First dSLR, lens recommendations

[!Xabbu]

I was fist thinking of getting the ES-F 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM as my second lens for landscapes, but now I’m wondering if a tele lens might do me better as the difference between 10 and 15 mm isn’t that much.
How long focal length will I need for 'shooting' animals? My guess is that even the 15-85 mm will be too short even at the long end. So is this 200, 300, 400 mm?
I will be shooting handheld most of the time, so IS is almost a requirement.
I’d appreciate any suggestions for primes or zooms lenses. My budget for lenses is 1,500 € at the most.

For the wide end you might also want to think about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - it's a super sharp lens with great contrast for a great price. It's one of my favorite lenses.

On the long end I can really recommend the 70-200mm f4 L - this is currently my favorite lens and I love shooting with it.

[unruled]

dont worry too much about weather sealing. I've used my 40d and 17-50 tamron in the rainforest for months on end without issues.  A tiny bit of foam here and there won't make a huge difference. Keep your money for things that have a bigger impact on your photography.

[gerga]

One thing that helped me when I first got started: I bought a 50mm f/1.4 and just stuck with that on my Rebel for a long time. It helped me really get a handle on composition and forced me to recompose with my feet, instead of just zooming in/out. I believe I became a better photographer because of it. You can get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for like $130, probably the best lens anywhere for the money. After that, you can start deciding how to add to your stable.

+1000 on this.

I'd add that you may want to be careful about investing greatly in EF-S glass.  Getting an entry-level body w/EF-S kit lens will offer fantastic walkaround camera/lens versitility.  An alternative to picking up a 50mm f1.4 to start with would be to get your hands on the relatively cheap 35mm f/2.  This is roughly 50mm on a crop sensor, and so is a great natural-perspective entry point for SLR photography (like old-school 50mm on film camera days!).  Down the track you might then look to building your arsenal with quality glass (zooms - e.g. 17-40L or maybe a 28-105L would better completment the EF-S kit options, primes - e.g. 50mm or 85mm options, perhaps; whatever your photography is steering you towards).  This would give you great glass for a future upgrate to full frame if that tickles your fancy...?

[RAKAMRAK]

You may also think about this combination (since you need both an walk-around lens and a tele zoom for wildlife during your trip)

Canon EOS 60D
Tamron 17-50 non-stabilized (at this zoom range stabilization may not be that essential)
EF 100-400mm L

If you want an even wider angle than 17mm, Tokina 12-24 is there or Sigma 8-16.

(Since you are going to rainforest, take lots of Silica Gel packs, and seal-able plastic bags)

[Sartor]

Thank you for all the replies. It got me thinking quite a lot about which gear to get.

I will definitely go for a tele lens before I buy a wide angle.

The suggested Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 have been in my early considerations, but for some reason it got “replaced” by the Canon 15-85 f/3.5-4.5. I think I’ll end up with the Sigma, mainly because of the better aperture.

I like the idea of the fixed 200 f/2.8L and how it will make me walk around to get the better angle and perspective. I’m just a little concerned about the missing IS. How fast shutter speed is required to get rid of shaken images?

The 70-200 f/4L IS, the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS or the 300 f/4L IS all have IS, but unfortunately at a much higher price than the 200 f/2.8L (non-IS). I was wandering if I should try to extend my budget to get one of these lenses or maybe just go with the cheap 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS lens.

As for a macro lens I hope my G9 will be sufficient until I can afford a real macro lens.

[Marsu42]

I’m just a little concerned about the missing IS. How fast shutter speed is required to get rid of shaken images?

IS is no substitute for fast shutter speeds on tele lenses (might work better on mid range zooms). I just have learned this from my 70-300L, and thus have to agree: IS is very convenient, but overrated.

IS is good for close framing (less crop = less noise) and does help you to take ok pictures with long exposure times, but for really sharp pictures you still have to apply the good ol' formula: exposure time = 1 / (lens focal length * crop factor). For a 200mm prime, you should _at_least_ expose with 1/320s on a crop body, for some safety margin and 100% crops on a 18mp sensor I'd strongly advise 1/500s to even less. If your subjects moves like a racecar, you have to go even lower of course.

Last not least: a fast tele lens is no general fix for sensor noise due to the thin depth of field - at 200mm and f2.8, you'll probably be at f4-f5.6 anyway for most shots. I have this comparison because I used to shoot with my 100/2.8 and now have the 70-300/4-5.6.

