Lenses for Canon EOS

SpicyNoodle

I have the job of buying a camera and lenses for my sister, I have chosen to get her the canon 40d but am having a hard time deciding what lenses would be best. She definitely wants a macro, I was thinking of the SIGMA 28-300mm DG F3,5-6,3, what do you think? She also needs a lens for photographing wildlife and this is where I am stuck, does she need a zoom lens or a tele zoom (whats the difference?), what about the Canon EF-S 28-200mm f/3.5-4.5 usm.

Any help much appreciated.

P.S. What about the tameron lenses, are they better than sigma or is it a matter of choice?

Paulw

Macro - Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens

For wildlife - it depends on what wildlife. Maybe the Canon 70-200mm (there are 4 types) The best would be the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L. Or, the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5/5.6 IS L.

The only thing - none of these are cheap, far from it. It really depends on your budget.

I've never used Sigma nor Tamron, so can't comment on those.

TelePaul

If you're already buying a 300mm lens, that'll do ay for wildlife in most cases.

SpicyNoodle

Spending amount for camera and lenses of around 2000 maybe a little more depending on prices of the lens.

The macro lens is within budget but the zoom lenses are a little above, maybe something around the 300-450 mark, don't know what though. Wildlife to be photographed would include birds, squirrels, deer and so on.

Thanks for helping me out on this Paulw

TelePaul, have not bought any lenses yet, just need some advice as to what might be good with the budget I have. Will the 300mm lens work very well? is it all she would need?

Borderfox

Something around the 70-200 mark for wildlife would be good especially if it was f2.8 hint hint check my sig!!

SpicyNoodle

Borderfox wrote:

Something around the 70-200 mark for wildlife would be good especially if it was f2.8 hint hint check my sig!!

What might I be looking at paying for one of those? Can you link me to any good sites, so I can check out the prices. Btw, where is your sig?

Borderfox

Down the bottom just under Canon 20d and such for sale!!

SpicyNoodle

Borderfox wrote:

Down the bottom just under Canon 20d and such for sale!!

I can only view it when I go into social and then user profile. Great pics fox, just flicking trough them now. How much did your lens/lenses set you back?

Borderfox

A lot were taken with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which cost about €1000 currently for sale...

SpicyNoodle

Borderfox wrote:

A lot were taken with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which cost about €1000 currently for sale...

The photos are great, you must have an obsession with horses lol...Sadly I don't have the money to get a lens that expensive, still needs to be at the 300-450 mark as 2000€ has to buy the camera and the lenses. Will have to make do with something cheaper for now:rolleyes:

P.S. How much you selling the lens for?

DotOrg

SpicyNoodle wrote:

She definitely wants a macro, I was thinking of the SIGMA 28-300mm DG F3,5-6,3, what do you think?

that's not a real macro lens, it says macro on the box as it allows photographing stuff about 30cm away but a real macro lens allows you to shoot things a few cm in front of the lens

Valentia

The Sigma is not a real macro. It is a half macro. It doesn't do 1:1 ratio macros. How close a lens gets to an object isn't what macro is about it's how close it will focus and the focal length of the lens dictates how close you have to get to it..

The best thing to do on a budget is get a Canon 50mm 1.8 for less than €100 and get a set of extension tubes. You will get surprisingly good results for little cost. You can buy the 100mm 2.8 Canon macro later on.

PaulieC

STAY AWAY FROM THE SIGMA 28-300!!!!

Sorry for shouting, but it's a real piece of...well it's just not very good, let's put it that way. It's way too slow and very soft at 300mm.

I second the 50 1.8mm. ehm hint hint also below

TelePaul

Without getting TOO technical.....

The bigger the zoom lens, the harder it is to hold in your hand without shaking it. We use the integer rule; if a lens is 300mm, we use 1/300th of a second exposure time. The F number will also have an impact; the lower the number (2.8, 3.5 etc), the more light you'll have to work with.

So basically if you have a low F number, you will be able to shoot with your zoom handheld, i.e without a tripod. My lens is a canon 70-300mm IS; the IS stands for image stabilisation, so it compensates for low light. For example, if we were safariing in Africa, the Sigma and Canon would perform great side-by-side because there'd be plenty of light.

Back in ireland though, getting enough light to take a fast shot without blur can sometimes be a problem; IS compensates for that. The canon IS is about 700 bills though.

bazza 2000

SpicyNoodle wrote: »

I have the job of buying a camera and lenses for my sister, I have chosen to get her the canon 40d but am having a hard time deciding what lenses would be best. She definitely wants a macro, I was thinking of the SIGMA 28-300mm DG F3,5-6,3, what do you think? She also needs a lens for photographing wildlife and this is where I am stuck, does she need a zoom lens or a tele zoom (whats the difference?), what about the Canon EF-S 28-200mm f/3.5-4.5 usm.

Any help much appreciated.

P.S. What about the tameron lenses, are they better than sigma or is it a matter of choice?

i am using the sigma you are talking about and i find it great it is good for macro and good for zoom not a bad price E 180 its is good trust me:D:D:D