What is my next lens?

[zcar21]

I have been taking pictures for about a month or so. I purchased a Canon EOS 20D from a friend of mine. It came with an EFS 18-55. He also set me up with an EF 75-3001:4-5.6. For the limit of what I do, these are good lenses, I am sure, but I also know that a certain percentage of good photography is the equipment. I am most interested in shooting landscape and wildlife (either in the wild or at the zoo). My question is pretty simple. What should my next lens(es) be and why?

I think you shouldn't buy any lenses if you have to ask. do you have a tripod that you use? The way I see it, the benefit is not worth the money. But if you have a lot of money, buy the best you can get.

 

[Dao]

With that said, if I were to get a lens in the next month or so, I could see myself spending $500-$800. If I were able to wait a few months, I could probably budget (and justify to the wife) $1500-$2000

When wife is involved, the cost usually higher. (You have to factor the cost of .. like ... diamond .. expensive handbags .. or something similar. At least for me)

 

[DiskoJoe]

id say go with the wide angle 10-20mm since you have the range from 18-300 pretty much covered. Then maybe upgrade the zoom later.

I recommend a sigma 10-20mm f3.5 or a tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

 

[Dao]

While I would generally agree with your statement, if the OP is interested in wildlife and nature, a flash wouldn't be very useful and....

I am not a wildlife shooter but I learned from someone here that he used flash as well with wildlife. He use something like "better beamer" that can concentrate the beam to reach further.

 

[kamerageek]

The lenses you have today are probably sufficient to meet your needs while your skill and style develop. My suggestion would be to stick with what you have until you can answer the question on your own - or with less help from your friends here.

I almost fell into the trap of gear acquisition as a means to become a better photographer until a friend gave me the same advice I'm giving you.

If I was a new driver I wouldn't run out and buy a Porsche in the hope that it would improve my driving experience. The result of such an action might be quite the opposite of my expectation.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Top-shelf glass retains its value better.

 

[Ballistics]

You can buy the same lens from a different company and it's either $400, $1000, or $2000.

Two of those companies would not be getting my business...

Either I'm being misunderstood, or I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

When I say the same lens I mean:

Nikon 70-200mm
Sigma 70-200mm
Tamron 70-200mm

etc

 

[gsgary]

Learn how to use what you have got

 

[Destin]

If you can't answer the question of what lens you need to buy, you are not ready to buy a new lens. You shouldn't buy a new lens until you reach the limits of what you're currently shooting with, and you understand why the lens is limiting you. Then you'll know what focal length and features are important to you and be able to make an informed decision for yourself. We can't answer the question of what lens to buy because we aren't you. It's that simple.

 

[Josh66]

You can buy the same lens from a different company and it's either $400, $1000, or $2000.

Two of those companies would not be getting my business...

Either I'm being misunderstood, or I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

When I say the same lens I mean:

Nikon 70-200mm
Sigma 70-200mm
Tamron 70-200mm

etc

LOL.

I thought you meant the same lens, as in "the same lens". Which is actually not uncommon to find one lens (or body) with wildly varying prices. Usually the insanely low price will be a bait & switch scam, the high price is just a rip off, and the middle price is about right...

 

[Ballistics]

Two of those companies would not be getting my business...

Either I'm being misunderstood, or I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

When I say the same lens I mean:

Nikon 70-200mm
Sigma 70-200mm
Tamron 70-200mm

etc

LOL.

I thought you meant the same lens, as in "the same lens". Which is actually not uncommon to find one lens (or body) with wildly varying prices. Usually the insanely low price will be a bait & switch scam, the high price is just a rip off, and the middle price is about right...

Yes, clearly there are certain differences and one lens is better than another. But when I said same lens, I also made a point to say different companies. As in a company makes the same product but the quality is different. Which is why budget matters. If you want a the best 70-200mm 2.8 that money can buy, or the 1/4 price knock off.

 

[Ballistics]

If you can't answer the question of what lens you need to buy, you are not ready to buy a new lens. You shouldn't buy a new lens until you reach the limits of what you're currently shooting with, and you understand why the lens is limiting you. Then you'll know what focal length and features are important to you and be able to make an informed decision for yourself. We can't answer the question of what lens to buy because we aren't you. It's that simple.

