With that budget, a lot of people will probably say the 50 f/1.8 or something like that.

I'd say the 18-55 IS, or maybe a Sigma 17-70.

i would say see if you can find someone getting rid of a kit lens and then start saving cash for good lenses.

The body is only the beginning... The lenses are what really count! A decent lens will easily cost your 400 if not 800 depending on what you are going for in terms of focal length.

for your purposes you will probably want to start with a wide angle zoom lens. the 17-70 is certainly a great choice there. The kit lens really isn't all that almost anything is better than that lens, lol.

I would say shoot with the kit lens, and get the 50 f/1.8 like Mark said. Don't just go out and buy lenses, just to buy lenses. Use the 18-55 kit zoom, then the 50, then maybe a el-cheapo 50-200 kit zoom for some reach. Use these to learn composition, framing, etc. When those lenes start to hold back your skill level, then upgrade to better/more expensive glass, but it is best to learn on the kit stuff.

Originally Posted by Bone

i would say see if you can find someone getting rid of a kit lens and then start saving cash for good lenses.

The body is only the beginning... The lenses are what really count! A decent lens will easily cost your 400 if not 800 depending on what you are going for in terms of focal length.

I was going to let him continue to live in blissful ignorance, but now you've let the cat out of the bag....

Seriously, though, what Bone is saying is true--the lenses have the biggest impact on your photos other than your own vision, and you'll quickly find that good glass does not come cheaply.

Originally Posted by Markitos

I was going to let him continue to live in blissful ignorance, but now you've let the cat out of the bag....

Seriously, though, what Bone is saying is true--the lenses have the biggest impact on your photos other than your own vision, and you'll quickly find that good glass does not come cheaply.

Yeah, i wish I would have have listened to people about that aspect when I got started....

The better the glass the better the picture.... It's insane the difference that a simple change in glass will give you on the same image... the contrast from the start is such a difference. That's why I almost always try to keep my Sigma 30mm (dirty 30) on my camera. the images I get straight out of that lens is just insane!

Any of the Sigma EX series lenses are simply outstanding in terms of colors and contrast that they can grab. Hell even a simple upgrade to a canon USM series lens tends to help you out in image quality. The USM line (ultra sonic motor) lenses tend to have much better glass in them and will be a drastic improvement over anything else.

Canon lenses = big money in a lot of cases but they worth every penny.... With the exception of a couple models....
Sigma = Did I get a sharp copy???? If you did it's "SEXY TIME"
Tamron = they make some great lenses as well. tend to be cheaper but I can't say all that much about them seeing as I haven't owned or tried any of their lenses just yet.

Originally Posted by astockwell

I would say shoot with the kit lens, and get the 50 f/1.8 like Mark said. Don't just go out and buy lenses, just to buy lenses. Use the 18-55 kit zoom, then the 50, then maybe a el-cheapo 50-200 kit zoom for some reach. Use these to learn composition, framing, etc. When those lenes start to hold back your skill level, then upgrade to better/more expensive glass, but it is best to learn on the kit stuff.

I kind of disagree on this one. I think it's a little it of a waste to get the "kit" lenses just to learn on. It's a bit of a waste in money... Yes he'll be able to get them sooner but then he's going to have images that could always be better. It's not that much more to hold out and get a better lens. Granted it depends on his finances and how fast he can save the cash but ultimately it's smarter to not spend money on something that's going to just get the image when you can wait a little while and get glass that will be easier to sell later and get better quality images in the mean time.

The kit lens is a much better lens than people give it credit for. It gets a bad rap because it's a "kit lens" and because so many beginners use it. I've never used the 18-55, but it seems to be similar, performance-wise, to the Nikkor 18-70, which I have used and loved back when I shot Nikon.

Originally Posted by Markitos

The kit lens is a much better lens than people give it credit for. It gets a bad rap because it's a "kit lens" and because so many beginners use it. I've never used the 18-55, but it seems to be similar, performance-wise, to the Nikkor 18-70, which I have used and loved back when I shot Nikon.

i really think it could be a hell of a lot better IMHO.

