Three Canon lenses you would recommend to a newcomer

[Alice Morrison]

Someone just starting out...I often get the question, which lenses should I get to start out with?

Name up to three that you would suggest:

My suggestions:

28-135 f/3.4-5.6 IS
300 f/4 IS
50mm f/1.4

[dc2]

I like my 24-70 2.8 IS L 75-300 IS 5.6 And 28-135 IS Oh yeah all U S M

[michael_engelen]

Hmm, newcomer to what? Canon? Or photography?

Let's assume he/she would be a newcomer to Canon. Then I would suggest (further assuming the person would photograph like I do):
17-40L f/4
100mm f/2.8 Macro
28-300L IS

[Mr. Pickles]

I assume a "newbie", with a 20D or 350D...??

I'd go with the following to keep options open, get some decent glass, and get some overlap.

Canon 17-40L (A good WIDE lens, that everybody seems to have or want, but a tad pricey)
Canon 28-135 IS (A really good walkabout type lens, with stabilization)
Sigma 70-300 APO Macro (Better & cheaper than Canons version, gets you longer TELE, and macro mode is a great addition)

[lordarka]

My first Canon digital kit consisted of the following;

10D (an awful camera compared to today’s excellent Canon offerings)
17-40 f/4L
50mm f/1.4
70-200 f/4L

I still own all of the same lenses, though they have since been supplemented with specialized primes, and the 24-70 f/2.8L. I would not recommend that big standard range zoom to a beginner, as I never really enjoyed those focal lengths until I started 1.3x and occasional 1.0x cameras.

I ended up discovering that I was not much into long/telephoto style shooting, so while I did at one point upgrade the 70-200 to the f/2.8L IS version, I decided in the end to get rid of the big heavy zoom, and re-acquire the much nimbler, if slower, f/4 zoom.

I think the above kit is a great way to figure out what focal lengths you like to shoot best while still retaining excellent coverage up to 200mm. If you later find that you need to gather more light in the wide or telephoto end, or that you need more reach, you can easily either sell one of the lenses at little to no loss, or add new lenses to supplement your existing kit. Another added benefit is that the whole setup is fairly light and easy to travel with.

Arka C.

[Michele]

Definitely the Canon 28-135mm USM IS lens. I love that lens and actually regret getting rid of it. Next, I would go with Tamron 70-300 mm lens. I do not recommend the Canon USM IS 75-300mm lens or the non-IS lens as I had the IS one and it made me want to go back to my Tamron lens. Wasn't happy with the quality, but that was just my experience. What else? Hmmm.. Tripod (Bogen/Manfrotto), Head 3265 I believe is the model. I love that head for my tripod. I would also recommend the Canon USM IS DO 70-300mm lens or it might be 75-300. I hear that is a great lens.

Just my two cents worth.

Michele

[Mr. Pickles]

Why would you recommend a Tamron 70-300 and then later a Canon 70-300 DO IS

[Michele]

I was just thinking out loud and the Canon DO came to my mind later after I recommended the Tamron. However, I did leave them both in my email as one is more expensive than the other. If the person just starting out was on a limited budget, maybe the Tamron one would be more in the persons' price range to start with. If price is an object, then I would definitely go with the Canon DO lens.

Michele

[Mr. Pickles]

Rokie Dokie

[Rumpole]

Assuming he is using 20D or 350D or 300D, for starters, I would recommend trying to cover more range than going for specilaist lenses.

Package 1
1. 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 EFS
2. 24-70mm f2.8L
3. 70-200mm f2.8L (with or without IS)

Package 2
1. 17-40mm f4L
2. 24-135mm f4L
3. 70-200mm f2.8L (with or without IS) or 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L

I personally went for package 1 and have no regrets. True that I now have the 1DMk2 and may be selling my 20D sooner or later, the 10-22mm can be sold off too in exchange for an 17-40mm f4L.

Just my 2p.

Cheers
KH

[Rumpole]

bauerman

I think your points are valid.

If it can be achieved by replacing the L lenses with cheaper alternatives, that should be fine too.

However, two things I have in mind: I always try to use Canon lenses unless there is a very compelling reason not to (and the price difference usually is not) and that I believe in "Buy Nice or Buy Twice".

Going into the realm of DSLR is expensive, not so much of the prices of the lenses as they can be used for 10 years or more without being out-teched but the high price of DSLR bodies and the short product cycle.


