What lens!!

[Greysands boy]

Hi
Im just in the throws of purchasing a Canon 350d or 400d (second hand)should i get one with the standard 18-55mm lens or go the body only route and get a bigger lens. i want to take wildlife photos but not exclusively and dont know how versatile the standard lens will be.but on the other hand if i went body only deciding to get a bigger zoom lens i need that to be able to take everyday shots with it to
I am on a budget (tight budget) so cant spend loads on an exotic lenses8-P i might not use to much.

Its a minefield out there. please help


Darryl

[postcardcv]

The kit lens should only add ~£30-40 to the cost of a one of these cameras and is well worth buying. It is not much use for wildlife shots, but make a very nice landscape and portrait lens.

[mike from ebbw]

I use a Canon ef 35-80mm for my landscape/general use.For my wildlife and bird shots I use a Sigma 135-400mm and a recently aquired Sigma 500mm f7.2 on my 350d.
I paid £100 for the zoom and also £100 (brand new!) for the 500mm.These were bargains though so expect to pay up to about £200 for the zoom used on Ebay.Its a great lens though and I have had some nice shots with it.

[K-Lex]

The kit lens suffers from more CA, inferior IQ and more barrel distortion than the more expensive rivals - as you'd expect. However, it's a good starting point and an a good buy for what amounts to about £40 and I used one for about 6 months when I started in digital a few years ago and I never despaired about the quality until images were enlarged.

Buy it to get you started, it's useless for wildlife though because it's so short and then move onto the better lenses as soon as your finances allow. A good starting point for wildlife for not very much money is the Tamron 55-200. Never used one but I've read lots of positive stuff about it. Costs about £100.

Good luck :)

[gochasco]

I bought a 400D with two kit lenses (18-55 & 55-200) as my first digital SLR. It didn't take long before I realised that these were inadequate for my purposes (landscape and wildlife). I decided to go for better glass and wanted to sell the kit lenses.
The second hand value of the kit lenses is not great so I ended up selling the 400D complete with lenses and other accessories as a bundle. That went further towards my new lenses than selling the kit ones on their own would ever have and I thought I may as well upgrade while I was at it.
So I now have a 40D, a 24-105 L and am waiting delivery of a 100-400. Had I not bought the kit lenses in the first place and only gone for a body and lenses when I could afford them I'd probably still be using the 400D and be quite happy with it.
I'm not too sure what the lessons to be learned from my story are, but in my opinion you are better buying the body only and separate lenses if you can afford it.

[RJL2005]

To fit a tight budget I'd think of a 2nd hand 350d with the kit 18-55mm lens for normal pics of people and places and look at some of the sigma/tamron zooms x-500mm for wildlife. I use Walters photographic - they have a good up to date 2nd hand website too.
Listed today 2nd hand 350d - £250 and new Sigma 170-500mm - £550. A bit a negotiation should add a used 18-55mm for free (They only gave me £25 for mine in part ex.)!
May well be worth buying from a known retailer with at least a three month warrenty just in case.

Hope this helps

Rhod

[bombacilla]

I would sack the kit lens. You're going to hate it in less than three weeks anyway! A secondhand Canon 70-200 f4 (non IS version) might be a good way to go coupled with a 1.4x converter if necessary. That will give you a focal range of some thing like 150-450-mm if you take your crop into account. You get a great lens that will always be useful even after you've sold your soul to the great 500/4. Keep an eye on the EOS-classifieds website for sensibly priced lenses.
Dave

[postcardcv]

I would sack the kit lens. You're going to hate it in less than three weeks anyway!

But it's still a good lens to start out with, I've had one for over three years and still don't hate it... it even still gets used for the odd landscape and family snaps. Even if it is hated it will still be worth the ~£40 paid for it, you'd probably get nearly that much in PX against another lens.

[Greysands boy]

Thanks for the good advice people i feel a answer is in there somewhere


Cheers

Darryl

[awallace]

Darryl, I use a 50mm f/1.8 mkII for everyday stuff. Nice and light, and means you don't always need to use flash indoors. Even better that if you shop around, you can get it new for less than £50! It is very sharp, and IMO produces better pictures than the kit lens. My other main lens is the 70-200 f/4 L (non IS), which is just wonderful! It retails around the £450 mark. You would never regret buying this lens...

[GR Triever]

For a quick starting kit, the EF 50 f/1.8 II and the Sigma 18-200 OS; unless you can spend big for something in the 400mm range for birding.

[DaninJapan]

I have a Canon 350 as well and bought a Sigma 18-200 wich is nice for a variety of uses, people, landscapes, etc but not the greatest for birding. For birds I use a Canon 75-300 mm IS lens. I do like it but I'm planning on upgrading to the 100-400 IS L (yes, I know it's quite pricey) The Tamron and Sigma lenses are pretty decent but once you've used a good Canon lens, you can't go back to the cheaper models. The quality is obvious and Canon lenses have a good resale value.

[K-Lex]

No, whilst the kit lens isn't up to hard work, I certainly never hated mine. I just sold my old kit lens and got a miserable £20 for it. Although consider it was 3 years old, hadn't been out the box for 2 1/2 years and still showed plenty of war wounds from it's previous use - and it only cost me £50 to buy anyway.
The 50mm f1/8II is a stonking good lens and although feels somewhat cheap and plasticky gets results that blow some lenses into the weeds - you can buy one for £60.

[postcardcv]

For a quick starting kit, the EF 50 f/1.8 II and the Sigma 18-200 OS; unless you can spend big for something in the 400mm range for birding.

I agree that the 50 f1.8 is a cracking lens, amazingly good value for money, and ideal portrait lens. However it not very versatile and no good for landscapes (espcially on a crop body). As for the 18-200 OS, it's a fine lens (though not great) and at ~£400 it's not exactly a starter lens. Someone interested in bird photography would be beter served putting that much towards a long lens.

[GR Triever]

I agree that the 50 f1.8 is a cracking lens, amazingly good value for money, and ideal portrait lens. However it not very versatile and no good for landscapes (espcially on a crop body). As for the 18-200 OS, it's a fine lens (though not great) and at ~£400 it's not exactly a starter lens. Someone interested in bird photography would be beter served putting that much towards a long lens.

OUCH! Being a Yank I forgot all about the VAT and everything that you folk have to add... because I bought the 18-200 OS for $549 USD (about £270). My thinking was the 50 f/1.8 for portrait, and the 18-200 OS for landscape and a mid-range telezoom all rolled into one lens. I quite agree that for birding something in a longer lens is really needed, but the OP said that he wanted to take wildlife photos, but not exclusively... |:d|