recommended eos400d lenses

[qwertyjjj]

So, I just got an eos400d 2nd hand with the 18-55 stock lens.
What are some recommended lenses and filters to complement this as I understand the stock lens isn't very good

budget as cheap as possible
I like doing wildlife photos and also landscapes

 

[TCampbell]

It isn't that the stock lens isn't "good" it's that it's designed to be affordable. There's an original 18-55 and then there's a 2nd generation ("II") version -- the optics in the 2nd generation are better, and the "optics" actually are good. But there's more to a lens than just the optics.

The 18-55 doesn't have a fast/silent USM focusing motor (that would have increased the price). It also doesn't have "internal zoom" or "internal focusing". That means that when you zoom the lens does grow and shrink (usually that's not a big deal) but it also means that when it focuses the end of the lens rotates. That's generally fine for entry level but for photographers using certain types of filters it can be frustrating. For example, if you use a polarizing filter you have to rotate the filter to "tune" the polarity that it blocks. If you then focus or zoom, all of this changes so you have to reach forward and re-tune the filter again (hoping not to disturb anything else.) It's a variable focal ratio lens and, like just about every other entry-level standard zoom in it's class, the focal ratio varies from f/3.5-5.6 (and so do all the others.)

You can get higher end lenses that will have faster & quieter focus motors, the lens wont rotate as it focuses, the focal ratio can remain constant through the zoom range and the lens can collect more light... but all of those features will increase the price tag of the lens. The "optics", however, will not _necessarily_ be better because the 18-55 is already fairly good.

You did specify budget "as cheap as possible" -- and that's pretty much what the 18-55 lens is. It's designed to be decent, accommodate the needs of most entry level shooters, while being as cheap as possible.

Landscapes aren't "action" shots. So the fact that the lens doesn't have lightning fast focusing should be an issue and you probably want to use higher f-stops for landscapes so the fact that it's not a low focal ratio lens wont be a problem either.

For wildlife the lens totally depends on what type of wildlife. This is where a 300 or 400mm focal length lens is nice to have. You don't have to try to sneak up as closely on the wildlife (and hopefully it's not the sort of wildlife that can run faster than you, is stronger than you, and thinks you might make a nice meal.) But it's still nice to be able to work from a distance so that shy wildlife doesn't run away.

The EF 75-300mm lens doesn't have a very good rep. It's the most affordable, but it's not great. The 70-300mm is substantially better, but it's also more expensive... at about $650 for a new lens. You can pick up a refurb for a little over $400. Canon Direct Store- EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Refurbished

Tamron makes a 70-300mm which competes with the Canon 70-300. According to the-digital-picture, the Canon lens is better and more accurate, but the Tamron is substantially cheaper (although the reburb Canon lens is even cheaper yet.) Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens Review

 

[qwertyjjj]

Thanks!

What about the
Tamron AF 18-270mm
or
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Also, I believe some SIgma lenses are compatible with EOS?




Also, what filters should I consider? Just polarising to start with?

 

[DannyLewis]

I picked up the Canon 100- 400mm for wildlife and the only downside is it does not focus internal. It will collect small particles of dust and in the hills here has done it rather quickly. THe auto focus has became a problem beacause of the dust. THey say the canon has a sharper image quality than the Sigma but have not heard much on the tamron. I use the UV filter at all times if for no more than a glass protector. I some times use the Polarizing filter but as stated needs to constantly be adjusted. Ans also as stated what type of wildlife will you be shooting?

 

[TCampbell]

Any Canon "EOS" lens will work on your 400D. That includes the EF series, the EF-S series, and a few speciality lenses such as the TS-E (tilt-shift) and MP-E (extreme macro).
Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma all makes lenses for other camera brands (Canon, Nikon, mostly and then sometimes Sony, Olympus, or Pentax.) Any specific lens will be made just for one brand (it's not like you can get a lens that mounts to either ... say Canon OR Nikon. You have to by the one they make specifically for Canon bodies.)

The super-zooms (18-200, 18-270, etc.) are optimized for "convenience" of not having to switch lenses. But the image quality will almost never compete with a less ambitious zoom (such as, say, a 70-200mm). When the zoom range is less then usually the optical performance will be better (that's a "generalization" and there are some exceptions.)