Originally Posted by Bone

i really think it could be a hell of a lot better IMHO.

Don't make me buy one to prove a point!

EDIT: I totally would, but I don't have any cameras that will take EF-S lenses. Oh well. I was totally going to do it, too. Anyone want to loan me a Rebel/other EF-S camera and a kit lens?

Originally Posted by Markitos

Don't make me buy one to prove a point!

EDIT: I totally would, but I don't have any cameras that will take EF-S lenses. Oh well. I was totally going to do it, too. Anyone want to loan me a Rebel/other EF-S camera and a kit lens?

ben has a video on how to make an EF-S lens fit other bodies. check it out...

Originally Posted by Bone

ben has a video on how to make an EF-S lens fit other bodies. check it out...

That's the 10-22... they don't all work like that. I'm almost tempted to find an old XT or something....

do eet mark!... i'll even get the sigma i'm selling for $40 out!

Originally Posted by a.hoglen

do eet mark!... i'll even get the sigma i'm selling for $40 out!

what sigma are you selling?

Originally Posted by Markitos

That's the 10-22... they don't all work like that. I'm almost tempted to find an old XT or something....

oh, that sucks.... I was king of hoping that it would work for all of the EF-S lenses.... What a bummer!

kit lens, last weekend:

Oh, it's on like Donkey Kong: Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Kit Lenses Don't Suck

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

kit lens, last weekend:
[IMG]http://benjacobsenphoto.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/sachuest-8-22-2010/img_4970.jpg

yeah but that's after post processing... i'm talking about just straight from the camera compared to better lenses. you know what i mean...

oh, these two as well:

Originally Posted by Bone

yeah but that's after post processing... i'm talking about just straight from the camera compared to better lenses. you know what i mean...

oh,, right right right, because I don't process my landscape shots with my other lenses....

yes the kit lens is NOT perfect, and yes I could post a few serious flaws with it, but it's a HUNDRED ****ING BUCKS!!!! For the money, it's a very good standard zoom for a cropper IMHO. That, nifty fifty ($100) and nifty two fifty (55-250, $200) is a $400 kit that kicks some serious ass. The biggest issue with all three lenses is the filter/MF issue, NOT their optics.

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

lol I didn't mean to start anything. So if I get the 18-55 does that mean I can compete too? haha

Sure!

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

lol I didn't mean to start anything. So if I get the 18-55 does that mean I can compete too? haha

you didn't, it's all in the fun...

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

oh,, right right right, because I don't process my landscape shots with my other lenses....

yes the kit lens is NOT perfect, and yes I could post a few serious flaws with it, but it's a HUNDRED ****ING BUCKS!!!! For the money, it's a very good standard zoom for a cropper IMHO. That, nifty fifty ($100) and nifty two fifty (55-250, $200) is a $400 kit that kicks some serious ass. The biggest issue with all three lenses is the filter/MF issue, NOT their optics.

i get that you will still process. i sure has hell do on all mine i'm just saying your base is a lot better to start with than with the lower class lenses. That's all I'm getting at. If you can start off with better then why not????? You know what I mean?

And btw, my processing on those shots has identical processing as my other shots do/would, but I will admit LR is correcting for distortion using lens profiles, so it fixes the barrel distortion automagically for me....

Will the 18-55 hold me over for a few months before I can get another good lense? If yes, then I will get one and just save for a better lens.

BTW, you guys respond extremely fast, I like this forum already lol.

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

Will the 18-55 hold me over for a few months before I can get another good lense? If yes, then I will get one and just save for a better lens.

It depends on so many things that we can't answer that question for you. For me, the kit lens is basically free, relative to the other lenses/general investment I have in gear. For you, it sounds like a different situation. It WILL help you figure out what you want/need next, though, in how/where it limits you.

yeah, it's got it's limits, but once you can tell US what they are, and which ones to improve on first, THEN you buy the next lens. The 17-50 suggesting is a good lens, but only if you know that's the next step to take. The kit lens might be your perfect standard zoom and you might want to spend any and all extra on a tele or wide or prime and just keep the kit...

