Digital cameras forum: Best Lenses for Canon Digital Rebel?

"Best and cheapest are oxymorons. What does the camera have now, and how much do you want to spend?

Which model is it?"

Well, best and cheapest do not have to be oxymorons when you scour the classifieds & auctions like me..

I do not have a lot of money. If it's a lens that takes nice quality photos and will get the job done for what I need right now, I prefer to pay between $50-125 (used). For a really great lens that I really like a lot for whatever reason, I will pay up to $250.

I mainly need a good quality lens that will function well for many things, but I need a way to get good close up macro shots. If I have to buy a separate attachment lens for that, that is fine. I am just inexperienced, so not sure how they work. I have seen them on ebay for $30 (as opposed to $150 retail).

But $600 is way too extravagent for me.. lol. I envy those who have the money to blow like that on a camera lens! Then again, I am not a photographer or photography student like many people on here probably are. I am just a person who needs to be able to get great photos of dolls.

The camera I just bought is a Digital Rebel 300d and it came with everything but the flash card and the lens. I got it for $400 compared to the retail price of $700+, so I'm hoping I can get a similar deal on a quality lens!

If you recommend stuff to me in the $100-500 retail price range, it means I should be able to find a similar thing somewhere else half price. My main problem is I do not understand lenses or what all my options are in the first place.

Thats all I wanted to say.

You can't have a SLR lense that cover every shooting aspects. You don't need to buy them all at once. Find out what you really need most. The lenses that have 28-200 mm focal length covers 95-98 % shootings. Don't rush to buy them all at once. I suggest the following lense for you:

1. Canon EF 28-135mm IS
2. Canon EFS 10-22mm
3. Canon EF 70-200mm F4L

These lenses are necessary. Don't buy them all at once even though these lense aren't too expensive. The 1st one is for the most common use. Meanwhile, the 2nd lense is for the wide-angle. In addtion, the 70-200mm lense will be good for zooming. Good luck.

Sorry I forgot to post the link

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

Ok. After looking around some more I think I might have fallen in love with this one particular lens.. the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens. From the photos I have seen taken with it, it just seems to catch all the colors so vividly and take such sparkling, sharp photos. Am I imagining it, or do so many photos taken with this lens blow other photos away?

They are so lively and atmospheric, and the colors and contrast so brilliant. This appears to be exactly the kind of lens I want and need, by the photos I have seen so far. A lens that takes detailed close ups with that kind of contrast and color, but can also take great portraits and distance shots...

(I got a camera Mainly to photograph art dolls, so this seems like the ideal lens mixing portraits with macro.)

Are there any other lenses which can compare to this one? This is kind of expensive everywhere so far. =( It's really tempting me though.. Yeah, I guess I am getting carried away! But oh well, I can use it as an excuse to take up a new hobby..

Could I get by with using this as my only lens for a while though, do you think? Or is it too limited to use in that way?

I don't know if I'm imagining the picture quality of this lens.. there may be other less expensive lenses that rival it that I just have not yet come across or something better I could get, but I've really taken a fancy to it. I just adore the way it brings out color and contrast.. B&Ws look great.. Almost every photo I have seen taken with it has this special magical, sparkling, illuminating quality where photos taken by other lenses like the 18-55mm kit lens seem so drab and mundane in comparison. Even the Sigma 105mm equivalent macro, though able to get the same detail, didn't seem to catch light and color at all like this lens.. Know what I mean, at all?

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100_28_macro_u

(That's a great site)

So, tell me, am I imagining things or should I just give in and buy this lens?

(Even though it will probably cost me waaay more than I was planning to spend)

The only bad thing about it is it doesn't have any way to zoom. But though that's something I wanted in a lens, its not anything I need right away.
I'd rather have sparkling photos than a zoom lens that puts out dull ones..

I noticed it is a long lense but hoped it wouldn't make too much of a difference.

I figure I will likely disable the built in flash anyway for the main purpose I will be using the camera right now.. Just try to use natural and/or good lighting around a table-top studio.