I disagree with this. It's the buyers prerogative whether or not they want a lens now or later. Buying when "ready" for a piece of equipment is an unnecessary deterrent with no applicable benefit. I bought a D5100 and returned it within a week and a half of ownership, and then waited over a month for the D7000 to be in stock. Never looked back. Waiting to be bottlenecked by your gear is something I would not advise doing. After all, it's just a camera lens and not a crotch rocket. All it takes is the identification of what focal lengths you use and then if you have the money for it, go for the best you can afford. Experienced photographers mock the inexperienced for having top of the line gear out of sheer arrogance or even jealousy, when in reality that's probably the best thing you can do. If you know you like photography, and you know it's something you are going to be serious about. Buy the best now. You save money in the end. I don't know why people recommend $300 tripods, but then recommend cheap equipment to put on it. Not you destin, but I have seen this here on the forum.

If I were to do it all over, I would not have bought the lenses I did. I'm 4 months into ownership, and I am already looking to upgrade my lenses. If I were to do it all over again, I would have spent the extra few hundred on much better lenses.

 

[zcar21]

If you can't answer the question of what lens you need to buy, you are not ready to buy a new lens. You shouldn't buy a new lens until you reach the limits of what you're currently shooting with, and you understand why the lens is limiting you. Then you'll know what focal length and features are important to you and be able to make an informed decision for yourself. We can't answer the question of what lens to buy because we aren't you. It's that simple.

I disagree with this. It's the buyers prerogative whether or not they want a lens now or later. Buying when "ready" for a piece of equipment is an unnecessary deterrent with no applicable benefit. I bought a D5100 and returned it within a week and a half of ownership, and then waited over a month for the D7000 to be in stock. Never looked back. Waiting to be bottlenecked by your gear is something I would not advise doing. After all, it's just a camera lens and not a crotch rocket. All it takes is the identification of what focal lengths you use and then if you have the money for it, go for the best you can afford. Experienced photographers mock the inexperienced for having top of the line gear out of sheer arrogance or even jealousy, when in reality that's probably the best thing you can do. If you know you like photography, and you know it's something you are going to be serious about. Buy the best now. You save money in the end. I don't know why people recommend $300 tripods, but then recommend cheap equipment to put on it. Not you destin, but I have seen this here on the forum.

If I were to do it all over, I would not have bought the lenses I did. I'm 4 months into ownership, and I am already looking to upgrade my lenses. If I were to do it all over again, I would have spent the extra few hundred on much better lenses.

The illusion is: a better lens is going to give me better pictures. This is a very common misconception. I could buy a hayabusa, doesn't mean I can run it faster than somebody with any 600cc. aspects to consider. Experience, I had a 250cc for a while. Technique, I taught myself how to ride that motorcycle, so I didn't get help from anybody. Those are just two example, but I could mention more.
In the case of the OP, he's had the camera for a month, and I don't know about his photographic habilities, but not knowing about lenses suggests that his hability is not too high. In the end, the benefits (as small as they may be) will not make you as happy, as the fact or having a newer, more expensive lens.

 

[Josh66]

But when I said same lens, I also made a point to say different companies. As in a company makes the same product but the quality is different. Which is why budget matters. If you want a the best 70-200mm 2.8 that money can buy, or the 1/4 price knock off.

In your original post, I took "different companies" to mean different dealers, not different lens manufacturers. That's where the confusion came from. You didn't exactly make it as clear as you are now.

It sounded like you were saying that you could buy "a" lens from "x", "y", or "z" company and see three different prices (which is entirely possible) - not that you could buy "a", "b", or "c" lens from company "x" with different prices for each.


I get what you're saying now, and agree.

 

[Dao]

But when I said same lens, I also made a point to say different companies. As in a company makes the same product but the quality is different. Which is why budget matters. If you want a the best 70-200mm 2.8 that money can buy, or the 1/4 price knock off.

In your original post, I took "different companies" to mean different dealers, not different lens manufacturers. That's where the confusion came from. You didn't exactly make it as clear as you are now.

It sounded like you were saying that you could buy "a" lens from "x", "y", or "z" company and see three different prices (which is entirely possible) - not that you could buy "a", "b", or "c" lens from company "x" with different prices for each.


I get what you're saying now, and agree.

That's what I thought too.