[koolman]

My 2 cents

The 60d is an excellent choice. For lenses, in your budget, taking into account wildlife + walkaround (less wide) I would go for:

1) 70-200 f/4 IS

2) Tamron 17-50 non VC

3) canon 50mm 1.8

[RC]

First of all congrats on the the DSLR purchase!  (I remember the excitement of my first SLR)  If you haven't already, you will eventually get the "lens" bug and want to add all kinds of glass. 

My number one advice is to not buy too much too soon!  Take your time, learn what you have and figure out what your needs are/become based on time and experience.

Here are some options I would seriously consider:

Buy
- 10-22
- 24-105
(I didn't do the math but this should be close to your budget)

Rent (for your Malaysia trip)
70-300 or 70-200

The 10-22 plus the 24-105 gives you the perfect walk-around range plus some telephoto.  This covers landscapes to moderate telephoto on a crop body.  Don't under under estimate the need for a wide lens on a crop body such as the 60D.  The only down fall  to this combination is swapping lens--but isn't that one one of the benefits of an SLR? 
Haven't been to Malaysia or shooting in a rain forest but I would expect the RF is heavily compressed vegetation.  I'm betting the 24-105 (38-168mm FF) is more that sufficient reach for a crop body in the RF.  Plus the 24-105 is weather sealed.  The 10-22 is not sealed so be carefull.

Now for a telephoto zoom, I would rent and not buy one at this time.  I'm assuming this will be used outside the rain forests in more open areas (otherwise I'm betting the 24-105 will do the job).  I'm a huge fan of the 70-200 IS lens like many others.  For this trip you might want something longer than 200 but when you get back home you might find that a lighter faster 70-200 is the best choice.  So rent what you need for your trip and based on your experiences, you can buy a telephoto zoom later.

If you are set on buying a tele zoom now, go for a 70-200L IS--absolutely wonderful lens, IQ, build, etc.  I have the F4 version.  Between the 2.8 and F4 versions, it comes down to speed or weight, and of course cost.

And if you are set on the 15-85 or 17-55, those are both great lens.  Neither are sealed and expect excessive distortion at 15 on the 15-85 and some zoom creep--I use to own the 15-85 but not the 17-55.  Personally I'd get the 10-22 and 24-105 and rent a tele zoom

Don't forget HQ filters on your lens for moisture and physical protection.  I use B&W UV filters

[Cosk]

Since this is your first DLSR, you should also consider buying used equipment - you can buy a few lenses on eBay, and sell them for the same or even a little more than you paid in a year or so if they don't fit into your style.  Buying used really lowers  your financial risk... and as long as you're buying top-end gear, it's usually in good shape. 

Your suggestion of a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 10-22 were my travel combo while I had a cropped body.  I also had a 85mm 1.8 and a 24mm f/2 - and those four lenses went around the world with me.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is wonderful for jungle/wildlife shooting - especially on a cropped body like a 60D.
And the 10-22 is great for capturing the essence of an area... below are some examples of what you can do with these two lenses...

Good luck!

[mr.ranger]

Thank you for all the replies. It got me thinking quite a lot about which gear to get.

I will definitely go for a tele lens before I buy a wide angle.

The suggested Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 have been in my early considerations, but for some reason it got “replaced” by the Canon 15-85 f/3.5-4.5. I think I’ll end up with the Sigma, mainly because of the better aperture.

I like the idea of the fixed 200 f/2.8L and how it will make me walk around to get the better angle and perspective. I’m just a little concerned about the missing IS. How fast shutter speed is required to get rid of shaken images?

The 70-200 f/4L IS, the 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS or the 300 f/4L IS all have IS, but unfortunately at a much higher price than the 200 f/2.8L (non-IS). I was wandering if I should try to extend my budget to get one of these lenses or maybe just go with the cheap 18-55 f/4-5.6 IS lens.

As for a macro lens I hope my G9 will be sufficient until I can afford a real macro lens.

if those telezooms are to much for your budget you can look into 70-300non L. yes its not a L! but its a great start off lens. once you got better budget you can always sell it and upgrade. AS FOR WILDLIFE I WOULD CHOOSE a zoom over prime any day only because fixed length when in reality animals constantly move to different positions and wont have time to move back ten feet so you can get the shot.
and for macro i would look into 60mm macro lens its great lens i have it on my 60d and love it. and also works as great walk around lens, did i mention its really sharp and cheep!

[Marsu42]

if those telezooms are to much for your budget you can look into 70-300non L. yes its not a L! but its a great start off lens. once you got better budget you can always sell it and upgrade. AS FOR WILDLIFE I WOULD CHOOSE a zoom over prime any day only because fixed length when in reality animals constantly move to different positions and wont have time to move back ten feet so you can get the shot.

