In What Order Would You Start Buying Lens, starting fresh... What Lens, first, second, etc.?

All,

I'm going to be jumping into digital photography this week. I'm planning on
purchasing a Canon 20D camera with the 17-85 f/4-5.6IS USM lens and a Canon
580EX speedlight. In addition to that gear I would like to experiment with
prime lenses, and something with a low stop. I was thinking of getting the
Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens...

Anyways, I've been thinking I have NO glass now... In what order would you
acquire a collection of lenses? To keep the holy war down to a low roar,
what types of lenses would you recommend (maybe not the specific lens, just
the type) I purchase, and in what order. Also for me, I realistically won't
have a massive collection of glass, and at least for a while won't be able
to justify a ton of high dollar glass (although I might spring for the Canon
70-210 f/2.8 IS lens at some point).

Example
1. decent walk around lens.
2. Good prime lens in the 50mm size.
3. Telephoto Zoom
etc..

Thanks for the advice in advance...

-Bryan

 

I'd look first for a 28-140 (equiv.) or 35-105 (equiv) zoom lens. VERY
useful - in my experience - especially that 28-140 one. Not too bulky,
either.

Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW

 

I should also add, that my first lens will be a 17-85 lens. Specifically
the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6IS USM because it seems to be a decent lens and it's
cheaper when included with the 20D kit.

 

Here are the first four Canon lenses I got for my 20D.

50mm F1.4 (not as useful as hoped with the 1.6 sensor)
85mm F1.8 (very useful)
17-40 F4.0L (most used lens, I have of these)
70-200 F4.0L

then I got a 24-70 F2.3L (most used of all lenses)

Planning to get a 135mm F2.0L and a 35mm F1.4 (more like a true 50 on
the 1.6 sensor).


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

You may want to consider the 18-55 kit lens. It is a really far better
than you should expect for the price. Great day to day lens.

Do you really need IS on a 17-85 lens?

Of course the answers to those questions and really based on many many
factors including how deep your pockets are and what kind of photography you
do or more important will do.

I suggest that you start with just one lens, either the IS you suggested
or the kit lens I suggested is a good start. Then start taking pictures.
Be sure to take photos of all the things that you figure you will be taking
in the future. For example, if you take pictures of buildings exterior and
interior on trips, but won't be going on a trip for a while, take some
photos around town. Get the feel for where your lens is limiting you from
what you want to do and then address that with your next purchase(s).

Good Luck

 

Even though I use Pentax ...
1. Something in the range of 20mm for walk-around. Maybe a compact
17-35-range zoom.
2. For digital, more like 40mm.
3. 80-200/2.8. Tokina probably the best value, but hefty. Otherwise
something IS for Canon lovers.

Collin

 

"Fenstermacher"?
I went to college in Omaha in the 70s with a Fenstermacher gal.

Collin

 

Hi Bryan!

I'm not a newbie nor a pro. When I buy the Canon 350D shortly, it will be my
7th camera in all, my third digital (Canon G1, Pro 1). I figure that the
17-85mm IS USM should be a great "all around" lens. It offers 28mm which is
good for wide angle photog. to 130mm, a reasonable 5x. This will allow me to
take many pics in different situations. I plan to take note of what I'm
missing and when.

When I was using my Pro 1 (a 7x -- 28 to 200mm), I found at times that I
might need a good telephoto. Contrary to general belief, the telephoto is a
very good lens for portrait photography. It can also be useful to take
photos of "ordinary life" when on a trip without being hindered. For
instance, when I was in Turkey and Greece recently, there were many
interesting situations in public places (markets, vendors, etc.) which I
didn't have easy access to. My problem is that a good telephoto should offer
*max opening and a image stabilisation*. These cost a lot.

At this point in time, I feel I would want a macro lens before I buy a wide
angle. I used to do Underwater Photography and I loved the "small bugs and
corals". However, as I said before, it's the use which will determine what I
buy.

Cheers,

Marcel

 

Huh, interesting... there aren't a ton of us fenstermacher's around...
Although, some of the relationships are really distant. Most of my
Fenstermacher clan is mostly from Indiana and a bit from Ohio and PA...

I wasn't in college until the 90's... so I'm a young one.

-Bryan

 

I agree. The 18-55 kit lens is pretty good, and IS isn't all that
necessary on the 17-85. OTOH, I've wished I had the 75-300 IS instead of
my old 100-300 USM.

A wide angle lens is also essential, i.e. the 10-22 EF-s, an excellent
lens, though kind of pricey for non-L build quality.

 

What you buy and in what order depends very much on what you are shooting.
I bought what little glass I have in order of need.

I very quickly grew to dislike the 18-55 that came with my 300D, so.... I
was in the need of a good walking around lens and bought the 28-135 IS USM.
This is now my primary lens and I found it has a perfect range for all
around shots. It's not L glass and the zoom portion is plastic but the lens
performs well enough. So well in fact that my wife steels it for her film
photog from time to time; so often anymore that I think I'm going to have to
buy another one.

A couple of months later, after being very disappointed with the 70-300 I
had and not that much more impressed with my wife's EF 75-300, I bought the
EF 100-400 L IS USM. I needed the zoom range for taking pics of my
daughters rowing events. I found the range of this lens perfect for getting
good shots of the girls in the boats as they rowed down river. I can zoom
in and get just a couple of them in frame or zoom out and catch the entire 8
in the frame. Very flexible and a good performer. It has a push pull zoom
but it didn't take long for me to get used to that.

