Good all round travel lens: Canon 400D

[DLbiten]

Im a Nikon person but will try to help.

You can not have it all but 3 lense will get you most of what your looking to do.

You will want a fast lense (something with low small F stop on the lense it will look like 1:1.8)
Then you want something wide NOT a fisheye (low mm like 14 or so)
then you want a something long (big mm like 200mm)

To start Canon changed its lense mount in the 1970s (1975ish?) to go to Auto focus not a bad thing but look out for Manual Focus it may not fit your camera. But most AF will even if the people selling do mot know that. You want EOS lenses.

I will start with EF-S 18-200 F3.5 to 5.6 with IS CA18200AF Will do most of what you need most of the time not grate in low light but the IS (image stalilizer) you can hand hold it 3 or stops slower than befor (like down to 1/4 sec some say) not a grate lense but grate "bang for the buck" $600 new

The Canon 28-135 mm is a better lense and at $400 not a bad deal. Not as wide or as long but better made.

18-55 f 3.5 to5.6 is another lense that will get more that you pay for at $170 still not a grate lenese but then not much at $170 will be. CA1855AFU

some that are? there the "normal" primes like the 50 f1.8 2514A002 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard AutoFocus Lens - USA Grate lense will give nice crisp shots and with the 1.8 f stop will do well in low light all for just $100 new. Buy the way going fast on lense is not cheap to get to F1.4 you will hit $400 and f 1.2 you will spend $1400

For getting out there I like 200mm+ something like the Canon 70-200 f4 for $650 or the 200mm f2.8 at $750. But for the price a 70-300mm f4-5.6 for $200 is more in the price range your looking for. 6472A002 Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III USM Autofocus Telephoto Zoom Lens - USA Warranty

Then there is the Bigma! The sigma 50-500 f 4-6.3 736101 Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG APO RF HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens with Hood for Canon EOS Cameras.
Big and soft at the top end and not a grate lense but for $ (a bit more $1000) not much else will do all that this thing can

For some closeups (macro) you want a macro lense there a bit more$ than you want to spend $500 or so for 100mm (going to 50mm or so will do you little good with anything alive)4657A006 Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Auto Focus Lens - USA

There are some close up"filters" you can get that will do the job in a pinch ebay has them (wach out there not grate and all the cheap ones are about the same) Canon and Nikon are the best.

All this and none of the lense are "pro" They all seem to $1000+ fast and unless you have skill as a shooter will do you little good. The best shooters see the shot before the shutter clicks take 100s (1000s sometimes most are tossed) of shots in a day and not only look but see. The shooters I have seen that are any good are more in to the creative side of shooting and less on "what is right" there pics tell a story and have a meaning in them than gust here I am. More drama more reason for the shot. Less walk up to the posted overlook and shoot the same pick as 1000s of other people and look for a reason to shot a seen, like a shot of a bored kid there parents ignoring them and then the overlook. Takes more time takes some seeing and less looking.

But if it was me? I get the 18-55 the 50 f1.8 and the 70-300. Get UV filters for each one, a polarizing filter for the 18-55 (and the 50 if dose not fit) and the 70-300 if you got cash oh and a graduated neutral density filter. (you can get a step up rings so you dont need 2 sizes of filters)

And the time to shoot them to know when to shot what.

[roamingyak]

Thanks for all of the suggestions, but please bare in mind that I really don't want to spend more than about GBP500 including the costs of filters etc. If I could only spend GBP300 I'd be just as happy ;-)

(I appreciate you 'get what your pay for' but for GBP500 you can get something that records and audio and video in full HD so these pieces of glass seemed priced to what people will pay rather than what they are worth ;-)

For anybody else looking like me, this site is quite good as it has pictures at all of the focal lengths:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review
(click on the 17mm | 28mm | 35mm | 55mm buttons etc)

Actually the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens looks quite god apart from the GBP600 price tag ;-)

[teflon]

"Actually the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens looks quite god apart from the GBP600 price tag ;-) - roamingyak.org

Somebody mentioned an 18-55 kit lens earlier, which is more than capable, light and at a fraction of the price of the above lens. I believe it does macro too. There's always a danger of getting bogged down in numbers and perceived quality and forgetting the original purpose of the exercise.

You didn't mention the 'horrible' lenses you already have or what problems you've been having with them. Are they the kit lenses that go with that particular camera?

Pretty obvious where I'm going with that question.

[PeerG]

Originally Posted by roamingyak.org

Thanks for all of the suggestions, but please bare in mind that I really don't want to spend more than about GBP500 including the costs of filters etc. If I could only spend GBP300 I'd be just as happy ;-)

(I appreciate you 'get what your pay for' but for GBP500 you can get something that records and audio and video in full HD so these pieces of glass seemed priced to what people will pay rather than what they are worth ;-)

For anybody else looking like me, this site is quite good as it has pictures at all of the focal lengths:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review
(click on the 17mm | 28mm | 35mm | 55mm buttons etc)

Actually the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens looks quite god apart from the GBP600 price tag ;-)

I have read only good things about that lens, but I find it too expensive. I read often that Sigma and Tamron lenses aren't as good as Canon lenses, but this one is supposed to be an exception: Tamron AF 17-50mm 2.8, I heard it is excellent.

