Looking to get a 2nd lens...

[GeorgeStorm]

Hey,
As above, I've had my 550D for a couple of months now, and I love it

Thinking of getting a 2nd lens over the summer (currently just have the 18-55mm kit lens), can probably afford £400.

What would people recommend? I'd either be looking for a telephoto or macro.
In the end I'd like options for both, incase I change my mind closer to the time, but I thought I might aswell start looking now

Or ofcourse I could sell my current setup and get a better body if people would think that would be a better investment

What would people suggest?

Thanks

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Your camera body is fine.

Invest in lenses.If you are getting a telephoto,get something with at least a 300MM end.

[kalniel]

I recommend the second canon kit lens - 55-250 or whatever. It'll complement what you already have, and is an absolute bargain for what you get. I would not recommend 300mm or above as with the crop factor that's an extreme level of tele and you need to gear up significantly around it to get use of it (tripod etc.)

Alternatively getting a fixed length ~100mm macro is an option - you can use it for tele, but the lack of zoom makes it a bit less practical for framing. Something like a sigma 105 or tamron 90.

[Saracen]

Macro - Canon 100mm 2.8. (non-IS).

It is a very good lens, IMHO. I mean, very, very good, optically. If it had the build and weather-proofing, it'd be an L lens. And it's not just a macro. I use one as a portrait lens.

Telephone? Depends if you want a fixed telephoto and optimum quality, or a telezoom, and while you can still get pretty good, it won't be as good as a prime. Assuming you mean the telezoom, start with Canon's 70-300mm IS, and use that as a benchmark to judge other options, including 3rd party lenses, by. It's versatile, and still of a pretty good image quality.

In both cases, they're probably a bit over £400, but not by much, and there's always second-hand from people upgrading to the IS version of the 100mm (about £700) or L-glass like the 100-400mm L for the telezoom. There are plenty of good examples around, second-hand, but you do, of course, have to exercise due caution.

[Saracen]

Oh, and bear in mind that macro is tricky.

It depends what you're photographing, but if it's anything likely to get scared and clear off, longer focal lengths help because you can still get the magnification, while not being quite as close to the subject. But with 1:1 macros, you will be a few inches away at most, and for shorter focal lengths (like 50mm or 60mm macro) maybe no more than a few centimetres.

Imagine photographing a wasp or bee, when you've got to get the lens with 2" of it .... and your face not that much further away.

Ideally, a longer length still, like the Canon 180mm, but it's way out of your price range.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also for serious Macro work,invest in a decent tripod,especially one which can take an extension arm.

I would have a look at the Benbo Trekker.

[kalniel]

Imagine photographing a wasp or bee, when you've got to get the lens with 2" of it .... and your face not that much further away.

No problem

[GeorgeStorm]

I'm certainly leaning towards a macro lens at the moment, since I don't do a lot of shooting of stuff that's far away

And as Saracen said, it can double up as a nice portrait style lens.

Been recommended somethig like the nifty fifty, which is a lens I was planning on getting since it seems to be rather good for the money.

[g8ina]

Well, of course, IF you had bought Nikon, you could have had my Sigma 10-20mm for a song

But there ya go

[g8ina]

Oh, and bear in mind that macro is tricky.

Nah, piece of cake and it's LOADS of fun !!





Seriously though, you don't need to spend a bomb on a macro lens, my Tamron 90mm was 2nd hand at just £140....

[GeorgeStorm]

Well, of course, IF you had bought Nikon, you could have had my Sigma 10-20mm for a song

But there ya go

Haha indeed, ah well.
And by the way, how much is a song?

[kalniel]

Well, of course, IF you had bought Nikon, you could have had my Sigma 10-20mm for a song

How good is that for macro or telephoto?

[g8ina]

OK it isn't, but again it's not Canon either so was tongue in cheek

and £280 ish fyi George

I just bought a Tamron mirror 500mm lens for my Nikon and am really impressed. Takes some work to get the image just right, and yes, you get doughnuts, but it has a full 360 degrees turn for focus so that's relatively easy, and it was only 90 quid. There are lots around these days at f6.3 too, so may be a much cheaper option than one of those terribly expensive Canon white lenses !

