1) Lets you do traditional wide angle landscapes and scenic nature shots.
2) Lets you take low-light photos and create shallow depth of field.
3) Lets you do tight telephoto landscapes and zoomed-in nature shots (e.g. birds).
If you're getting a DSLR, obviously you plan to eventually have more than one lens. So depending on how soon you think you'll get your second (and third) lens, I'd go with whichever lens works for what you plan to start shooting. I'd add two caveats.
- When getting a DSLR, you're buying a system. Within that system, you will probably keep the lenses for 10-20 years. The camera body you will probably want to replace in 3-5 years. So unless the body has some feature you absolutely must have and can't live without, you're usually better off budgeting for good lenses with a cheap body. Not the other way around as you've done.
- With that in mind, you should also factor in future lens purchases, if not starting with a higher-quality lens right off the bat.
1) Alternative choices here are basically the 17-40L, 10-22, and 16-35L. The 10-22 gives you true wide-angle with the cropped sensor in the 70D, but costs nearly as much as the 17-40L. The 17-40L is nice (I have it), but isn't that great a performer on cropped sensors. It's really more for full-frame cameras (and in fact was released when film SLRs were still dominant). The 10-22 is pretty much the cropped sensor equivalent of the 17-40L. Both plus the 16-35 have a only a 2x to 2.3x zoom range, vs the 3x for the 18-55. So despite the 18-55's poorer optical performance, the zoom range can be an advantage over the other lenses in certain situations. I've actually occasionally considered picking up a 18-55 to cut down on the number of times I have to swap lenses. So the 18-55 might be a lens you continue to use even after you get a better wide-angle.
2) The 50 f/1.8 is completely outclassed in all aspects except price by the 50 f/1.4. The f/1.4 has better construction, USM (silent focusing), full-time manual focusing, more aperture blades for rounder bokeh, better-looking bokeh, slightly better sharpness, and is 2/3rds stop faster. If you get the 50 f/1.8, then get the 50 f/1.4, you will never touch the 50 f/1.8 again. There is also a 60mm f/2.8 macro which could conceivably replace the 50 f/1.8 if you get into macro photography (though mot suggest the 100mm macro).
3) Sigma 70-300mm. I'm not familiar with the performance of this particular lens. However, the Canon 70-200 f/4L is a fantastic lens, nearly indistinguishable from primes. And for an L lens is reasonably priced. Unless you need the extra reach of 300mm (e.g. shooting birds), I would make getting the 70-200L f/4 a long-term goal. If you got it, you would almost never use the Sigma 70-300mm again.
So in terms of future lens purchases, the 18-55 would appear to be the safer choice for a first lens.
Facebook
Twitter