Now that Crew season is over and my needs are changing once again and I'm
looking at new glass. Much of what I'm taking now are just family snaps
indoors so I think my next lens will be the 50 1.4 or 1.8. I'm leaning
towards the 1.8 first because I don't think I'll use the lens that much and
the 1.8 is cheap enough to see if my use will increase. If I like the 50mm
and find enough use for it I'll spring for the 1.4.

After that I want a good super wide zoom lens preferably L glass. Most
likely the EF 16-35 f2.8L USM or the 17-40 f4L USM.

After that I think I'll get the 70-200 f2.8L. It duplicates the range of my
other lenses but the speed is very desirable and there are time where the
100-400 is just too big.

In any event plan to spend lots of money because good glass isn't cheap.

Rob

 

What will you be photographing? Will you need much lens speed or will
you be able to tripod the camera and take longer exposures? Are your
priorities versatility like zoom, or can you deal with a half-dozen primes
and narrow-range zooms?

Just some questions I'd nail down first, which I'm glad I asked myself
as I begin planning to purchase more lenses.

Dave

 

I think she may have been from PA.
(I live in Ohio right now.)

Collin

 

Please don't. We don't need another digital asshole...

Please don't. Get a Leica R9 and several prime lenses.

It depends on the kind of work you'll be doing...

 

I've got in order of usage:

24-135 Tamron (it's my primary lens)
35 f/2 Canon
EF-S 10-22 Canon
50 f/1.8 Canon
70-200 f/4 Canon
100 Macro Canon

I should start using the Macro a lot more and I could probably get rid of
the 50 f/1.8 except that it doesn't take up much room in my camera bag and
it's lighter than the 35 f/2 which makes it nicer for mtn biking. I'm
finding that the 35mm f/2 has better coverage for the trails we ride,
though.

I'm thinking about picking up an 1.4x extender for the 70-200.

Greg

 

It ALL depends on what you want to do! For instance, if you want to take
photos of your prize winning coin collection, you'd be very disappointed
with a general purpose lens or a 50mm prime or a telephoto. First, think
about what you'd probably want to photograph the most (most often, that is)
and buy an appropriate lens for that. Then, what else would you like to do
and prioritize the list.

Here are a few SUGGESTED strategies for you (you know where you live so you
know if some of these aren't possible):
1) Buy a wide-range, general purpose lens (such as the 18-200) with an eye
toward using it to figure out where its shortfalls are and plan to dump it
once you know (or relegate it to a general purpose lens)
2) Rent the lenses that interest you for a weekend (pros don't usually need
them on weekends)...if you are in a major metropolitan area this might be a
choice...maybe you can get the camera store to apply some of your rental
fees towards future purchases
3) Make a plan (such as "I really want to do portraits") and use that as
your starting point

Good luck
George

 

snipped

Oh? Pro's don't work on weekend?
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

 

I'm a film guy, so divide the figures I mention by 1.6 to get your Canon
digital equivalent focal lengths.
28-80 (digital: 18-50) makes a great general purpose lens - wide enough for
most things at it's wide end, with enough telephoto to be a great portrait
lens. This is the lens that you would stick on the camera if you want
versatility without bulk.
100-300 (digital: 70-200, maybe even go to 300). This is the most zoom you
can comfortably hand-hold, and while you won't use it nearly as much as the
28-80 it is handy for those times when you want to get in close for wildlife
or sports.
Fast prime in the 70-90 range: (digital: 50/1.4 is great here). Great
Portrait lens for ambient light.
24mm or wider prime (digital: 16 or less). Buildings, landscapes etc.
With all lenses, the faster it is, the more versatile it is, but it is also
heavier and more expensive.

 

17-85 is equivalent to 28-130, so that is a very usable range of
lengths as a walkaround. In my youth I lived with nothing but 35mm,
50mm, and 135mm and shot for my high school yearbook and newspaper as
photo editor. Only thing to improve upon what you have would be having
A) faster lens for available light shooting without the disturbance or
alteration of the light in the natural, 'un-flash' environment, and B)
having one 18-135, equivalent to 28-200 in 35mm land.

One suggestion some made was the 17-40 f/2.8 as your first lens. While
that gives you a faster lens as the first, it only covers 28-60mm,
which is like a slightly wider equivalent of 35-70mm zoom in 35mm land.
35-70 was on 'OK range' for me as my first purchase after I switched
to Olympus in my mid 20's. But I found it to be not quite wide enough
(as my needs for 24mm became stronger), and also not quite long enough.
So you should consider whether you lean toward wider end of range or
toward long end of range in most shots you take in your first lens
choice. I thougt about 17-40, but decided that it would require me to
change lenses too often, going from the short end of the range to the
needing a somewhat telephoto.

I ended up with the 17-85 IS USM and 70-200 f/4 L as my first lenses.
Here's why...

The problem with the 1.6 format used by all of the 'affordable' DSLRs
today is at the wide end of the range. I love 24mm in 35 format, but
getting equivalent 14-15mm for the 1.6 format is very expensive in
DSLR land...$500-800 street price whether it is a wide zoom or fixed
focal length! You can get telephoto at a much lower price, and some
very exceptional telephotos, as opposed to the lenses being designed
only to fit 1.5 format (which are useless on any FF camera, such as
film cameras you might still own, or when FF becomes affordable to
'Everyman' in the future.

--Wilt

 

What lenses you should get really depends on what you intend to mostly
take pictures of: For sports and wildlife, you'll need very long, fast
lenses; for scenics and travel, wide angles to moderate teles; for
portraits, medium wide angles to short teles.

I suggest to begin with you get the 18-55 Canon lens that comes with the
camera in the kit. Buy no other lenses. Shoot with it and only it for
about 6 months. By the end of time, you'll have a good idea what
additional focal lengths you'll need and which order they should be
purchased.