As you already have an 18-55 then I wouldn't bother getting yet another lens that covers the 18-55 range unless you plan to get rid of your 18-55. The EF-S 18-135 is an upgrade... it adds internal focusing (the end of the lens doesn't rotate when you focus that lens which is really nice when you're using polarizing filters). The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is a HUGE upgrade (f/2.8 collects four times more light than an f/5.6 lens -- which means you can use faster shutter speeds or lower ISO settings, etc.) The EF-S 17-55 isn't cheap though. f/2.8 lenses also tend to be larger and heavier (they have to be... focal ratio is the quotient of dividing the aperture diameter into the focal length. If the focal length isn't changing but the focal ratio is getting better then it means the diameter of the glass HAS to be larger. Since there are lots of glass elements inside a lens and glass is heavy, when all of those elements have be larger, the whole lens gains will end up weighing a lot more.)

The 55-250 is a very popular compliment lens to the 18-55. It's also an entry-level consumer zoom. It's decent quality, but it doesn't have internal focusing nor does it have the quick USM focusing motors that are desirable for action shots.

If your wildlife shots are "action" then you may want to stick to a lens with USM focusing motors. That will increase the price tag and put you into a higher category. If the wildlife photos are NOT "action" then you can save a few bucks.

 

[qwertyjjj]

Will this work: Tamron LD A17 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD AF Di Lens
Seems to be a lower price than the Canon ones.
When you say action, you mean I will not be able to take shots of birds flying or animals running for example?

 

[jaomul]

If that tamron is for canon it will work. You can take action shots or almost any shot you like with even the lenses you have. What is meant is specific lenses work for specific purposes better. Do yourself a favour and don't buy anything else until you get your gear and use it. You will soon figure out what is lacking or not in your gear. Forums are always a help but only if you have some idea of what you want or need.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

I agree completely with TCampbell. The 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 is actually a pretty good lens. Don't believe me? Pick up a used 28-90mm or another one of the kit lenses that came with the Canon Rebel film cameras (yes it will work on your camera). The quality in optics and build are easy to see. The reason most people use the term "kit lens" in a negative way is simply because there are so many lenses that are much better than it. I keep an 18-135mm "kit lens" on my camera as an everyday walk around lens.

Other good Canon lenses to check out are:
EF 50mm f/1.8 $125
EF 40mm f/2.8 $200
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 $200-300 ($120-160 used)
EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III $200
EF 50mm f/1.4 USM $300-400
EF 85mm f/1.8 USM $300-400
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro $400
If they're in you budget any EF "L" series lens.

Most of the Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina lenses are much less expensive than the Canon version, but they're usually not as good in build quality or in optics quality. Some exceptions are:
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 $400-500 (Just a hair less in quality than the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L, but for 1/3 the price its the best bang for the buck)
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 $400-500 (Many reviews and pro photographers claim this lens is actually better than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM)
There may be others, but these are the two that stick out the most to me.

The 18-270mm or the 18-200mm lenses you mentioned are good lenses, especially for a walk around lens with a very good zoom range. 18mm will give you decent wide angle even on a cropped sensor, and 200 (especially 270) will be pretty good zoom for most applications. The only real drawback to these lesnes is that they're not going to work very well at all in low light considering the aperture range.

What lens you get really depends on you and what you want to shoot. If you're into landscapes you'll want wide angles, sports you'll want long zoom with fast aperture (think expensive), each lens can be used for different things, but trying to shoot night time sports with 18-55mm lens can prove quite difficult.

 

[CanonJim]

OP, you're getting good advice here. The Canon EF-S 18-135 is a very decent lens. It's brother is the EF 28-135mm lens, which loses you 10mm of wide at the low end, but has IS and USM focusing. You can get either on eBay for less than $300 or even $250 if you are patient.

One thing I've learned in my half-dozen years of DSLR shooting is that Canon lenses, except for the really low end kit lenses from the 90's like the 28-90mm, hold their value very well, and can be bought and sold on the used market with very little of the normal amount of "caution". This is not always so with 3rd-party lenses. KEH and eBay are perfectly good sources for used Canon lenses in good shape. Especially for a beginner, buying used is a good way to evaluate lenses without going into the hole for the premium $$$ for new glass. You can pick up used primes like the 28mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/1.2 and the superb 85mm f/1.8 for half of what the new versions of the same lenses will set you back, and they're perfectly good lenses to learn with.