SNAP SHOT 194 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 right i'm on a limited budget, looking for a suitable lens for a canon 1000d for wildlife, landscapes.... could any of you guys give me your recommendations and why you choose a particular lens... Thank you. Snap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J Darcy 5,871 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Hi mate, firstly you need to think which you would like first. You cannot really get lenses that will be able to do both landscapes and wildlife to any decent degree........ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Hi Snap, what lens do you have now? Darcy is right in that there isn't anything affordable that will do both landscape and wildlife. So, you'll really need 2 lenses, one starting around 17/18mm up to 50 or 70mm and a 70-300mm zoom. Sigma do an 18-125 lens for around £250 which has had good reviews, and would give you a little more reach than most wide zooms, but you would need to be close to the wildlife to "fill the frame" with them. The Canon 70-300 usm 111 lens is quite good, Sigma do a cheaper 70-300, but you get what you pay for... Is secondhand an option? Good lenses do tend to hold their price though and ebay bargains are rare... I personally use a 17-40 for landscapes, a 24-70 for general portraits and stuff, and a 70-200 or 70-300 for sport and wildlife, with a couple of primes for specialist stuff. All my kit is Canon, because I know they will deliver the goods, and that is very important when it's more than just a hobby. Then when I take a crap photo I only have myself to blame Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J Darcy 5,871 Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Hi Snap, what lens do you have now? Darcy is right in that there isn't anything affordable that will do both landscape and wildlife. So, you'll really need 2 lenses, one starting around 17/18mm up to 50 or 70mm and a 70-300mm zoom. Sigma do an 18-125 lens for around £250 which has had good reviews, and would give you a little more reach than most wide zooms, but you would need to be close to the wildlife to "fill the frame" with them. The Canon 70-300 usm 111 lens is quite good, Sigma do a cheaper 70-300, but you get what you pay for... Is secondhand an option? Good lenses do tend to hold their price though and ebay bargains are rare... I personally use a 17-40 for landscapes, a 24-70 for general portraits and stuff, and a 70-200 or 70-300 for sport and wildlife, with a couple of primes for specialist stuff. All my kit is Canon, because I know they will deliver the goods, and that is very important when it's more than just a hobby. Then when I take a crap photo I only have myself to blame Muttle....you hit the nail on the head... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
happyploughman 1 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 I have a canon 55-200 but want something with more reach. I will have to save up but have been looking at a lot of lenses, reviews etc. I am now thinking that perhaps I ought to go for a prime lens, the canon is 300 and a 1.4 converter, what do all you people that know about these things think of that or would I be better off just going for a decent zoom?? Long way off yet but need to dream haha. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hannah4181 260 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hi Snap, what lens do you have now? Darcy is right in that there isn't anything affordable that will do both landscape and wildlife. So, you'll really need 2 lenses, one starting around 17/18mm up to 50 or 70mm and a 70-300mm zoom. Sigma do an 18-125 lens for around £250 which has had good reviews, and would give you a little more reach than most wide zooms, but you would need to be close to the wildlife to "fill the frame" with them. The Canon 70-300 usm 111 lens is quite good, Sigma do a cheaper 70-300, but you get what you pay for... Is secondhand an option? Good lenses do tend to hold their price though and ebay bargains are rare... I personally use a 17-40 for landscapes, a 24-70 for general portraits and stuff, and a 70-200 or 70-300 for sport and wildlife, with a couple of primes for specialist stuff. All my kit is Canon, because I know they will deliver the goods, and that is very important when it's more than just a hobby. Then when I take a crap photo I only have myself to blame And its shit isn't it, when you know there's no blame that can be placed on the kit! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 I have a canon 55-200 but want something with more reach. I will have to save up but have been looking at a lot of lenses, reviews etc. I am now thinking that perhaps I ought to go for a prime lens, the canon is 300 and a 1.4 converter, what do all you people that know about these things think of that or would I be better off just going for a decent zoom?? Long way off yet but need to dream haha. The 300mm f4 is a good lens, the 2.8 is superb, but at a superb price There's always the 400mm too... On the whole prime lenses do the job better than zooms, but they don't have the flexibility. The canon converters are good, I haven't noticed any loss of image quality using the 1.4, but not sure I'd recommend the 2x unless you have a fast lens to start with. They can slow the focusing down a tiny bit, but it's hardly noticeable. The 100-400L IS is a decent lens - if you get a good one... It seems to have been around for a while though and may be due for a revamp. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hi Snap, what lens do you have now? Darcy is right in that there isn't anything affordable that will do both landscape and wildlife. So, you'll really need 2 lenses, one starting around 17/18mm up to 50 or 70mm and a 70-300mm zoom. Sigma do an 18-125 lens for around £250 which has had good reviews, and would give you a little more reach than most wide zooms, but you would need to be close to the wildlife to "fill the frame" with them. The Canon 70-300 usm 111 lens is quite good, Sigma do a cheaper 70-300, but you get what you pay for... Is secondhand an option? Good lenses do tend to hold their price though and ebay bargains are rare... I personally use a 17-40 for landscapes, a 24-70 for general portraits and stuff, and a 70-200 or 70-300 for sport and wildlife, with a couple of primes for specialist stuff. All my kit is Canon, because I know they will deliver the goods, and that is very important when it's more than just a hobby. Then when I take a crap photo I only have myself to blame And its shit isn't it, when you know there's no blame that can be placed on the kit! Sure is, happens to me all the time... