some experience with photography from playing with my PowerShot G9 for a couple years, and I knew exactly what I wanted to shoot (reptiles, amphibians, insects, and birds just for identification purposes). So when I was in the market for a new camera, I just got the body and skipped the kit lens because I knew right off the bat it wasn't going to be adequate for what I was doing. I invested in higher-quality lenses right from the get-go, and I'm happy I did that.

But for someone like the OP who is completely new to photography and likely doesn't know what type of photography he is going to concentrate on (if any), going with the more versatile kit lens (vs. an assortment of prime lenses) might be a good idea while he's learning the basics.

I have never owned a camera until this summer minus the camera on my cell phones and I would have been happy with a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 along side a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM OS. Luckily I wound up with my 18-105mm for free so I haven't upgraded because it gets me by for now. But like I said, learning the basics takes days. Maybe a couple weeks. Especially if you are pointed in the right direction. Photography is easy, art is the hard part.