UV filter?

IMHO nope, not unless you shoot where you KNOW **** will be getting on the lens, otherwise it's another layer of BS for the light to go through. They're only worth it if you pay for a good one and that'd cost at least half the price of the lens....

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

UV filter?

IMHO nope, not unless you shoot where you KNOW **** will be getting on the lens, otherwise it's another layer of BS for the light to go through. They're only worth it if you pay for a good one and that'd cost at least half the price of the lens....

+1.

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

Alright thanks guys, I will get the 18-55. I will definitely be looking over these forums too. Should I get a UV filter? I have heard that those are a must lol.

lol, This is a fun debate right there/here...

I perosnally don't like having filters all over my lenses unless it's a CPL filter (circular-polarized filter). UV filters have their place but they seem to be counter intuitive in some settings. The concept of protecting your glass with a filter is a bad one, as in leaving it on the lens all the time... there are times when it's a good thing to have as well.

but like was said above. a cheap one will just degrade your images. If you spend a crap load for a lens why would you spend a few bucks on another piece of glass to go in front of it... There is a reason why cheap UV filters are cheap... it's because they are inferior in quality.

Originally Posted by TypeRAWR

What about a Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM lens? i found one at a good price, or should i pick up both?

No, that lens IS horrible. I would not do my challenge with that lens, even though it could probably be made passable. It may have just been the one I had, but it was the worst lens I've ever used.

i don't remember if that's one of the ones to avoid. I know there was one that is in that range that is not that great but I can't remember exactly which one it is. It has a lot of quality issues.

EDIT: Never mind apparently it is the bad lens according to markitos... lol

But think about it like this. If you get the 18-55 why would you get a lens that overlaps the other one so much?

If anything get a wide zoom lens and then a long range zoom lens. i currently have the 70-300 IS USM which I like a lot but that's a hard one to find a good one for 300 bucks, you tend to have to do a lot of looking. i'm sure if you look for a while you could find a good deal on one of the 50-200 lenses or any of the EF-S lenses.

IDK exactly how tight your budget really is... I know you said you want to stay under the 250 mark but that's not easy when it comes to lenses. I would probably personally put all that 250 into one good lens for a general zoom lens and then come back later for a longer range zoom. but then again that all depends on how fast you are able to put cash away for this stuff.

I have found that being patient and searching everywhere for the deal and being able to physically inspect the lens will result in some great buys. I spent a couple months on craigslist holding out for the best deal I could find before I got my 70-300.

what about the 18-135 IS UD lens? is that something that the OP should be looking at as a good starter lens. looks like he should be able to find a USED version in his price range. maybe slightly higher?

Here is a link to it:
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Originally Posted by Bone

what about the 18-135 IS UD lens? is that something that the OP should be looking at as a good starter lens. looks like he should be able to find a USED version in his price range. maybe slightly higher?

Here is a link to it:
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

the problem with that is he's spending more money on not awesome glass. The kit lens works because it's got decent IQ for the money. once you consider the 18-135, it's ~$400 and for that the tamron 17-50 2.8 comes into range. So he'd get more range, but at worse IQ. I'd go with the 18-55 and 55-250 over the 18-135, more range, less money and at least equal IQ. Then upgrade the lens he's using most to address the issues he's got with it. Superzooms have their place, but if you're willing to carry 2 kit lenses they'll usually win optically.

