Earlier this year I 'upgraded' my old Canon AE-1 to an EOS 400d (Rebel XTi) but I've been pretty busy with work and decorating and haven't had much of a chance to get used to the thing.

I now seem to have a reasonable amount of spare time on my hands at weekends, now, so I've finally got the chance to start really using my camera for things other than the occassional point-and-click. I'm really looking for a bit of advice with regards to lenses. I don't have any real "speciality" when it comes to photography subjects. I'm more of a nature/architectural photographer than people so I tend to shy away from portraits.

Currently I'm using the old lenses from my AE-1. I have a 50mm, a 70-200mm zoom and a 2x teleconverter that also allows for macro photography (it acts as a standard 2x teleconverter but has a twist ring that increases the extension so you can use a standard lens as a macro lens). I also have access to some other lenses that my father owns as he, also, has an old Canon SLR.

The major trouble with this kit is that it's not directly compatible with my EOS camera. When Canon moved away from manual focus to auto, they changed the lens mount system. As a result, I have to attach a converter to the lenses before they can be mounted on the new body. This converter contains another piece of glass that allows the old lenses to retain their infinity focus capabilities (without it, they would focus past infinity due to the increase in focal length). This, not only means I'm reliant on a third-party piece of glass whose quality is unknown, but I'm also affecting the amount of light getting to the sensor by increasing the overall focal length AND adding the extra glass.

On top of this, because the old lenses were mechanically operated and the new ones are electrical, there's no way for the camera to communicate with the lens. This means that everything has to be done manually. Focus, shutter speed, aperture, etc, all have to be set by hand and the lens has to be manually "stopped down" before taking the shot. Luckily, the camera can operate in Aperture Priority mode, which means it judges the amount of light falling on the sensor and automatically adjusts the shutter speed to compensate. However, it's very easy to forget to stop down the lens when metering and then close the aperature for the shot and end up with an underexposed picture. This also happens in reverse, stopping down when metering, opening the aperture to frame the shot and then forgetting to stop down again, resulting in an overexposed shot. I've invested in a hand-held light meter to take the reading from, now, so I can keep the lens stopped down all the time. I can live with manual focus as I had it on the older Canon.

These other points aren't altogether bad as the certainly increase your understanding of photography but can be annoying if you haven't got a huge amount of time to set up the shot.

Now, I know you can never have too many lenses but I don't want to get myself weighed down with tons of kit only to end up stupidly busy again and not able to use it!

I'd really like an idea as to what the best setup is for the sort of photography work I'm doing. The EOS came with a pretty reasonable 18-55mm lens. I know that it's probably best to go with fixed focal length rather than the zooms but what sort of lengths should I be looking at? I'm guessing good start would be something short, say 20-24mm, then a 50, 85 and 200 coupled with an extension or two to cover a reasonable range. Or should I just get a zoom with a good coverage to start with, maybe a 70-200, similar to the one I have now, and save the expense of the separate fixed focal until I'm sure about a) what I'm doing and b) how much use I'm going to get out of it?

Decisions, decisions....

I'll have to read this in detail later when I have more time, but the problem you noted about the gears not working was an issue with Nikon too, especially with the newest models like the D40.

I like my 18-55mm lens the best honesty, followed by the 18-200mm. I am not as big a fan of the zoom lens like 70-300mm, but mainly bc I can't afford a good lens with a low f-stop number. If I could, I might feel differently.

I will also say you get what you pay for most of the time. The generic lenses are tempting price wise, but typically their quality just doesn't stack up. At least with Nikon lens they don't.

I'll try and post more later. This is a issue I still think about a lot myself.

I agree, John, you certainly do get what you pay for, especially in regards to lenses. The more expensive the lens, the better the glass (usually) therefore the better the final image quality. Trouble is, though, unless you're earning big-bucks or get your photography equipment bought for you, cost is always one of the deciding factors.

I've been looking at zoom lenses which have a large focal range and, in most cases, image quality almost always falls away at the far end of it's ability. I've noticed that you only seem to be able to crisp, perfect shots at about 85-90% of the lens' full range. The top 5-10% is where there are noticeable defects in the final image (pincushioning, vignetting, etc) so you're only, really, getting, say, 70-255mm, not the 300mm as advertised.

The fixed range telephoto lenses are serious money, though. For example, the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM zoom (which has been discontinued) retailed at around $1 - $1.5k whereas the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 APO EX DG telephoto is the best part of $5k. This, I would guess, is because a telephoto of that length would be considered a "speciality" lens and is, therefore, of a much higher quality than it's zoom counterpart. It does seem to follow, though, throughout the various focal lengths that the prime lenses cost more, sometime considerably more, than their variable focal-length counterparts. Or maybe I'm just looking at the wrong lenses?