The range is similar to the Canon lens you mentioned, it is equally fast and much cheaper. However, since I have the kit lens (which may not amazing but is definitely good enough for an amateur like me) I never considered spending money on a lens with the same range. People get carried with buying lenses (myself included). Things like composition are way more important than perfect sharpness in my opinion. Just make sure you have the focal length you need (and maybe one fast lens like the cheap 50 mm 1.8 if you like portraits).

[roamingyak]

"You didn't mention the 'horrible' lenses you already have or what problems you've been having with them. Are they the kit lenses that go with that particular camera?"

Yes, and the 18-55 lit lense is just awful.

Thanks for all of the feedback - the search goes on but feeling more comfortable about making a decision now...

[Dick]

This thread is too focussed (ha ha) on the gear.

All the gear and no idea

All the kit, and still sh.... well whatever

Its all about composition. I've been a professional sports snapper for 10 years and last year worked at a world championship swimming event. It was sponsored by Nikon and they flew in 4 or 5 of their very best snappers from Japan to showcase the D3 and a 600mm lens and so on.

The pictures were printed on the day and hung up around the media and were absolutely stunning, the work of geniuses.

And of course it got me thinking, " I've gotta get a D3 blah blah" which is just nonsense, it wasn't the great lens that took the pictures, it was the composition that made them stunning.

I would go mid range consumer zoom and spend a bit of time/money researching the type/style of photography that interests you and learn as much as you can about from a) books b) t'internet and c) practising over and over and really analysing your pictures to see how they match up against the work of others and what you can do to improve them

Have fun

[teflon]

Originally Posted by roamingyak.org

...the 18-55 lit lense is just awful...

I'd have said stick with it as it covers all the requirements you stated, though it would go a long way if you said why you think it's no good. Save people recommending something similar and all that.

[roamingyak]

"though it would go a long way if you said why you think it's no good"

When I took pictures with it I thought the camera was broken. Blurry, fuzzy, bad colours - as most other owners have stated, I don't know why they give it away with the camera.

[teflon]

Sorry to hear that. I heard it was generally a good lens - obviously not as corrected at all apertures as a top range one, but pretty good all the same. Oh well.

[buebo]

Originally Posted by teflon

Sorry to hear that. I heard it was generally a good lens - obviously not as corrected at all apertures as a top range one, but pretty good all the same. Oh well.

They changed the kit lens with the introduction of the EOS 450D. The new lens even has an IS and isn't considered all that bad. Maybe you are talking about that one?

I would go mid range consumer zoom and spend a bit of time/money researching the type/style of photography that interests you and learn as much as you can about from a) books b) t'internet and c) practising over and over and really analysing your pictures to see how they match up against the work of others and what you can do to improve them

[teflon]

Thanks, though I actually thought it was the earlier one that was better. But you have to have confidence in your stuff I suppose. Personally, I don't think you'd see much difference in web use. Just shoot at a middle aperture if it's a worry.

I still say go for a 10-22 or something similar. Why spend all that money on a replacement that still doesn't cover your own style of photography when you can have a shit load of fun with something that does?

Still. Just my thoughts.

[buebo]

Of course it all depends

I'm pretty happy with my setup. A Tamron 28 - 75 which is on most of the time and a Tokina 12 - 22 which is great for scenic shots, architecture and street photos where you shoot without raising it to your eyes...

Like somebody suggested earlier, best is to find your own style and go for it, but if you just look for the one does it all, it's an entirely different can of worms...

[pictish]

As a few folk have said here its not so much the lens it what you do with it that counts most canon or sigma lens will give good results.

the 18-55 digital lens which comes from canon with most kits will be ok for most of your needs and im sure its only around 50 quid.

get a longer one maybe a 200mm for things like birds or animals or distance shots

high end canon lenses and sigma for zooms have things like image stabalizing[helps reduce shake at lower speeds], the canon L series is their "pro" range.

At f5.6 you will find it hard in low light to get a fast shutter speed so not good for dusk or heavy cloud, inside shots unless you set the iso higher, However if you have a sunroof buy a mini beanbag or one of those clip on tripods means you can shoot from your vehicle.

You never said where you going it is sometimes cheaper to buy in other countries if your USA/Asia bound get the expensive ones there.

Also remember if you are buying a normal lens not specific for digital cameras the range is modified by 4/3s [I think] so the zoom will be longer but also your wide angle will be reduced

[roamingyak]

Well, under a little pressure to order now, so have gone for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens, as the reviews are very good/for the price, but no Image Stabiliser is a concern.

But it is GBP260 and the next best alternative seemed to be the Canon I mention above, but that is GBP660 which is a huge difference.

[teflon]

Camera movements don't show up so much at wide angles when you use longer shutter speeds as they do on telephoto lenses, so image stabilization is not always necessary.

Good luck with your choices.