I've got a different opinion here because I've got the 100-300 non-L and my new 70-300L:

* Don't get a cheap tele zoom, just don't. If the iq @300mm from the cheap one looks worse than a crop from a quality lens @100mm, what's it good for? And even worse, on a cheaper zoom the af is less precise producing much more unfocussed shots.

* You might indeed think of not getting a zoom at all, but a prime. While the 70mm on my 70-300L is very convenient for a quick shot of the surrounding area, I find myself nearly constantly shooting @300mm and will now get a 1.4x tc. Basically, for my outdoor shots I could have gotten 300/4L instead, too. It's just that I might need the zoom for other occasions too in the future like events. I'd advise you to find out about your shooting habits by renting a tele zoom for some time.

[Sartor]

Since this is your first DLSR, you should also consider buying used equipment - you can buy a few lenses on eBay, and sell them for the same or even a little more than you paid in a year or so if they don't fit into your style. Buying used really lowers your financial risk... and as long as you're buying top-end gear, it's usually in good shape.

Your suggestion of a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 10-22 were my travel combo while I had a cropped body. I also had a 85mm 1.8 and a 24mm f/2 - and those four lenses went around the world with me.

The 70-200 f/4 IS is wonderful for jungle/wildlife shooting - especially on a cropped body like a 60D.
And the 10-22 is great for capturing the essence of an area... below are some examples of what you can do with these two lenses...

Good luck!

Those are some very nice photos. I still might get the 12-22 as my third lens, but I will start off with a standard zoom lens and a tele prime or zoom. I have looked a little into the used marked and it seems that the lenses keep their value quite nicely - often only 10-20 % below retail as far as I can see.

I've got a different opinion here because I've got the 100-300 non-L and my new 70-300L:

* Don't get a cheap tele zoom, just don't. If the iq @300mm from the cheap one looks worse than a crop from a quality lens @100mm, what's it good for? And even worse, on a cheaper zoom the af is less precise producing much more unfocussed shots.

* You might indeed think of not getting a zoom at all, but a prime. While the 70mm on my 70-300L is very convenient for a quick shot of the surrounding area, I find myself nearly constantly shooting @300mm and will now get a 1.4x tc. Basically, for my outdoor shots I could have gotten 300/4L instead, too. It's just that I might need the zoom for other occasions too in the future like events. I'd advise you to find out about your shooting habits by renting a tele zoom for some time.

I follow you on this one. I think I’ll be zooming in a lot if I get the tele zoom instead of a prime. However, the flexibility of a zoom is convenient.

I’m going to visit my local camera store and see if I can try out some of the zooms and primes to see what fits me best.

[EOBeav]

I completely disagree with putting a 50/1.4 on a camera and using it exclusively.  Whatever you do, don't do that.

Nobody said anything about using it "exclusively." My advice was to get a 50mm and use it while you're learning the craft of photography. Huge difference. And lest you think this was my own original idea, it's practice that has been bantered around by many others before me, both here and other sites as well.

I stand by my original suggestion: Using a 50mm prime while you're learning will help you become a better photographer.  The composition in my own images have been suffering somewhat lately, so I'll be using my own 50mm again in the near future.

[!Xabbu]

I completely disagree with putting a 50/1.4 on a camera and using it exclusively.  Whatever you do, don't do that.

Nobody said anything about using it "exclusively." My advice was to get a 50mm and use it while you're learning the craft of photography. Huge difference. And lest you think this was my own original idea, it's practice that has been bantered around by many others before me, both here and other sites as well.

I stand by my original suggestion: Using a 50mm prime while you're learning will help you become a better photographer.  The composition in my own images have been suffering somewhat lately, so I'll be using my own 50mm again in the near future.

This might be an ignorant question, but why would using a prime make you a better photographer (or learn to become)? It's just a different way to shoot. I really like to compose by using the zoom and getting the perfect framing for the shot I want. So, during the last two years I can really see a difference in the composition of my pictures (from snapshot in the beginning to making a photo instead of just taking it now) - and I still have a long way to go...

[Marsu42]

This might be an ignorant question, but why would using a prime make you a better photographer (or learn to become)? It's just a different way to shoot.

Imho as a beginner, a prime forces you to think more because you have to zoom with your feet and at the same moment will discover that slight variations of angle might have a large impact on shots. And it's easier to take pictures with your eyes because you know exactly what field of view your camera has, so you have an easier time to transform your joe sixpack's view into a photog's view of things. When you get more advanced and know about these things, you can use a zoom as well because it's just convenient and you can concentrate on the next things to remember like lighting with flashes etc.