[TheAnimus]

I would say for your budget get a 2nd and 3rd lens!

I dunno off the top of my head what you can use on a 550D without loosing autofocus etc, but myself I'd definately get a prime lens, I know the canon nifty 50 is quite expensive (and not as good ) as some of the other systems, but have a look round the local camera shops second hand stuff, I find its cheaper than ebay

[GeorgeStorm]

Mm, only reason I was considering a single nice lens was because it will be for my 21st, or atleast partially, and so I'm trying to get something that will still be good in 20 years kinda thing (that's what my parents want to get me)
And a camera lens was something that I though would fit.

May end up going for something different (watch was another suggestion)

[Saracen]

Also for serious Macro work,invest in a decent tripod,especially one which can take an extension arm.

I would have a look at the Benbo Trekker.

Well, it depends on the type of macro you're doing.

I'd say if it's practical to use a tripod for macro, then do so. But then, that holds true of just about any photography. The problem is, with macro and many other types of photography, it often just isn't practical.

Many images don't lend themselves to setting up a tripod, either because of where they are, or because by the time you've set up a tripod, whatever it was you were trying to photograph has either ducked under a rock, or has flown off and is three counties away. Of course, if it's studio (home or otherwise) then, yup, tripod. Or, perhaps, an adapted enlarger or copier stand to hold the camera, a lab jack for fine adjustment of the location of the item being photographed, very careful consideration of lighting, be it natural or artificial, an old enlarger lens on a reversing ring and a lot of practice.

It all depends on what, where, how, etc.

I'd certainly use a tripod wherever possible, but when it's not, another option is macro flash (which, again, may spook some subjects) like the MT-24, and either a lens like the 100mm 2.8 macro, with or without various extras (reversing rings, coupling rings etc), or an MPE-65.

Despite g8ina's jibe, I'd say getting (as in actually taking the picture ) that kind of extreme macro isn't for the faint-hearted, and g8ina, if they're your work, nice job indeed.

For anyone just starting out, or thinking about starting out, in macro, I'd just point out that there are many ways to achieve good results, some of which (MPE-65 and MT-24) are seriously expensive (those two coming to about £1500-£1600), some of which are remarkably cheap (reversing/coupling rings and an old manual lens), but even harder work.

Macro is, I'd absolutely agree, great fun, but you're working with normally extremely tight depth of field, close distances and, often, tricky subject conditions. Anything alive is all too subject to getting spooked (some more than others) or, simply, just waving a bit in even a light breeze. If you've got a depth of field of 1/8th inch, it doesn't take much of a breeze for it to move in and out of focus. So while your average plant isn't going to run and hide, the damn things can still take a lot of practice and a fair bit of skill to get really good shots.

And kal, yeah, I've got a load of shots like that too. My experience is that bees, typically, are remarkably laid back about a close camera lens. They are, however, erm .... 'busy' bees, and rarely stay still for long. Which is why, Cat, using a tripod therefore is often an exercise is frustration, unless you set up in a predetermined position and wait, maybe for hours, for a suitable bee to land in exactly the right place, and with exactly the right orientation towards you to get the image you want.

Which is where the MT-24 comes into it's own. You can use far faster shutter speeds, and skill get good, even lighting with none of the typical flash burnout from non-macro flash, meaning you can chase the little beggars round the garden until you hit lucky.

Macro, ironically, is a BIG field. Lots of options of kit, with a VAST array of prices ranges from under a fiver to, well, loads. And all sorts of techniques.

But two things give me the most satisfaction with macro.

First, if you want the best results, you need to study your subject. You need to know where to find them, when is best to shoot them (like early morning for butterflies, or dragon/damsel flies, before they've fully "woken up" and become too active. So, you end up learning a fair bit about your subject.

But second, and more important to me, to end up seeing a world you otherwise walk past, or through, totally oblivious to what's going on around you. The average back garden is a pretty bland location for most types of photography, but it can be an absolute eye-opener with macro. Those two pic's g8ina posted give a hint of what I'm talking about, albeit getting that close in isn't an ideal place for a beginner, so expectation-management is important too.

Macro is absolutely my favourite aspect of photography .... but a warning .... it doesn't float everyone's boat.