Lenses for canon eos 550d body.

Hi guys, new to the forum so a big hello to everybody. Wondering if anybody could give me a few reviews and opinions on a few lenses.
I've just purchased the canon eos 550D body, and am planning on buying on 2-3 lenses seperate as I wasn't completly convinced with the kit lenses.

I'm planning on wildlife/outdoor/ sport photography mainly, however I do travel allot so would like a lense which is capable of city and portraite shots.

For the wildlide I have read reviews on the 'Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 Lens' , Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS , and Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I realise the canon has the IS option, which I asume at 200+mm will come in use? The apperture of the 3 lenses is high, what are the limitations from this? Will this restrict me in certain situations and am I write in saying I wont be able to get good shallow depth of field shots? Could one the lenses be used for the city and portraties shotes I also desire.

The second lense i'm looking at is the 50mm f/1.8 by canon. I have read and watched very good reviews on this lense, but is it suitable for a standard lense for my camera, in will it be suitable for the travel and portraite shots desirable? I've read its very useful in low light and gives a very good field depth at that apperutre, which I desire in portraite and city shots.

If I purchased one telephoto and the 50mm, would them two lenses be suitable for the shots I wish to get, or am I missing a 'middle', to say, type lense.

Im releativlely new to photography and apologise if not everything I said is accurate and would be very grateful for any advice and help given.
Lastly, I am a university student so I don't have the biggest bank to pay, at the moment, as you may have realised, but I am willing to save and buy later if I can buy two lenses that will cover both.

Thanks in advance :)

You may want to read a thread I had started regarding the EF 70-300. They can do more justice to why, but a lot of the recommendations pointed to the EF 70-200 f/4L USM.

http://community.the-digital-picture...ead.php?t=5772

50mm on a body like the 500D is considered a bit longer than normal as it calculates to be the equivalent of 80mm in 35mm-camera-terms.

Saying that, the 50mm is a lens that plenty of people love, you just might find it a little long/narrow for close range/indoor photography.

I'm afraid I can't help on the other lenses in particular. But the relatively high max. aperture will mean you have to make other sacrifices when taking pictures in low light, you'll either have to increase shutter-speed (not suitable for wildlife other than for creative reasons) or increase ISO (increasing the noise in your shot). However in bright light you'll have no problems at all with f/5.6, and at long focal lengths you'll still be able to get some nice background blur. Assuming the background is further from the subjects.

But if you mention saving, the two best general purpose lenses you can get for the EF-S cameras are the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Canon 15-85mm IS USM.

How much (in dollars) do you want to spend? I assume you are willing to buy 1 lens at a time as you get the money, right?

Also: What kinds of sports? What kinds of wildlife, and how far away would it be?

It appears that Scott and I have the exact same inventory of photo stuff. I have found that the camera body is an inexpensive accessory to the lens.

It seems the 17-55 2.8 is the number 1 "normal zoom" followed by the 15-85. I have both and find I never use the 15-85.

Moving into the tele zoom, the 70-300 is pretty sharp, the trade up/off is to the 70-200 f4, and if you can stretch it the 70-200 f2.8.

I have found that the 17-55, 70-200 2.8 and a set of extension tubes has not left me wanting for anything else. Every once in awhile I long for some super tele but that is pretty darn rare as in perhaps once. The 50 1.8 doesn't see3 much time on the camera

I haven't found the gap of 55-70 an issue, usually a couple of strides forward w/ the 55.

bottom line, get the best glass you can painfully afford - the sensor can only record the light that reaches it. Further, the investment is 90+% recoverable if you take good care of the glass.

I come from the way old school of film, like 1976 and am just flat out amazed at what the cameras can do these days. None the less, if you travel, it is unlikely you will ever be back to that exact same spot with exactly those conditions and the image you capture is literally a lifetime event. One of my first posts was lamenting that I didn't get the better gear and more importantly I didn't take the extra moment to confirm focus and framing and the image is now forever unavailable to me.

The 550 has the same sensor and IQ of the 7d, so captureing great images are possible, might take a micro second longer than w/ the 7d, and the fps is not there, but if you wan't to do video the 550 w/ Magic Lantern runs circles aroudn the 7d so don't accept that you somehow have lesser gear as a reason the image isn't all that it could be.

Happy pix

I have a 550d as well, only really started playing with camera more this year.
While still on a budget consider renting lenses for days you will know you will be doing a trip.

Locally I can rent a 100-400L or 70-300L for $40 for the weekend.

you might want to rent a lens a weekend or 2 and try what will work for you.

What works for me with my 550 and my budget
is EF-S 10-22 landscapes and indoors (ordering Thursday) , 24-105L general all purpose lens (bought used), 100-400L wildlife (rental)

My kit lens was the 18-55 and was pleased with it until I tried an L lens, I replaced it with the 24-105L and no longer even bring the kit lens with me.
The other lens I started with and still use when not renting is the 55-250, This lens, although not fantastic does get some very decent results.

Basically as stated in posts above buy the fastest highest quality lens you can afford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ham

Not sure I like that last sentence.

It's very much about buying the right tool for the job, not just about buying the highest quality and fastest you can afford.

---

Yes, agreed, perhaps poorly phrased on my behalf.
I'll try and illustrate.
With my initial budget and camera knowledge I bought the 55-250 IS
for the most part it'll do the same job as the 70-200 f/4.0 L.
Although it will do the job, for a few dollars more I think you will find that you can get more consistent result with the 70-200 f/4.0 L for the effort you put in.
If you have the budget stepping up to the 70-200 f/2.8 or IS versions will expand your range of uses.
So, basically, as stated in posts above buy the fastest highest quality lens you can afford, suitable to your subject matter.

Not sure I like that last sentence.

It's very much about buying the right tool for the job, not just about buying the highest quality and fastest you can afford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Stephen

How much (in dollars) do you want to spend? I assume you are willing to buy 1 lens at a time as you get the money, right?

Also: What kinds of sports? What kinds of wildlife, and how far away would it be?

---

Sports would be water sports, I.e, surfing etc, rugby which would be from a spectator stand so maybe 20-50 metres. The main use would be the wildlife and landscapes, so Birds, big Cats, deer, and some african wild animals (in the summer) I can spend around $500-600 on each lens, and yes one at a time.

With further reading, the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM seems to be a favoured lens, with people using it for a similar purpose to my shots.

Thank you.