I think that you'll be fine with the kit lens with IS. Get used to shooting a DSLR and learning all of the intricate functions of your camera. A lens won't make a lick of difference if you don't know how to use your camera. I shot with mine for about 5 months before getting a new lens. I did return to shooting with the 18-55 a little this summer and I think it's a fine lens.
I did notice that shooting with other lenses between the time that I first shot with the kit lens and returning after, that my shots changed a lot. Also my first 8 months with the camera I only shot JPEGs and never did any sort of post-processing. A little bit of smart sharpening and this lens is sharp enough to make to think it's a more expensive lens. The only thing that bothered me when returning to the lens was the noisy AF (I have the non-IS version), the rotating front element, and the general cheapness of the build. On the flip side I consider that to be some of this lenses greatest strengths. It is cheap, lightweight, probably not going to attract anyone's attention, and I don't think twice about getting it dinged up. Also you'll come to appreciate the good stuff (L Lenses) more when you do get them. I still have not bought an L yet.
The point that I'm trying to make is, it's the photographer, not the camera (or the lens). That's what Markitos' challenge is trying to prove as well.

Also an article to read: http://www.bythom.com/iceberg.htm
My original $350 Canon loyalty program foray has turned into a lot more. Very shrewd marketing on Canon's part.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

the problem with that is he's spending more money on not awesome glass. The kit lens works because it's got decent IQ for the money. once you consider the 18-135, it's ~$400 and for that the tamron 17-50 2.8 comes into range. So he'd get more range, but at worse IQ. I'd go with the 18-55 and 55-250 over the 18-135, more range, less money and at least equal IQ. Then upgrade the lens he's using most to address the issues he's got with it. Superzooms have their place, but if you're willing to carry 2 kit lenses they'll usually win optically.

true, I know nothing about that lens so that's why I was asking. I would like ot pick up that Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Canon Mount Digital SLR Cameras

That used would probably be in his price range I would imagine. Or the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC IF Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras which is cheaper but it just doesn't have the image stabilization or the HSM focusing motor system. But that would probably be much better bang for the buck.

I've personally been eyeing that HSM one and debating between that and the EX series 17-50

I just searched on fred miranda and there are used copies for $95 shipped.

yeah, anything under $100 is a "good" price.

as for that siggy (17-70). It's a great lens if it does what you need. Great optically. If you NEED HSM or OS then the newer version is worth it I guess. The only concern I have with that lens is the aperture is variable. It's still got decent speed, but depending on what/how you shoot the tamron 17-50 is constant 2.8 and comes with or without VC (their stabilization). But again, know what and how you shoot before you upgrade. Then you can tell us if you NEED HSM, or IS or both or neither and if you NEED 2.8 fixed or not. This all comes down to what/how you shoot.

Personally, for my zooms I like IS but don't need 2.8 or even fixed. When I need speed I use my primes which are MUCH faster than 2.8 (1.4 and 1.8 are 1.5 ans 2 stops faster) and in those situations IS isn't helping anyway. It's taken me a long time to figure that out though, I wish someone had smacked me around when I was started and possibly loaned me some of the lenses I know I like now.

^^^ the only problem with primes is the switching back and forth for lengths of lens. granted I love my dirty 30, it's a sexy damn lens... and produces many sexy time photos for me... lol... I just always want a much longer prime, something in the 100 area but am more interested in the zooms for the time being.

but when you want to get that reach out and touch a little more and can't move because of the loads of people in the crowd then it's a royal pain or even physical obstacles...... I'm just putting ideas out there. If you are going to go the prime route then it's (IMHO) only smart to have at least 3 focal lengths.

But like ben said you have to kind of know what you like to shoot first.

I'm not saying you get to buy everything you want right now bone... I have a list of what I want and I work towards picking off the needs first and the wants second. For me primes are purely for fun anyway so they're on the bottom of the list.

A Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Di II is a great starter lens and since the newer image stablized (aka VC) version came out, its dropped in price significantly from its original $500 price tag to something closer to $300 used, I highly recommend it.

Originally Posted by kayone

A Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Di II is a great starter lens and since the newer image stablized (aka VC) version came out, its dropped in price significantly from its original $500 price tag to something closer to $300 used, I highly recommend it.

+1.

a bunch of us hacks on here use this lens daily.