Best starter lenses for a beginner

[TaysDad1226]

Bob,

I am fairly new to photography and am looking at purchasing further equipment for my Canon XS and 18-55mm kit lens. I am very interested in Macro photogaraphy and would also like something to cover the tele-photo end as well. I really like my 18-55 and am currently looking at purchasing the 60mm or 100mm macro and the 55-250 IS to cover my tele-photo range. I have read all of your posts and am looking toward the 60mm but am afraid that it may not be close enough for some of the insect work I hope to accomplish. The 55-250 IS is obviously a common lens but for now I think it should suit my need fairly well. Any advice on the above lenses and or alternatives and also any starter equipment (i.e. Tripods, Hoods, filters...) would be great.

Thanks.

Brian Tampa, FL

[whizkid]

I own Canon's EF-s 60mm f/2.8 macro and your close-up fears are unwarranted. Like all true macros it captures 1:1  lifesize imaging and that means a lady bug will appear as if glued onto the image sensor. Once you enlarge for viewing or printing that will be a big lady bug. The problem with focal lengths such as 60mm is that lifesize requires being rather close to the object. Call it working distance from the end of the lens. For things like a coin that matters less but a bug may not like a lens only a couple of inches away. For that reason I would recommend a macro with a longer focal lenth and believe you would be better satisfied with Canon's 100 mm f/2.8 macro that adds an inch or two of working distance.
 

[TaysDad1226]

Thanks whizkid,

Would you concur on the 55-250 IS or is there another lens i'm not aware of that would be equal in VALUE. I do want a the best lens possible for tele-photo but need one that will keep me in the $200-300 range tops as I am going to be investing nearly 500 dollars for the Macro 100mm if I do choose that over the 60mm.

Thanks again

[KeithB]

The 55-250 is the best option for that kind of money, the next step up would be the EF 70-300 IS, which is in the $500-600 range.  Also, since it is EF, it is much larger (and heavier!) than the 55-250.

[whizkid]

I agree with Keith. the 55-250 offers ecellent value. I own a 70-300  that I bought before the arrival of the 55-250. It was purchased because it's so much ligher for all day outings than my 70-200.  Besides the larger max aperture of the 70-200 was only needed by me for indoor events while outdoors I can live fine with f/5.6  The 55-250 would also have filled that lightweight tele zoom lens role for me. Go for it.

[bmpress]

You could look at the Canon 100-300mm telephoto. It is very sharp and very cheap but does not have IS. However....the front element does not spin when focusing, so you can easily use a polarizer on this lens. I had the 70-300 and hated it for the polarizer issue...finally traded up to the 100-400...but very expensive.

[KeithB]

I have never felt the need to put a polarizer on my telephoto.