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hannah4181 260 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hi Snap, what lens do you have now? Darcy is right in that there isn't anything affordable that will do both landscape and wildlife. So, you'll really need 2 lenses, one starting around 17/18mm up to 50 or 70mm and a 70-300mm zoom. Sigma do an 18-125 lens for around £250 which has had good reviews, and would give you a little more reach than most wide zooms, but you would need to be close to the wildlife to "fill the frame" with them. The Canon 70-300 usm 111 lens is quite good, Sigma do a cheaper 70-300, but you get what you pay for... Is secondhand an option? Good lenses do tend to hold their price though and ebay bargains are rare... I personally use a 17-40 for landscapes, a 24-70 for general portraits and stuff, and a 70-200 or 70-300 for sport and wildlife, with a couple of primes for specialist stuff. All my kit is Canon, because I know they will deliver the goods, and that is very important when it's more than just a hobby. Then when I take a crap photo I only have myself to blame And its shit isn't it, when you know there's no blame that can be placed on the kit! Sure is, happens to me all the time... And me . . . .. But it keeps you on your toes and for me, makes me work harder . . .. . . . . . most the time! Other days i just think, bollocks i'm rubbish at this! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
happyploughman 1 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 I have a canon 55-200 but want something with more reach. I will have to save up but have been looking at a lot of lenses, reviews etc. I am now thinking that perhaps I ought to go for a prime lens, the canon is 300 and a 1.4 converter, what do all you people that know about these things think of that or would I be better off just going for a decent zoom?? Long way off yet but need to dream haha. The 300mm f4 is a good lens, the 2.8 is superb, but at a superb price There's always the 400mm too... On the whole prime lenses do the job better than zooms, but they don't have the flexibility. The canon converters are good, I haven't noticed any loss of image quality using the 1.4, but not sure I'd recommend the 2x unless you have a fast lens to start with. They can slow the focusing down a tiny bit, but it's hardly noticeable. The 100-400L IS is a decent lens - if you get a good one... It seems to have been around for a while though and may be due for a revamp. thanks mutt something to think about there Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SNAP SHOT 194 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 thanks Jd and Muttle... i was thinking along the lines of the 70-300 iii is but i read some reviews and they were pretty poor..... currently in the range i have a 18-55 canon... lens and the tamron 55-200 di macro zoom... fairly impressed with it but looking for a little more quality, lets just say wildlife..... i'll be looking for a good macro lens too, i'm thinking this is gonna get a little expensive before its all over..... i've taken some lovely pics of dogs and pups for a friend, and was really chuffed the way they came out... i have to admitt i'm a little hooked... thank you guys... Snap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J Darcy 5,871 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Snapshot..... For macro i strongly recommend the Sigma 150ml. I have one and i use it daily. The shots are tack sharp and i have no issues with it. That lens is the only Non-canon lens i have.... The standard 18-55 kit lens will do you for the landscapes... my advice would be to invest in a tripod and cable release As for the "wildlife lens".....it sure is a pickle.....to get good shots most of the time you need to spend that cash. I have tried many other lenses and non of them seem anywhere near as sharp as the canon i have now. Its a bit of a juggle..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SNAP SHOT 194 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Snapshot..... For macro i strongly recommend the Sigma 150ml. I have one and i use it daily. The shots are tack sharp and i have no issues with it. That lens is the only Non-canon lens i have.... The standard 18-55 kit lens will do you for the landscapes... my advice would be to invest in a tripod and cable release As for the "wildlife lens".....it sure is a pickle.....to get good shots most of the time you need to spend that cash. I have tried many other lenses and non of them seem anywhere near as sharp as the canon i have now. Its a bit of a juggle..... i'm sensing you have a good lens mate but..... at what money...? i'm currently finalising purchasing land to build on, and as you may guess moneys not there at the minute.... if you were in my position and on a budget.... What lens would you go for...? but i may sell some items i've lying around to fund said purchases.. thanks for your time.. Snap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MuttleMcTuttle 21 Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 I can't fault my Canon 100mm macro, but if I needed a new macro lens I'd consider the Tamron 90mm macro lens for around £350. It doesn't have quite the length of Darcy's but it is £200 cheaper and has had some excellent reviews. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SNAP SHOT 194 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 I can't fault my Canon 100mm macro, but if I needed a new macro lens I'd consider the Tamron 90mm macro lens for around £350. It doesn't have quite the length of Darcy's but it is £200 cheaper and has had some excellent reviews. thanks for the input, i was refering to the wildlife lens as a first purchase.... if you had limited funds... both yourself and darcy..... what WOULD YOU PURCHASE.... getting a little confusing ...lol, we'll get there.....hehe SO wildlife lens...... 250mm 300...mm make, any recommendations..... ? cheers... Snap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.