Please indulge me .......

"SteveB" wrote in message

I have decided on the Canon 50D, and am very close to purchase.

If I had to buy one lens that would cover a lot of things, or be a
first lens, which one would that be? What would be a good two lens
package? What would be a good second lens if only one comes with the
camera?

What's your budget?

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I have decided on the Canon 50D, and am very close to purchase.

If I had to buy one lens that would cover a lot of things, or be a first
lens, which one would that be? What would be a good two lens package?
What would be a good second lens if only one comes with the camera?


I have a 50D - it needs good lenses to make the most of the resolution of
the sensor.

The two I use most are the 70-200mm f4L IS and the 24-105 L IS. The 70-200
is very sharp. A set of extension tubes will enable you to do macro work.

I use a Canon flash gun - both the 580 EX and the 430 EX will do a good job
(both are now mark II versions).

John

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
I have decided on the Canon 50D, and am very close to purchase.

If I had to buy one lens that would cover a lot of things, or be a first
lens, which one would that be? What would be a good two lens package?
What would be a good second lens if only one comes with the camera?

I forgot to address the low light part of your question.

I have a 50mm f1.4 that takes sharp photos once it's stopped down to f1.8.
Use the fine tuning facility of the autofocus (of the 50D) to get the best
from this lens.

John

SteveB wrote:
I have decided on the Canon 50D, and am very close to purchase.

If I had to buy one lens that would cover a lot of things, or be a
first lens, which one would that be? What would be a good two lens
package? What would be a good second lens if only one comes with the
camera?
[]
I appreciate any help, and enjoy the newsgroup a lot, although most
of it is over my head. But I still manage to have a lot of fun with
my cameras.
Steve

Steve,

Although I would buy Nikon rather than Canon, a good general lens is the
18 - 200mm Image Stabilised lens, and avoids the need to change lenses.
but it is quite expensive.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/18-200-Lens-...07660&sr =8-1

For general use, the "kit" 18 - 55mm will probably do you nicely, although
it doesn't have the telephoto reach of the 18 - 200mm. If you have the
18-55, a second lens might be the 55-200mm IS.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-18-55-...07698&sr =1-2

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-55-250...5JGMP4MJGH59WA

These are "general-purpose" rather than specialist lenses. You can get a
wide choice, and they will empty your wallet very easily! If you are
going to pay quite a lot of money, to my thinking you get the most use out
of the 18-200mm, but with its relatively small maximum aperture at the
telephoto end, you can use the teleconvertors. You should check if its
macro capability is good enough for you.

Cheers,
David

I have decided on the Canon 50D, and am very close to purchase.

If I had to buy one lens that would cover a lot of things, or be a first
lens, which one would that be? What would be a good two lens package? What
would be a good second lens if only one comes with the camera?

I take a lot of "general" pictures, that is scenery, travel, and grandkids.
I like to do macro on flowers and 1-3 feet on hummingbirds. I also do
macros less than one foot on specialized fabrication to share with
associated newsgroups. I also like some telephoto capability for large
birds. I like to experiment with low light situations like sunsets,
firesides, twilight, and forest shade. Are the 2x adapters a reasonable way
to go to get a longer lens without the cost?

As for flashes, long long ago when I had a b&w darkroom, I had a bounce
flash with clip on filters that were useful for many situations. Are these
still the way to go, or do the current electronic ones have that
flexibility? I notice that most high end cameras today have hot shoes, so I
am ass-u-ming that additional flashes are used.

I have taken pictures now for fifty years, but do not have the experience in
the technical aspects of a lot of you who are younger . This is a big deal
money outlay for me, and I would like to be satisfied with it, and not run
into the disappointment of buying something and then having to buy another.
I think this camera will fill my needs and I won't outgrow it in my
lifetime.

Thanks. I'm getting old, and don't have the brainpower (a TBI four years
ago) to research, process, and retain all of this, so I ask here for help to
shortcut the process.

I appreciate any help, and enjoy the newsgroup a lot, although most of it is
over my head. But I still manage to have a lot of fun with my cameras.

Steve

David J Taylor wrote:
[]
If you are
going to pay quite a lot of money, to my thinking you get the most
use out of the 18-200mm, but with its relatively small maximum aperture
at the
telephoto end, you can use the teleconvertors. You should check if
its macro capability is good enough for you.

Cheers,
David

Thats: ... relatively small maximum aperture at the telephoto end, you
can't use the teleconvertors.

David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in

[...]

For general use, the "kit" 18 - 55mm will probably do you nicely,
although it doesn't have the telephoto reach of the 18 - 200mm.

The 18-55 should be avoided like the plague. The 18-55 IS costs little more
and is distinctly superior (although obviously not in L series territory).

DRS wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote
in
[...]

For general use, the "kit" 18 - 55mm will probably do you nicely,
although it doesn't have the telephoto reach of the 18 - 200mm.

The 18-55 should be avoided like the plague. The 18-55 IS costs
little more and is distinctly superior (although obviously not in L
series territory).

Agreed. Had you checked the link I provided, you would have seen it was
the 18-55mm IS lens to which I referred, not the older version. The photo
clearly shows the words "IMAGE STABILIZER" in large letters!

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message om
DRS wrote:

[...]

The 18-55 should be avoided like the plague. The 18-55 IS costs
little more and is distinctly superior (although obviously not in L
series territory).

Agreed. Had you checked the link I provided, you would have seen it
was the 18-55mm IS lens to which I referred, not the older version. The
photo clearly shows the words "IMAGE STABILIZER" in large letters!

I didn't check the link. I relied on your reference to 'the "kit" 18 -
55mm'. The problem for uninformed consumers is that both are still
available (why Canon persist with the 18-55 is beyond me when the 18-55 IS
is only a little more expensive), and it is easy to confuse the two.

DRS wrote:
[]
I didn't check the link. I relied on your reference to 'the "kit" 18
- 55mm'. The problem for uninformed consumers is that both are still
available (why Canon persist with the 18-55 is beyond me when the
18-55 IS is only a little more expensive), and it is easy to confuse
the two.

Yes, I now realise it was ambiguous, and for that I apologise. Agreed on
Canon, but of course some people maintain "I don't need IS, and won't pay
the extra for it". A poor decision in this particular case, as the 18-55
IS is so much better.

Cheers,
David