Cheers
KH

[ellette]

Well, seeing as how I'm going to be a newcomer technically very shortly...I will just list the three lenses I'm going to be getting. Pretty much Arka's list, with a minor change (that may not seem all that minor but the cost difference is what does it for me)

17-40mm f/4L
70-200mm f/4.0L
and the almost $200.00 difference
50mm f/1.8 II instead of the 1.4

If I wasn't getting all of this to be takng portraits though, it would be different. I'd probably get myself a macro since I so dearly love that type of photography.

Sara

[lecter]

85/1.2
70-200/2.8
24-70

[jrabbit]

I think I would tell them to use all Canon zooms and spend their $'s in a weighted strategy of exploiting their particular camera's FOV crop factor with their favorite type of lens (wide angle vs telephoto) and get the best *L glass at that end. Spend the remainder on the other two.



1.6 *get the 100-400 L and two others less $$$


1.3 get 16-35 L or 17-40 L and two other less $$$

full frame and no favorite type of photo (wide angle/telephoto)*** a real think-um

[mikaelwardhana]

Originally Posted by lecter

85/1.2
70-200/2.8
24-70

errr...i dont think any newcomer will spend that much on his/her equipment list...

85mm f1.2 , 70-200 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8.....geeezzz.... please let me know if there's a newcomer that buys those lenses okay.

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by bauerman

in a lot of cases I believe that Tamron and Sigma make some great glass worthy of my camera body.............

I just learned this with my recent purchase of the Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF lens, which was recommended on this forum. It's a very fine performer and would make a great lens for any level of user, no compromises. Half the price at least of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L lens.

[Rumpole]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Rumploe - your points are valid as well - I am of the opinion as well that you get what you pay for on a lot of instances. We may differ somewhat because in a lot of cases I believe that Tamron and Sigma make some great glass worthy of my camera body.............

Then we must start a fight somewhere soon ;p

The reason I invariably choose to go with Canon items is that to avoid future compatibility issues (if any) and it seems to give a stronger impression to the clients in general (who probably could not tell a canon from a nikon?).

I think Jrabbit's idea of trying out as much range as possible by using different zooms and then single out a few particular focal length and decide what enhancement (better zooms or primes?) to make is wise.

Cheers
KH

[Jose]

16-35 mm L lens
100-400 mm L IS lens
28-135 mm IS lens

[Remford]

Without hesitation, I would recommend the following. (for FF sensor)

1. Walkaround Zoom - EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM (EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM or EF 28-135 f/3.5-4.5 IS USM on a budget)

2. Compact Telezoom - EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM - the new model is absolutely superb. I consider mine to be a "Slow and small L"

3. Macro/Portrait Prime - EF-S 60 f/2.8 USM - an incredibly sharp true 1:1 macro suitable for portraiture. (EF 85 f/1.8 USM)

Note: The third slot can go one of two directions. It would always be a prime, with one direction favoring aperture, and the other favoring macro use at the expense of 1 stop and AF speed. The EF 50 f/1.4 is an equally wonderful choice.

[rpcrowe]

I think that the 17-40L and the 70-200 f/4L are a pair of L lenses that will not neccessarily send you into the poorhouse (If you need to economize - consider the the 350D instead of the 20D. I have a 350D and an older 10D.

Now you basically lacking lenses to get the following kinds of images:
Macro
Low Available Light
Long Telephoto

I don't do macro work so I didn't provide myself with this option.

I covered my low light needs with two lenses:

Used Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I (I never liked the build of the Mark-II) which gives me a short telephoto at an 80mm equivalent - $125 (I have seen them for less on Ebay)

Used Sigma 28mm f/1.8 which gives me a slightly wider than normal fast lens that is sharp at all apertures. It actually gets a better photodo,com grade (3.4) than the equivalent Canon 28mm f/1.8 (3.2) - $125

I would love to have a 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and a 50mm f/1.4 Canon but these lenses are priced to high for the amount of low light shooting I plan on doing.

I can often use the 17-40mm f/4L for wide angle stuff like city scapes on a tripod.

Long Telephoto:

The long end of the 70-200mm is often just not long enough.

I opted for a used Canon 1.4x TC which works great with the 70-200mm f/4L giving me an effective 156-448mm f/5.6 lens. I got a great deal on this used - $100

I was then lucky enough to get a great price on a very sharp used Tokina 400mm f/5.6 ATX SD (not the older SD model). This lens gives me an effective 640mm f/5.6 - $150

Totalling the above - I got the three primes and the Canon TC for $500. Of course it took a lot of careful shopping and many-many visits to Ebay before I was able to find those lenses. I now have a pretty nice selection of lenses that will get me most types of imagery (with the exception of macro stuff).