Question about lenses.

[Rob_B]

Ok, I'm pretty much a noob. I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 1100D, and I was looking to get some lenses for it. I don't have a ton of money to spend $200 at the MOST. But I have a few questions. I have an EF-S lens, do I need to stick to EF-S, or can EF work as well? The other is (depending on the answer to the first) I was looking at these two lenses:

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: Camera & Photoand
Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
I want to do all kinds of shots. I was thinking about the Telephoto lens because of things like wildlife, but would it also be decent for taking pictures of the moon?, and the other possibly for close up shots, maybe some low light shots. I have a pretty basic understanding of lenses. I'm really interested in night photography, landscape, etc. Any advice or recommendations are appreciated!

 

[Josh66]

EF is fine.

EF-S is for crop sensors ONLY, but EF is fine for crop or full frame.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 is probably the best lens you're going to find for under $200...

What lens(es) do you have now?


For the moon, 250mm isn't really all that long. If you want frame-filling shots of the moon (without cropping ... a lot), you need at least 1000mm. If you have a telescope, a t-ring (to mount your camera to your telescope (basically making the telescope a manual lens)) only costs about $10.

From my experience, on a crop sensor 1200mm is just about perfect for the moon.

A camera lens in those kinds of focal lengths is going to be very expensive. There is much more room to play (budget-wise) with telescopes - but they can be limiting too (they can also get extremely expensive)... (Fixed aperture, manual focus, bigger than a camera lens...)

 

[Raian-san]

I think the best bet is to buy the 50mm 1.8 lens for around $100. That's basically the only lens I have right now and it has given me some good photos although I can't wait until I get an L lens.

 

[Rob_B]

Thanks for the feedback. I was leaning toward the 50mm 1.8 myself. I currently have the kit lens that came with the camera Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm. What got me to thinking about other lenses was I'm taking a trip to the beach in a few weeks, and I would like to try and get 2 types of pictures if possible. They have a show they put on at night with dancing water lights, and a really good view out over the city at night. I would like a lens that can get both of those shots if possible. Would the 50mm 1.8 be a pretty good bet for that type of shot?

 

[Josh66]

Hard to say without knowing how close you'll be...

One thing you said swings it in favor of the 50mm though... "Night".

That 50 is pretty fast, with a maximum aperture of f/1.8. The 55-250 is much slower ... though it does have IS. IS won't do **** for a moving subject though, so I still think you're better off with the 50...

 

[Raian-san]

You don't have a flash huh? My best suggestion is 50mm and then play around with setting with your pop up flash with a white index card over it. I know it sounds ghetto but really it's better than no flash in low light. If you're shooting low light and in budget, 50mm is your best answer. Just don't shoot 1.8, 2.0 with more than 2 people in the picture.

 

[Rob_B]

Judging from the pictures I'm seeing, I won't be terribly far from it. I'm still just figuring out all the specs of lenses etc. I was thinking a wide angle lens would of been nice for a cool picture over looking the city. But those are a bit out of my budget.

 

[Raian-san]

So do you want landscape photos or portraits? Landscape tend to not move while portraits move a little bit. Why don't you save a bit more and get the Tamron 17-50mm lens f/2.8. That will solve both of your problem, just a hundred or so more.

 

[Josh66]

Your kit lens is plenty wide. Use that for the wide angle stuff till you can get something better.

I don't think you're going to find anything wider than 50mm for your budget anyway (other than the kit lens you already have)...



It would be nice to have something longer than 55mm though... Which is more important to you - low light capabilities, or reach?

 

[Rob_B]

A little of both. How far out of my budget would I need to go in order to get the ideal lens? Any suggestions?

 

[patrick0294]

Check craigslist there are some gently used lenses for pretty cheap :thumbup:

 

[Raian-san]

A little of both. How far out of my budget would I need to go in order to get the ideal lens? Any suggestions?

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 can be had used for around $300. Not too far out and it'll give you a good walk around lens and with it's constant 2.8 aperture, it'll do fairly good in low-light condition.

 

[Rob_B]

A little of both. How far out of my budget would I need to go in order to get the ideal lens? Any suggestions?

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 can be had used for around $300. Not too far out and it'll give you a good walk around lens and with it's constant 2.8 aperture, it'll do fairly good in low-light condition.

I took a quick look for that lens, I'm at work so I couldn't search too hard for one in the $300 range, but I will check for that one later for sure.

 

[ghache]

A little of both. How far out of my budget would I need to go in order to get the ideal lens? Any suggestions?

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 can be had used for around $300. Not too far out and it'll give you a good walk around lens and with it's constant 2.8 aperture, it'll do fairly good in low-light condition.

I took a quick look for that lens, I'm at work so I couldn't search too hard for one in the $300 range, but I will check for that one later for sure.

I have that lens and i love it, its sharp!

 

[jaomul]

You started with $200 so only one lens was an option, but if you bump it to $300 as suggested by the post that recommends the Tamron you may not be far off getting both canon lenses originally mentioned. I have both and can recommend both. The 50 is on camera most of time but the zoom also comes into its own when required. Both very good value for money imho