Now, I know a 500mm lenses is somewhat overkill, but what would you guys consider to be a good, entry-level length for a zoom lens? I'm guessing it would be up to 200mm, as with John's 18-200mm, then coupling it with a 1.4x or 2x extender if you feel you need a bit more range?

I'm really just starting out, here, and appreciate any input you guys may have.

Dan, sorry I didnt see this till just now(too busy now for much of a life, lol) If your planning on investing in a new system, well Im a Nikon guy, now I wouldnt knock Cannon... but one of the main things (aside from in current issues with the D series, since I dont own one, I cant speak on that series of cameras) about Nikon is that the lens port across the manual focus and auto focus series. (Least all the lenses I had bought as of like 97 or 98 did) Which from reading, I see you have discovered about the Cannons.

In reality those are your main two choices, as for what you would want, for general photography with out spending an arm and a leg, I would get a 35-70mm zoom, a 70-210 zoom and a good flash, on all of these items if you can spare the cash, buy Nikon... the larger camera whole sales people often offer new and used equipment, if its a big company and they rate the equipment are more than not right on. (places in the states like B&H, not sure what the UK counterpart would be). Hey I will post some more later today, got to get ready for work now. There are a couple of post (I think still on the first page in this section) where I went into great detail about the lenses, capabilities and so on, if you have the time check those out, they might help making the lens choice.

Hey Dave, no worries, I'm not in a rush to suddenly buy the gear, was just looking for some pointers as to where to start out.

I'm not looking to switch "systems" as I only bought the Canon last year (as an upgrade from my old AE-1), it was just more of an idea into what lenses I should be looking for.

I may keep adding to this thread as time goes by, too, so the overall focus ('scuse the pun!) of the thread may change from time to time!

Well then I would still base a system the same (any mfg of camera) with a decent 35-70, a GOOD 70-210- in nikon they have varying degrees of optical 'quality' I would splurge on the 70-210... that lens may have more use in the long run. Its a great portrait lens (I know, you dont really want to shoot people, but all the same a 210 will take some awesome portraits)

You should be fine with the 35 in the low zoom for a bit.
Then look at getting your self a wide angle next, either 24 or 28, I would go to a camera store and play with both to get a feel for the difference in coverage, the 24 will be more expensive, because if offers more coverage, so that means it has more glass in turn giving you more cost. After that point, it will really depend on the type of shooting you find your self doing, as to what lenses would be good buys. But with the three above you can cover just about any situation, at a 'acceptable cost'. FWIW

You may find that the two zooms will do everything you need. If so then you have your system, a good flash will always come in handy, make sure and get one that will have decent output, again the mfg as your camera (cannon) will allow you to make use of the auto functions, which is nice, especially if you dont want to think. But its not necessary.

Cheers, Dave. Sounds like the setup I've currently got is okay, it's just the lenses that need updating.

I've got a 70-200 already, but, as stated above, it's for the older FD, manual focus fitting and needs the adapter in order to fit the new body. With the adapter comes the whole manual-everything issue!

I should note, and this is just personal preference, but as a non-professional - someone just wanting to have fun shooting. Switching lenses all the time annoyed the heck out of me. Especially in dicey situations (like in a open door helicopter or on a windy hill side).

If I could start over, I'd have gotten the Nikon 18-200mm lens from the start. My only real complaint with it as a lens is the fact the built in flash can't quite compensate for the long and bulky lens. Even when shooting 18mm with the lens fully retracted I end up with a black shadow-like haze on my photos when shooting. So you'll have to use a larger flash when using a lens like that that can get light to everywhere in front of the camera and won't be blocked (in part or fully) by the lens itself.

I also personally love the wider angel lens, but it's mainly bc I do landscape shots.

I will put my two cents in also I unlike Dave and John own a Canon ESO Rebel XTi, 10.1mega pixel. I have the standard 18-55 lens that comes with it and I purchased a Quantaray 70-300 mm DI f/4-5.6 Digital Series AF Zoom Lens for my Canon. I like John wish I owned a 18 to 200 lens. I find myself switching lens out depending on the shot. Two more investiments I made was a good study tripod and also the flash for the camera. Crazy that the flash actually cost more than the second lens did.
I have enjoyed my camera and woudl not trade it for nothing.
Just my opinion.

Here's a couple of examples of what my current kit is capable of. All of these were taken before I had my tripod, hence the blurring in some shots!

Beware, the full size images are large!

Standard Canon 18-55mm (yes, I was standing in my own light in the second shot!)


Kenko? 2x Teleplus Macro extender

Optomax 80-200mm Zoom (a couple of shots just to illustrate the problem with exposure/focus), camera bag as support.