Good all round travel lens: Canon 400D

[freeflyd]

I have been a pro photographer for 15 years and have had many many lenses and combination and have recommended more lenses to more people than I care to remember.

The first and most important thing to remember is that "cheap" and "quality" will not ever work in the same sentence in photogrpahy. You can have either one, but not both. The second is that buying anything other than canon is like buying margarine when you need butter, but not having sugar in your turkish tea... It will simply not work as well, regardless of what the salesman may tell you.

For your applications, which incidentally is similar to my mother's, I would recommend two lenses: 28 - 135mm IS Canon and a 70- 300 Canon IS (NOT 75 - 300) The 28 - 135 has macro capabilities. Your only other possible requirement will be for a wider angle lens. Canon 10 -22 is brilliant but expensive. You can get the 18 - 55mm canon kit lens which should have shipped with the 400D for just about nothing.

Do not fall for the 28 - 300mm lenses. The only one worth wile is the Canon one and that is about $3 000. The others simply do not work properly.

If budget is no concern, I would recommend the Canon 24 -105 IS L and the Canon 100 - 400 IS L. But that'll cost you more than GBP2k

Oh yeh... Well done on getting a Canon!

[roamingyak]

Thanks. I have just spent loads on video gear, so trying to limit my camera spending to match my needs ( a few pictures for the website/films and the enjoyment of walking for an afternoon taking pictures). Also as you can buy a high quality HD video camera that records video and audio for 2500GBP, paying thousands just for a lens in my situation seems crazy ;-)

There is usually a happy medium between price and quality - as 'quality' is largely in the eye of the owner and his needs.

My trusty Canon Powershot G5 took some good snaps previously (my secret for taking good photographs is to go somewhere stunning with good light and use 'auto' ;-) but I'd like to play around more....
roamingyak.org : overland travels in a landy

The two lens that came with the camera are horrible to my untrained eye and this seems a common complaint....

As I want to limit myself to two lense at most, a wide angle would take precedence over a macro lens (which would mostly be for fun shooting). But the Canon 10 -22 seems to be too expensive for my budget ;-)

[Warthog]

If you're expecting a sudden concensus from a group of photographers, don't hold your breath.

Photography is as individual as biking, in many ways. If you want to just go for a safe bet that won't break the bank, but will give you loads of options, the likes of the sigma I posted above will be more than enough.

It's not the fastest lense at 3.5-5.6, but any faster and you'll be paying beaucoup £££. Sigma and Tamron have been making quality aftermarket lenses for the big body manufacturers for donkeys' years.

Some die-hards and enthusiasts will perhaps tell you that a higher spec model is better, but with that lense and that body, you will have more creative control and higher quality images than your G% could produce, IMHO...

My 2p....

[roamingyak]

I'm not - I'd prefer people to just post what lens they have used with this camera, their thoughts and recommendations so I can wade through them to see if there is any kind of consensus, or conclusions I can draw. I've read 100 photo blogs and reviews and not come to any conclusions, so thought asking fellow travelers for their practical experience would be a good idea ;-)

Anyway, back to talking about specific lens....

[Warthog]

Originally Posted by roamingyak.org

I'm not - I'd prefer people to just post what lens they have used with this camera, their thoughts and recommendations so I can wade through them to see if there is any kind of consensus, or conclusions I can draw. I've read 100 photo blogs and reviews and not come to any conclusions, so thought asking fellow travelers for their practical experience would be a good idea ;-)

Anyway, back to talking about specific lens....

Fair enough: I hope you get useful info.

I hope my penultimate post did not seem brusque, only I have seen many posts on photographic equipment and the dozens of posts yield dozens of differing opinions, which can be overwhelming for the initial poster... 'tis all...

When you find a lense that suits, post to tell how you get on...

[buebo]

I have the Tokina 12 - 24 and the Tamron 28 - 75 on my EOS 450D. So far I'm very happy with the results.

The Tamron is my everyday lens, that I use when entering a new city, walking around and stuff. The Tokina gets put on for the scenic drives, photos of marketplaces and so on.

Sure the mentioned Canon Lenses might be of a higher quality, but they are also much more expensive and don't have that much more to offer (imho).

On the other hand don't fall for the all around do it all lenses, like the 18 - 250. You just throw away the biggest advantage of a DSLR, which is the ability to use specialized lenses for every oportunity. If you do really want to go down that road it's a better option to get a so called superzoom camera.

[roamingyak]

"I hope my penultimate post did not seem brusque"

Not at all! Thanks for the efforts.

And thanks to buebo also...

[freeflyd]

Originally Posted by freeflyd

For your applications, which incidentally is similar to my mother's, I would recommend two lenses: 28 - 135mm IS Canon and a 70- 300 Canon IS (NOT 75 - 300) The 28 - 135 has macro capabilities...

Perhaps I cluttered my post with too much jargon...

[roamingyak]

Not at all - all good ;-) Thought I'd thanked you above ;-p

[teflon]

If you really like wide angle then maybe you should go for the 10-20mm with your £500, or a really good secondhand one. They'll keep their price (not that you'll ever want to sell it) and you'll have a lot of fun! But what are the two 'horrible' lenses you have already? Maybe one could take the place at the long end? Just curious.

I would have suggested the 28-135 myself, but 28 is pretty tame and may be a compromise going by what you've said, though the range is pretty good towards the long end and would cover most stuff.

Just my thoughts. Good luck whatever you do.

[PeerG]

I took my 400D to South America and took these lenses:

Canon 10-22 mm
Canon 50 mm 1.4
Canon 28-135 mm

I absolutely love my 10-22 mm and the 50 mm, the 28-135 mm I bought mainly for the trip.

The 50 mm is great for portraits and for shots without much light (if you don't need the wide angle), but I might leave it at home next time. The pictures I took with it were great but I didn't use it very often, it's just not versatile enough.

I used the 10-22 mm for probably more than 90 % of my shots, it can't be beaten for landscapes or buildings (inside and outside). The pictures people were most impressed with were taken with this lens (and a few with the 50 mm). I bought a new one 2 years ago for around 400 pounds on Ebay, and I reckon it was money well spent.

The 28-135 mm doesn't impress me quality wise in comparison to my other lenses, although it is not bad (not very light though). It nicely supplements the range of the 10-22 mm and it is not too expensive. I got a used one with broken IS (didn't miss that feature much, but then I have never really used it before) for 100 pounds from Ebay.

If you like wide angle photography, I'd recommend the 10-22, 28-135 mm combo. The only problem was that I often couldn't be bothered to change lenses and since none of these lenses is a good do-it-all lens (22 isn't long and 28 isn't wide enough), I missed a few good photo opportunities.

If you like telephoto photography (for animals and celebrities), you should consider the 18-55 and the 55-250 mm lenses from Canon. They are cheap (it won't be a disaster if they get stolen!) and light, plus you have a very good range. If you also like taking pictures of people, you could get the 50mm 1.8 Canon lens, it is considered to be the best value Canon lens there is.

I hope I could help a little.
Peer

[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).