[ensyed]

I just got the Canon based on the recommendations of this forum and I while I am pleased with it I think I need a better lens.

Can someone recommend me a not too expensive lens for starters and also where to buy it?

I dont really know about apertures, ISO, exposure etc at this point so ordered the books Understanding Exposure.....

I take pictures of my kids indoors and outdoors and would like to take some shots of scenery/tourist stuff. I find that the included lens kit really only works well for close up portraits.
It is however a huge improvement on my Canon 5MP point and shoot so I am not complaining.

Thanks

[horribleman]

Wait till you understand aperture before you make any decision.

[pixelpixel]

Originally Posted by horribleman

Wait till you understand aperture before you make any decision.

Good point......It just clicked with me a few weeks ago and that was down to my bridge camera.

I am not too sure but I belive this -> Sigma 70-300mm is the current replacement for the kit lens.

I am sure someone will correct me

[Gadget Daddy]

the sigma 70-300 is a fantastic and pretty cheapish lens to add to your collection, also the canon 50mm prime.

for a better replacement lens though I bought Canon EF-S 17-85mm USM IS fantastic lens IMO hardly leaves my 400d

Pete

[wobblebottom]

70-300mm sigma Apo is an addition 9not replacement tbh for Zoom requirements.. cant fault it..

but to replace kit lens look at what pete said...

I recommend the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, its a huge improvement over the kit lens and quite a fast lens too and only costs around £200.

[horribleman]

Originally Posted by DaveyD-UK

I recommend the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, its a huge improvement over the kit lens and quite a fast lens too and only costs around £200.

In order of cost, I'd look at the Sigma 17 - 70, the Tamron 17 - 50 2.8 and the Canon 17 - 40 4L.

I don't like the Canon 17 - 85 IS, but plenty people do

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by horribleman

In order of cost, I'd look at the Sigma 17 - 70, the Tamron 17 - 50 2.8 and the Canon 17 - 40 4L.

I don't like the Canon 17 - 85 IS, but plenty people do

It's not clear if the OP is wanting a replacement for the kit lens, or something that'll give more reach (the comment about only working well for close portraits.). If the latter, then the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (£150) would be the obvious budget choice.

For a straight replacement of the kit lens, your selection above sounds perfect.

[jonnypb]

sigma 17-70, optics are regarded to be better than the canon 17-85 IS

haven't used the canon 17-85 IS but alot of people on POTN think it's kit lens optics with IS

[Brammers]

Woah, guys, we've got someone here who doesn't understand aperture and wants to spend money!!! Suggesting lenses is the wrong thing to do!

ensyed, I strongly suggest you learn about your camera before splashing out. I can almost guarentee that any 'shortcomings' are more down to what's mounted behind the camera than what's mounted on front.

You said:

I take pictures of my kids indoors and outdoors and would like to take some shots of scenery/tourist stuff. I find that the included lens kit really only works well for close up portraits.

Why does it only work well for portraits? What's going wrong the rest of the time? Can you show us some shots?

The following were all shot with a Canon kit lens:

http://www.pbase.com/adalberto_tiburzi/image/43071249
http://www.pbase.com/billinchapelhill/image/68825610
http://www.pbase.com/image/66614978
http://www.pbase.com/image/53845282
http://www.pbase.com/image/32348693
http://www.pbase.com/image/28160378
http://www.pbase.com/image/75102289

[weaviemx5]

Originally Posted by ensyed

I take pictures of my kids indoors and outdoors and would like to take some shots of scenery/tourist stuff. I find that the included lens kit really only works well for close up portraits.
Thanks

Hi, as a few people have said before me, a better lens doesn't necessarily mean better pictures. One shortfall of the kit lens is its low light performance with moving objects so maybe the Canon 50mm prime lens would be the best option for that. However, I'm still learning with my 400D/Kit lens combination but am starting to take some better pictures by simply understanding the various theories of Shutter speed/Aperture/Exposure and the differences they can make to an image.

I've already posted some of these images in my other thread about "Another Place" but thought I'd re-post them here to show you that the kit you've already got can take nice pictures;

1) Trail

2) Lonely

3) Trees at Sunset

4) Light

Before buying new hardware, my recommendation is to sit down and read "Understanding Exposure" when it arrives and then just keep taking pictures because you'll get better and better.

Cheers
Steve

[senu]

Originally Posted by weaviemx5

Hi, as a few people have said before me, a better lens doesn't necessarily mean better pictures. One shortfall of the kit lens is its low light performance with moving objects so maybe the Canon 50mm prime lens would be the best option for that. However, I'm still learning with my 400D/Kit lens combination but am starting to take some better pictures by simply understanding the various theories of Shutter speed/Aperture/Exposure and the differences they can make to an image...


Before buying new hardware, my recommendation is to sit down and read "Understanding Exposure" when it arrives and then just keep taking pictures because you'll get better and better.

Cheers
Steve

Very Sound advice.
If you just must buy one, the Sigma and Tamron in the 17-50 range are kit lens replacements which are affordable

The 70-300 is a Zoom lens with some Macro abilities which is an affordable way to get portraits a bit of macro and distance shots
The 50mm 1.8 is a fast single focal length lens whose output dwarfs its cost
However, neither of the above is a Walkabout every day lens to replace the kit lens . They are more of complimentary lenses to it

The Canon 17-85 is really not a kit lens with IS.. that is an imaginative way of badmouthing it ..

