Gateway lens

[adhocphotographer]

Photography is like a drug habit.... You get your first hit, and your hooked... you start off small (usually) then build up to the heavier stuff, and the heavier the stuff the more you want to use! So what was your 'gateway lens'? When and what was the lens or other bit of kit that broke your barrier and led to the reduced coffers most of us face due to this pricey hobby.

For me it was the EF-S 17-55. Before that I had a 450D and kit lens + 50 1.8 for years and could not imagine or ever conceive a situation where i would spend more than a couple of 100$ on a lens. Then i borrowed and subsequently bought the 17-55, and in doing so released the kraken. I had waited 2 years before buying it, but after that i added a 10-22, 55-250, tripod, 580ex II etc to the kit within a year... then came the L lenses....

So, for a bit of fun, what was your gateway lens/piece of kit?

([stand] My name is John, and I am an addict [/stand])

 

[neuroanatomist]

I knew from film days that lenses were more important than bodies, and since photography had been a hobby in my youth, I thought it might become one again. I set a budget for a 'starter' kit, and that comprised a T1i/500D with grip and extra battery, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, EF 85mm f/1.8, a 430EX II, and a Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 with 488RC2.

My 'gateway' lens was the next one I puchased - the EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. It backfocused on my T1i, meaning I needed a camera with AFMA...thus, the 7D. I shot a few birds with it, but 100mm isn't nearly long enough... Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Beautor]

Like Neuro I knew that the lens was more important than the body. We had tried several of the Canon and Sigma 70-300's but were never satisfied. I found a great deal on a used 70-200 F4L and we have never regretted that decision. Then we picked up a 1st generation 24-70 F2.8L on clearance just before the MKII was released for $400 off. Now I'm saving my pennies for the next one. It's a little too much like really expensive crack.

 

[jthomson]

Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 HSM.
I started with a T1i and the 18-55mm 55-250mm and 50mm f1.8.
The Sigma was my next lens purchase and the focussing speed compared to the other lenses impressed the hell out of me.
My next lens was the 200mm F2.8 L and again the focusing speed was incredible. A long list of USM, HSM, USD lenses have followed.

 

[bholliman]

I started with a T2i (550D), 18-55 kit lens and 55-250 zoom. I was happy with this set-up for maybe 18 months. The EF-S 15-85mm lens was my next purchase and probably my gateway on to better glass and bodies. After that purchase, better bodies and L glass quickly followed.

 

[chilledXpress]

I had crap kit lenses until my wife bought me the 135L... it's all her fault!

 

[Stig]

50mm f1.8

I had the 18-55 (first, nonIS) and a cheapish sigma 70-300 for years, then went on to try a prime with a bit better aperture... the lens showed me the concept of "DOF", showed me that things can be sharper than they are with the kit lens and redefined what is "just enough light"... then the 17-55 with things like USM and IS and then 24-105 L lens for the build quality feel and recently the 135 that doesn't need explaining here...

 

[JPAZ]

I'll ignore my "film" evolution. When I took the jump into a real DSLR, it was an XT with a 17-80 kit lens. What set me off was the 70-200 f/4 IS. After that, no looking back.

JP

 

[paul13walnut5]

I did things the wrong way round. A pattern in my life.

I had dabbled with photography for around a decade, an EOS 1000n then EOS 300, then I started my college course in video. And I got hold of my first camera with proper lens movements, focus stops, iris ring etc.

So I sought out the cheapest system i could that would let me use a mechanical iris and shutter. This was, as I worked in camera retail part-time, the minolta sr system. I got an x-300. Then an XG-M, then an X-500, the an SR-T101, then a SR-T303, each sold on for the same or more as I had paid for it, I got a centon 18-28 lens and was wowed. Photography became more than an aide to help me learn camera control. It became my new hobby.

And so it has stayed. Video became my job and photography has remained my hobby.

I was able to pick up good gear for cheap, and although I had similtanously built up my canon system a little, (EOS 5, i.e. A2e) 50mm macro etc, I was far more interested in needle meters than LEDs, in aperture rings than QCDs.

I went digital... A powershot s40, then a Dimage A2. Eventually good cameras got cheap enough for me, and I got a 400d, which I would still be using now, if DSLRs and video hadn't converged quite so spectacularly.

But my gateway lens was actually very humble.

 

[wsmith96]

Actually, my gateway lens was this forum. I think of it as a lens into the world of photography and what all I could do with it. I have a T1i and started with the kit lens and received a 70-300 IS USM (non-L) as a gift. I later bought the 60 macro on sale at amazon for ~350. I thought my gear was good and I stuck with that for quite a while, then I started to read this forum. Based upon what others were recommending, I purchased a 17-55, then a 10-22, a battery grip, then a 85 1.8, and now the 70-200L MkII. Now, I've got a case of the "L" itch. I'm on the fence for a refurb 50 1.4 right now...not sure how much "better" of an image that would produce than my 17-55, which is pretty good now. I'll most likely pass on that one as there is a rumored IS version coming out next year.

