if your only going to have one lens, id say fork out the cash and get the good stuff. saving for a sick lens is much much much more worth your time than just out of the blue buying a p.o.s plastic "throw away lens". my buddies 70-300 was used on a bunch of shots i did and when i began renting the 300 f/4, the difference was unmistakenly horifying. the 70-300's pics looked like a big ol smudge. the price difference being over triple the cost. im making the decision to get a 24-70 in future intentions of getting a 5d and being totaly stoked with the lens. not saying there arent good 3rd party/cheaper lens's out there cause i had a 12-24 and loved the thing to death!, but its obviously best to go full out instead of settling for 2nds or 3rds. itll also allow you to enjoy your shots more if youve got the tools.
if your only going to have one lens, id say fork out the cash and get the good stuff.
While price wasn't specifically mentioned, I get the feeling that expensive ($1k+) lenses are out of the question here, so the next best thing is to get the kit lens (effectively only $60), decide where it falls short for one's personal tastes, and start saving.
The 24-105 spends most of the time on my main camera because it is full frame. the 450D usually has the 17-40 to get a similar wide view. If you not too bothered about WIDE then the 28-135 is OK, you may be better grabbing an all round lens like the Tamron 18-250 until you decide what you want from photography then you start buying top grade glass to last a lifetime.
For Nikon I would still pick the 18-200mm, now that Canon has their own 18-200mm offering you should look into that.
I just read this review for the 18-200mm Canon lens... honestly, I am a tad disappointed. For this price, why wouldnt one get the 70-200mm f/4 instead? Of course losing the wide angle range.. but I would prefer better image quality.
I would say the new, stabilized Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 is even more "all-purpose" (and about 1/4 the price).
I've been waiting for a 17-12000mm lens but unfortunately it hasn't been made yet. Does Canon not realize there are people out there wanting to shoot landscapes on both Earth and Mars while out on a walk?
I have my camera with me ALL the time, everywhere I go. I've dinked around with a number of lenses for various reasons, all of which were a compromise in one manner or another.
I am not a super talent, I'm a good photographer who has much life outside of photography, and I don't have a bunch to spend on this hobby/semi-pro activity.
I've wanted Nikon's popular 18-200 VR lens since it came out. I finally got it.
I sold everything else I had and may never get another lens. I know that theoretically I'm leaving giant holes in ability to do specific photography, but I just refuse to have and carry a bunch of stuff around. If I have a choice between dragging a bag of stuff around or leaving it home, well.....
I can have more than one lens if I scrimp and save, select specific work and saddle myself with obligations I don't really want to make it possible........or I can do it this way and never take the magic and beauty out of doing it for me, my way.
One body, one lens, everywhere I go, all the time.
Did I already mention the 85mm? No? Oh well, I'm mentioning it now. Just about the sharpest thing I've ever seen (and I'm including my wit there, too).
