After quite a time I have made my mind to buy a DSLR and I am thinking for Canon 550D. Though question is long I could not find way to shorten this.
As a starter I would like to stick and learn with the basic lens which comes which is 18-55 IS. However my confusion is mounting especially looking at the range of the lenses.
Though photography is my hobby but I would like to take it real seriously. Not sure if I will choose/happen to make money with hobby [till now] (to buy or afford big heavy equipment)
So to upgrade the to new lens in future follwoing thoughts are bouncing in my head after some investigation ...
Canon 55-250 IS :
Why : Comparitively less expensive and can fullfill my requirement to reach distance so that I won't be upset not being able to shoot object at distance.
Questions: will be be able to deliver nice clean shopts (Like pro) ? Or its just toy to satisfy amature photographers need to do some wildlife and birds photography ?
Canon 70 - 300 :
Why : Little upgrade which can get me power to reach some more distace ... hopefully not too expensive.
Question : Same as above + which one has the better results and reliable ?
Other options I was thinking was to buy EF lenses timely one by one ....so that in case I upgrade to full frame they can be useful. I heard that they have real good picture quality and they truly worth their value. Is that true? In that case
Canon 20 - 70 MM IS USM :
Why: Good expensive ... I thought it would satisfy my need of general lens and still produce excellent results.
Quesion : Is my expectation from this lens correct ?
Then I will think to buy zoom lens for wildlife,
Canon 100-400 4.5 IS USM:
Why: I heard it's a good lens and can be handy in wild life
Question : Does this really stand for providing good quality images ? Or it's just big bucks one has to pay for not really good results?
I am also interested to try Macro photography. So thinking to buy one macro lense in future though I heard Close-up kits could be handly inexpensive but macro lens does really makes the difference so
Canon 100 2.8 IS USM:
Why: I donts want 68 mm lens in this family as it looks too short and don't want 180 mm lens looks too expensive. So this deal appears to be a win-win situation.
Question: is my understanding corrent ? or it's just Close UP kit could make all different with any of above mentioned Zoom lenses and no need for special Macro lens ?
Now the following lens really got my eyes wide open. But just that is too expensive. Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM:
Why: I would like to experience the magic of 2.8 on 200mm. I think this could produce exceptional results in wild and fashion. It could be a nice friend with the above mentioned Canon 20-70.
Question: Is it worth spending on this lens ? Or 100-400 will prove better and sufficient than this ?
So as per all above talk I could have following sets
1) Economic as amateur:
18-55 IS + 55-250 mm OR
18-55 IS + 70-300 mm
2) Expensive investment done for long term good results and returns 18-55 IS + 55-250 mm Then buy
20-70 2.8 IS USM Then buy
100-400 4.5 IS USM OR 70-200 2.8 IS USM
3) Expensive investment done for long term good results and returns
18-55 IS + 55-250 mm Then buy
20-70 2.8 IS USM Then buy
100-400 4.5 IS USM OR 70-200 2.8 IS USM Then buy
100 2.8 IS USM Macro
I have not given thougths on other lenses available in market as some said Tamron 18 - 290 is solution to all problems. Or some say Sigma too is good. Not sure of it either ?
Please have your opinion and let me know your thoughts and comments on how should I proceed.