How far away from an object do you have to get with it?

Well, I am such a novice, but I will learn someday. Lol.

Hmm. Well, that doesn't seem too bad.. I would stand across the room for the kind of pictures that lens takes. I'm not sure I understand why you had to take the shot in sections, why you couldn't just back up more. I've heard about the 1.6 factor, but am not familiar with how it works in action. This is my first real slr.

But oh well, like I said, I would stand across the room to get photos of that quality. I do Not want to have to lace together separate shots just to get one shot, however. That would take way too long for what I'm doing, because I take dozens of shots from different angles.

Now I want a 17-40MM f4 L too.. lol. Figures! But I will wait on that! That one seems to add the same glow that I like. Almost as nice as the 100mm. Know what I mean?

Now that I look at photos taken by other lenses I am spoiled. It just seems like there is such a difference in the way the colors come out. I just don't see the point in taking photos if the end result isn't gorgeous.

Do you know of any other lenses that capture color and light like that? I'm not so sure about the kit lens.. The photos are kinda blah. I wish they'd make an 18-55mm and put whatever magic dust inside it they did the 100mm. Even the 55mm macro doesn't look quite the same to me.

If I can't find the 100mm for a decent price though, I might just settle for the 50mm 1/8 lens for now.. I don't like the way it picks up color & detail near as much as the other two, but it doesn't take bad pictures and would probably work fine. I saved a lot of money on the camera though so now I can afford to spend a little more on a lense IF it is worth it.

The main purpose I will be using it for is to photograph dolls that are 15 inch, but it's mainly their faces and features like eyes. So I need to get in good on an inch of detail, and color is Very important. Basically, mini-portraits. So it's a similar scale to what you were using with that sword hilt, but smaller on the whole.

I wish there was a closer-focus lens that took the same quality of pictures.. Ideally, I would like to get between 6 inches to 1 or 2 feet from the subject, as I like to manipulate the object as I go (change poses, etc).

But for the quality the 100mm produces, a little inconvienience is probably worth it.

On the other hand, the 3x magnification might actually work perfectly for what I am trying to do. I guess I would have to try it out to know for sure.

I don't really need huge photos for the dolls. Just want good detail and very pretty pictures.

I will research the 10-22 as well. I will use these close-up/macro lenses more than most I'm sure because of the business I'm starting. I will be shooting semi-macro practically every day. Most people probably see little use for taking those kind of shots. Though it seems this camera is going to get me interested in all kinds of photography with time and I will be wanting a lot more! I wasn't planning on spending much on a camera, but I guess no harm in taking up a new hobby. It looks like a lot of fun.

(I was looking all over the place for info)

Not picky because I'm a beginner? Yeah right. I am picky about everything. Already I can see a huge difference in the lenses and am wanting L lens quality.. lol. I wish I wasn't picky! I didn't know it was going to be such a pain shopping for a lens!

It's like a noticable, unnoticable difference, if that makes any sense. Just seems that a few lenses add a certain glow that others don't. I want that glow in my photos. Either that, or just better photographers use certain lenses.. I've been using pbase.com a lot. Good place to see what kind of pictures different lenses take.

And yes, I plan on getting the 50mm, either sooner or later, but I am drooling over other things. Honestly, I didn't much care for the quality of the kit lens. It's only redeeming trait is it's a wide angle zoom. If you look on that site and compare photos, you might see what I am talking about. The pictures just aren't all that great.

Can't start shooting until I get a lens! I got the body only from a neighbor who was upgrading. I figured I would want to pick my own lens anyway. Already read most of the manual.

I saw the Tamron 90mm, but I still think I prefer the 100mm. Also, have no clue how to make it work with the Canon.

I might have lucked out. A relative has an old camera they don't use anymore with 3 lenses. I used it once and I remember it having a nice macro lens. If I recall right, it was also somewhat long. I'm crossing my fingers praying it's the old 100mm..

I am a little wary of non-canon lenses.