Pet, landscape, and nature photography lens kit

[buffy1270]

Hi.  I have a Canon 450D XSi with the kit lens.  I am an amateur and I am interested in doing the following types of photography:
1) Pictures of pets (dogs, parrots, goats) - action shots as well as portraits both traditional portraits and environmental portraits.
2) Nature and landscape shots - I hike a lot and would like to get mountain ranges, waterfalls, wildlife shots.  I would also be taking animal shots in zoos and aviaries, sunsets, etc. so it will be a combination of good light and low light photography.  When I say wildlife, a lot of this at this time would be of birds at bird feeder stations, etc. so not like safari photography, etc.  Maybe someday.
3) Portraits of people - candid and posed ( environmental and traditional)
4) Sporting event photos - This would be events like triathlons, etc. where I am close to the action.
5) Finally, I would like to get into macro shooting eventually as well.

I realize this is a lot of different types of photography.  I have been told by some photographers that to really learn to be a good photographer you need to start shooting with primes to develop skills at framing shots, etc.  I don't know if this is true or not.  This is a hobby but I would like to explore entering some amateur photography contests in the future.  One other thing is I have small hands and I am a small person so light weight is a plus; however, I want nice pictures too.  I had been interested in the 17-55 but I keep reading about dust problems in this lens and I do not want to spend a lot of money on a lens if it is going to let in an excessive amount of dust ( I realize this may not affect the pictures taken with the lens, etc. and that most lenses get some dust in them).   I like fast lenses and I do not like using flash if at all possible.  I would be interested in freezing action in some situations.  I had thought about the following combinations:

1) 10-22, 17-85 or 15-85 (possibly 17-55), 70-300 IS or 70-200 4/l IS, 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 primes.

or I had also thought of going with mostly primes with one walkaround lens of higher quality than my kit lens (18-55 IS).  I also had thought of going with the 17-40L with either the 70-200 mentioned above or the 70-300 is with some primes.  Obviously, this is not something I could necessarily purchase all at once but I like to have a plan. 

 

[Bob Atkins]

 

I have been told by some photographers that to really learn to be a good photographer you need to start shooting with primes to develop skills at framing shots, etc.

Not true. There's little virtue in doing things the hard way.

 

I had been interested in the 17-55 but I keep reading about dust problems in this lens and I do not want to spend a lot of money on a lens if it is going to let in an excessive amount of dust

Not true either. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 USM is neither particularly better nor particularly worse than other similar zoom lenses. Don't worry about it.


I'd probably go with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM for portraits, landscapes and general photography and the EF 70-300/4-5.6IS USM for sports and wildlife. Add something like a Canon 500D dual element closeup lens to the 70-300 for macro work if you can't afford a real macro lens.

I'd also pick up a Canon EF 50/1.8 II since it's so inexpensive. It will be useful for low light work, fast shutter speeds and/or when you want a shallow depth of field with a blurred background.

[buffy1270]

Thanks.  I think I got into a little paralysis by analysis there.  There is so much information and it is difficult to sort out.  So in your opinion, it is not worth getting the 70-200 f4L IS if I can afford it?  Is the 70-300 comparable in image quality?  I realize it is lighter.

[Bob Atkins]

The EF 70-200/4L IS USM is a very fine lens. Better built, faster focus and a little sharper than the EF 70-300IS USM, especially at the edges of full frame. Not quite so much on crop sensor bodies. If you don't need the extra range and you can afford it, go for it. For wildlife though, longer is usually better, so there is a tradeoff to be made. The EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM is maybe the best Canon zoom lens for wildlife and sports, but it's more expensive, bigger and heavier. Again, more compromises!

[buffy1270]

Sounds like the 70-300 would be better for me right now then.  One more question.  Is it okay to use an 85 1.8 as a portrait lens on a cropped camera inside?  Would this be better than the 50 1.8?  I have read differing opinions on this. 

[marcfs]

I have been using the 50mm/ f1.4 for portrait shots with a 7D with excellent results. 
I use a 70-200mm/f4L IS for assorted work and occasionally wildlife (rare).  For wildlife bigger is always better.  
The lens you chose for wildlife depends to some degree on what you are capturing. 
For birds in flight the 400mm/f5.6L is light and very sharp.  For walking around when bird watching, I have been very satisfied with the 100-400mm/4.5-5.6L.  From this point bigger lenses escalate dramatically in price.

Good luck,

Marc

[KeithB]

I would wait on your primes until you get your zooms.  Use the zooms to shoot some portraits at 50mm and 85 mm and then you can decide which framing, subject distance and proportion you like best.

I have the 17-85, the 70-300 and the 60mm macro and find that they meet all my needs.  (But I don't do formal portraits!)  I intend to add the 50mm 1.8 at some point just because. 8^)

[buffy1270]

I purchased the 17-55 yesterday.  I am thinking the 70-300, 60mm macro and 50 1.8 or 1.4 would likely be my next choices to eventually round out my set of lenses.  Trying to do some research on whether the extra money for the 50 1.4 over the 1.8 is worth it.  Thanks!

Karen