Now, my other gateway "lens", and IMO the second most expensive one out there (1st one being wildlife photography), has been sports photography. I was able to get a sideline pass to all of the local high school football games and I've been out there every home game working on improving action shots. This has opened up a whole new world of wants and needs.

 

[luciolepri]

My first camera was my father's Pentax MX with a Takumar 28-80, a Pentax M 50/1,7 and a Pentax M 200/4. It was already the AF era, so old manual lenses were relatively cheap in the second hand market. I loved wide angles and I found a mint Pentax K 15/3.5 for a crazy low price. It was a first edition, very rare, the one with an aspherical element. It was love at first sight.
A few years later, I found myself with a 30 lenses equipment...

 

[dcm]

Multiple gateways:
Photography - fd50 f1.4 on A1
Digital - G1
Digital SLR - 24-105L on a T2i (never mounted the kit lens)
Still evolving...

 

[mackguyver]

I had crap kit lenses until my wife bought me the 135L... it's all her fault!

I bought one of these red-ringed devils, too, and my hobby turned obsession after that

 

[mrsfotografie]

40D + 17-85 IS kit.

Before that I used a Canon EOS 50e and Metz flash that I got for free. Lenses I had were (I think) an EF 28-80 mm f/3.5-5.6 IV USM and a Sigma 70-300 something that I bought used for a few Euro's.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
Yes, My first Canon Camera 1964 , FT-QL with Canon Lens FL 50 mm F/ 1.8---Yes, Just one great Lens and use my Young strong Legs as the Zoom Function, and Young Good eyes for Manual Focus, Plus Young Great Heart/ Stupid Brain ( Full with Hormone) try to take the Photos of Beautiful Girls, Yes, Walk to close to her as I can ( No 600 mm. Lens yet= Yes, Poor, But Young-----Ha, Ha, Ha ).
-----But I have a lot of Fun.
My First Digital Camera = 1999 Olympus C 2500 L ( TTL), and my first Canon DSLR =Canon DSLR = 20 D with 28-135 mm F/ 3.5-5.5 IS USM
Have a great day , to all of my friends.
Surapon

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc2500l/

 

[Jemlnlx]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Before that I had like everyone else starting out I'm sure, a 50mm 1.8 as well as a 28-105mm 3.5-4.5. On my crop sensor 40D I wanted something wide and fast to capture the city with. Both the 17-40 and 17-55 were out my range, so I settled on a $300 Tamron 17-50 Di II XR 2.8 after reading some great reviews. I loved it!! A real bargain. Really sharp. To this day I recommend friends starting out to get that lens.

 

[adebrophy]

Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 HSM.
I started with a T1i and the 18-55mm 55-250mm and 50mm f1.8.
The Sigma was my next lens purchase and the focussing speed compared to the other lenses impressed the hell out of me.
My next lens was the 200mm F2.8 L and again the focusing speed was incredible. A long list of USM, HSM, USD lenses have followed.

Yep - just the same for me. The Sigma 10-22 is an absolute steal and compared to the kit lens that came on the 350D was just a different league. Made me upgrade the standard one to a Tamron 17-50 (i think that was the focal length) f2.8 which was also amazing. I honestly think that unless I pixel peep the results from those on crop match some of the lovely, lovely L glass I have now.

Btw, the Sigma is still trundling on like a tank. The Tammy got a little grindy when zooming and developed a tiny bit of mould inside from jungle adventures. I'd buy Sigma again but would have to scruntinise the reviews before buying a Tamron.

Were I starting now I suspect the Canon 40mm f2.8 could be the gateway lens. And that baby sure is tough - dropped on concrete and there's not a scratch.

 

[adebrophy]

Oh, and I also went from a consumer grade tamron 70-300 to a Canon 70-200 f4 (non IS). Maybe that was the real killer blow - that just blew my mind in terms of speed of focus and sharpness. And while its not up to the 100L or 135L I now have it still just (over)delivers in everyday use. For £399 secondhand there really is no excuse for anyone not to own one of these - it is Canon's gateway 70-200.

 

[Eldar]

I bought a Canon New F1 body, with motor drive and the 50mm f1.2L, manual focus in 1986. I shot Kodachrome 64 and 25 slides. Compared to anything I had seen up until then, it was magic, when I could get the focusing right. Luckily my eyesight was much better in those days, so I got a few. I remember especially a sailing trip in the Greek archipelago in -87, where the results from that lens really amazed me. I promised myself then, that all my future lenses should have the red ring.

 

[Dylan777]

My very 1st set:
40D with 50f1.4 + 17-55 f2.8 IS