It isnt bad at all but its cost compared to the Tamron and Sigma make its VFM questionable. It most certainly is nothing like the kit lens.

One from it

The £600 17-55 IS 2.8 "is the Daddy" but it costs more than the Camera and kit lens +50mm 1.8!

I have used the Tamron and Sigma and own all the others so I speak from first hand experience of them. I owned the 17-40L and am reluctant to recommend it because of the
Cost
Limited reach
max aperture of f4
It is probably excellent perhaps on the FF 5D but apart from the 17-55 IS f2.8 you dont need to spend that much

Going back to the advice above
I think you need to actually max out the limitations of the (quite usable if not spectacular) kit lens and then ask why you feel you need to replace it before you start spending. ie with some understanding of aperture ISo shutter speeds ect.. find out in which way the kit lens is failing to deliver before you shell out .. If not you will merely be putting off that learning by buying a new lens which may prove similarly dissatisfying

[ensyed]

I appreciate the advice on this board. I guess I am getting good outdoor shots with the camera and good indoor shots with good lighting and a static object. the problem is kids run all the time and lighting indoors gives results where the faces come out too dark or orangish.

You are right I need to learn more as well. I guess I am a little impatient as well. Plus my kid had a little kiddie drama show and with the lens kit I couldnt really take shots from 20 feet away. I am waiting for my new Canon photo printer to see how the shots look on paper. I will post some pictures to get comments.

I was hoping for a slightly better lens (not shelling out 400-600 pounds) to use in a variety of situations while learning from it.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by ensyed

I appreciate the advice on this board. I guess I am getting good outdoor shots with the camera and good indoor shots with good lighting and a static object. the problem is kids run all the time and lighting indoors gives results where the faces come out too dark or orangish.

You are right I need to learn more as well. I guess I am a little impatient as well. Plus my kid had a little kiddie drama show and with the lens kit I couldnt really take shots from 20 feet away. I am waiting for my new Canon photo printer to see how the shots look on paper. I will post some pictures to get comments.

I was hoping for a slightly better lens (not shelling out 400-600 pounds) to use in a variety of situations while learning from it.

Ok, that helps a lot

You can get lenses that let in more light, and help you in low light shooting
You can get lenses that are longer, that bring the subject closer
You can get lenses that do both.

Firstly the orange faces problem is almost certainly due to artificial lighting. Check your cameras 'white balance' settings, and take some test shots. If you're on 'auto', this should in theory compensate, but you might find that using the WB setting for artificial tungsten lights gives better results.

As I'm sure your finding, the light levels indoors are only a fraction of daylight. You've got two choices - a combination of slightly higher sensitivity (the ISO setting - say 400, 800 or higher), and maybe a lens that lets in more light - or flash.

If you want a 'fast' lens that lets in more light, look for ones with a low 'f number'. Your kit lens is f3.5, but you can get a cheap 50mm for £60 that's f1.8. Set your kit lens to 50mm. Play with that a little, and see if the field of view is suitable for your needs. If so, it's 60 quid well spend, as it more than doubles you light gathering power, and is very sharp as well. If the field of view is too narrow, try 30mm. You can get a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for a little over £200. Obviously a much cheaper option is to use a decent flash gun, but of course this is not goining to look quite the same as available light shooting.

A long lens such as a Sigma 70-300 will cost about £150, and is a very popular add-on to the kit lens. HOWEVER, as you zoom in, you loose even more light, so it has even worse low light gathering capabilities than your kit lens. Long lenses that work well in low light are EXTREMELY expensive.

[Tobers]

Come on chaps, ensyed wants to spend some money and it should be our mission to assist him (her??) to do so. Failing to assist a fellow member in the quest to shell out on kit is a criminal offence.

I'd give the 17-85 a miss if I were you. What you need is some zoom length so keep the kit lens for a bit and get a 70-200 F4L off Kerso (FlashCamera shop on eBay) and get into the world of L lenses. Amazing quality for the price on that lens.

After you've got used to that and saved up a bit more, you can get a replacement for the kit lens and of course I'd recommend the 17-55 f2.8 which is just excellent.

Tobers

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by ensyed

I appreciate the advice on this board. I guess I am getting good outdoor shots with the camera and good indoor shots with good lighting and a static object. the problem is kids run all the time and lighting indoors gives results where the faces come out too dark or orangish.

You are right I need to learn more as well. I guess I am a little impatient as well. Plus my kid had a little kiddie drama show and with the lens kit I couldnt really take shots from 20 feet away. I am waiting for my new Canon photo printer to see how the shots look on paper. I will post some pictures to get comments.

I was hoping for a slightly better lens (not shelling out 400-600 pounds) to use in a variety of situations while learning from it.

Learn learn learn......as suggested, keep your plastic in your wallet to start with, or you may well make some expensive mistakes..

Understanding the basics of exposure, lighting and composition are paramount, then you'll see the 'kit' lens is very capable used correctly.

Later you will decide on what you really want for your style of photography, and you will buy the best lenses suited to your needs.

I've bought just a nifty fifty and one other lens for myself....see if you can guess which lens I use......check my link below.