What lenses do I need for a Canon EOS 350?

[vinat]

A friend gave me a EOS 350 canon with the kit lens 18-55mm. I would like to know what kind of lens I can buy that will allow me to capture distant subject and good macro without being expensive...

I want a good quality lens but my budget is limited...

[carregwen]

Hi Vinat

I'm afraid you are being too optimistic. The reality is, with a few exceptions, that good quality lenses are more expensive than lower quality ones. Second-hand lenses often represent good value, allowing you to get something decent for a reasonable price. What exactly do you want to shoot?

[arith]

I think this is what you want to avoid:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

but this is a cheap thing which has reasonable sharpness:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/20...report--review

[Klickit]

A friend gave me a EOS 350 canon with the kit lens 18-55mm. I would like to know what kind of lens I can buy that will allow me to capture distant subject and good macro without being expensive...

I want a good quality lens but my budget is limited...

I'm afraid that to do both distance (zoom?) and macro, you are probably looking at two lenses. The pure mechanics of optics don't allow for the two differing needs together. If, and it is a big if, you were prepared to have a fixed distance and macro, you could consider something like the Tamron 90mm macro. But it is a relatively long lens for general landscape work.
If you can be patient, I'll take some side-by-side images with the Tamron and a wider lens, to show you. Would that help?

[Geoff F]

The simple answer is; If you want good quality - start saving! Buying too cheap always works out expensive in the long run.

That Canon 70-300 IS (not the 75-300) is a decent all round lens at a realistic price, although not exactly a bargain. I have used it as a macro lens and when coupled with a 25mm extension it worked reasonably well. But it did require good light and the cost of the extension tube is well on the way to purchasing a 'proper' macro lens.

The Canon 55-250 gets reasonable reviews but the cheap price comes at the expense of build quality. And don't even think about the Sigma 28-300 macro. I once bought a secondhand camera which came with this lens attached. It is optically tolerable but, once again, the build is poor.

However, we are talking in general terms here and really need to know exactly what you want to photography because the ideal equipment can vary considerably.

For instance, is your distance work wildlife or sport? Would the macro be flowers, insects or something else?

[Colin Southern]

I'm afraid that to do both distance (zoom?) and macro, you are probably looking at two lenses.

I dunno - the EF180mm F3.5L Macro does very nicely, unfortunately, it fails the price test

[Sunray]

Maybe take a closer look at the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8. There exists an L and an NON-L variant of that lense. The NON-L variant has no image stabilizer, but image quality is superb. Therefor the NON-L variant is much less expensive than the other.

I personally own a Canon EF 70-300mm IS USM (NON-DO), but I am not that happy with this lense. When it is streched out to 300mm it fells very wobbly. The front lense rotates during focusing. If you want to use a polarizer that can be tricky. I did not test another one, but my example tends to loose sharpness towards the edges, although I use a 40D that has an APC-C size sensor like the 350D and the lense is designed for full frame cameras.

regards.
Robert

[Klickit]

I dunno - the EF180mm F3.5L Macro does very nicely, unfortunately, it fails the price test

Granted, but the camera is not full frame, so in effect it's going to be nearer 290. That's good for distance, but not as versatile for landscape as a wider lens. I'm trying to think of what might be a general, goodish all-rounder. But maybe distant distance is what you want, Vinat?

[neverhood311]

I dunno - the EF180mm F3.5L Macro does very nicely, unfortunately, it fails the price test

Anything with 'L' in it is probably gonna fail the price test in my book. I'll own one some day, though...

I'm not sure how far you want to zoom, but if you want an all-around good lens, I would highly suggest the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS. I bought this lens refurbished about a month ago (with a UV filter and a lens hood) for a little less than $400 on Adorama.com and have been very pleased with it so far. It feels very solid and professional, especially when up against the plastic 18-55mm. It has fast, accurate focusing and very good Image Stabilization. It also has a fairly close focusing distance, although I don't think you could call it a true macro. It's a little wider than the kit lens and zooms much further. However, you shouldn't expect to use it for your kids sports games or for distant wildlife. The only downside to the lens is that it's not very fast in the aperture department, starting at f/4.

All-in-all, I'm impressed with this lens and would highly suggest it to any new DSLR owner. The price is right when you buy refurbished.

[Donald]

I'd certainly endorse Justin's comment re the 17-85 if you're looking to better the 18-55 whilst you learn your way round some of the basics before settling on which way you want to take your photography. Mastering a good all-round lens is perhaps the thing to do before diving off to invest in other lenses.

On the 17-85, the only note of caution I'd raise is that which I referred to in this thread. It seems as if this is something of an issue with this lens (based on the online entries I found after searching). Having said that, I got mine fixed by A J Johnstone for 90 GBP and it is now much better than it ever was new. Much tighter and less shake and rattle.

[Maritimer1]

Vinat, hello! I have been researching lens for a Canon 400d (and now the 40D) for the past several months. I second the advice to buy two lens because an all purpose lens is kind of like the saying “Jack of all trades; master of none.” If you are serious about getting good shots, you’ll want the best your money can buy for both the macro and the distant shots.

I am currently making do with two lenses. One is the Canon 70-300 non IS that I would NOT advise you to buy. You can squeeze some basic shots out of it with a tri-pod, but that’s it. It tends to be cheap (under $300 Cdn) and you get what you pay for. I use it when I have to. That said, I really did learn a lot with this lens.

The other lens I have is the Canon 50mm f/1.8. For under $140 Cdn, it is worth the money. It will not “zoom”, but you can still use it for some landscape shots and get some decent close-ups; not macros in the true sense. It is also great for lower light situations.

I cannot comment on macro work, but other lens you might like to consider, that won’t break the bank and that will give you some distance, are the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4. You can check the prices of these lenses in your area; I have found them online, via US sites, for just under $400 and $700 respectively. In Canada, they are each about $300-$400 more.

Enjoy your new camera.


Myra

[vinat]

thank you guys for all the input! i have a lot of "homerwork" to do before i buy anything...
i live in israel. here the prices are very expensive. and i dont know if it's safe to buy online and receive the items without any problems...i'll have to check on that.
thanks a lot!

[Crovean]

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS - I would recommend this lens also even if i don't own one. But i do have the 18-55 IS kit lens and if this does good images to me, the 17-85 would just do as good or even better and more solid + with the USM for fast AF makes a very big difference.