Buying a new SLR lens
So you're yearning for a lens that'll do more than the 18-50 that came with your still shiny DSLR and you're paroosing the interwebs for some glass. Danted by the seemingly endless selection you've looked to google for some help.
There's one thing to look for.
That's right, one thing, and that's flexibility. Flexibility isn't that cool new silicon lens that you can run over with a car and it's alright (I wish). Flexibility doesn't mean many things, and most importantly it does not mean zoom.
The 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens like this one they're selling at best buy and wolf camera isn't worth your money (to say the least). The main reason for this is that it gives you 0 flexibility.
The first thing you've got to think about in buying a new lens is: "What is flexibility?"
The flexibility of the lens above affords you flexibility of focal length, of zoom, but this is at the dire cost of the flexibility that's more important 99% of the time:
Light flexibility.
Photography is about light. Cameras capture it and your monitor or paper will reproduce it. With that 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens you will be left with a lens that needs a gratuitous amount of light to take photos. it will only be useful outside on bright days, and that's not flexible.
If you want to take pictures as a photographer, not just someone with a camera, get a lens that's flexible and can take photos in every kind of light, for that's what really matters.
What is the kit lens good for?
The 'kit' lens your camera probably came with, a 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6, is not a bad lens. The only way to get enough light, however, is to take photos in full sunlight or with a flash. Direct flash (that little pop-up flash) will freeze your subject, cast bad shadows, flatten flesh tones, and generally make your photo look like every other point-and-shoot photo taken by some guy at a party. Combined with some bounce flash or off-camera flash this lens becomes a great tool in your photo bag/utility belt.
What do I recommend?
For Canon:
For Nikon:
For Sony: http://www.adorama.com/ISO3518DT.html
Why?
The first feature you've got to learn to use is your left/right zoom:
Your left/right legs.
If you want a different framing then you've got to set it up. The more conscientious you are about a photo the better it will always be. Are you looking to learn to be a photographer or do you want to just take photos?
Aperture f-ratings
You don't want a lens that gets lots and lot's of F's. The fewer the better.
F/2.8 or lower is what I stand by.
What do I shoot with?
Canon 50mm f/1.4. I've had this sent to canon for repair twice. I can't recommend a lens hood that attaches to the body of the lens enough. Buy it on ebay, search for ES-71.
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. My only zoom, and it's usually left at 17mm.
Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro. I bought this used on craigslist. It's the old (all metal) version and was made in the early 1990's.
Canon 200mm f/2.8 L. Also lovingly from craigslist and also older. This is the mark1 from the early 90's.
If you want a telephoto
If you're going to get a 70-200, and I'd recommend it eventually, then get one like this: Sony 70-200mm f/2.8.
Here's the catch: it's over $1500.
Buying a good lens that's affordable is the key. Get one that's good, learn what kind of photos and situations you can capture with it and if you start getting income from the art then you can afford more lenses
Here's an example: if you want a 300mm lens then go get this Sony 300mm f/2.8 G Super Tele when you can afford it and have a reason to use it. Do not get this Sony 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 compact super tele zoom. It's total crap and won't take anything worthwhile. You won't be any different than someone with a point and shoot camera. You're better of using that $239.00 to buy a good 28mm 1.8 that's close to the best out there for that focal length.
An example: Alex Mack
My favorite example is from the old tv show 'The Secret World of Alex Mack,' where the main character had to take photos of football practice. She didn't shell out for a $3000 lens or use a crappy $200 telephoto to get crappy shots. She used a wide angle, put on some pads, and went playing on the field taking pictures and ended up with the coolest shots of a football practice out there.
That's a bit extreme, and I personally don't like football, but the idea is right on. I've done the same-ish thing at presidential rallies, concerts, and lots more.
An example: my dad
My dad was jealous of my photography for a few years until I gave him my old camera (canon rebel xti) and the kit lens. He quickly wanted something better.
He too wanted a cool zoom telephoto lens first thing but I talked him into geting a 28mm 2.8 instead. Now it lives on his camera.
He did get his telephoto, but he got a 70-200mm f/2.8. He came to see how anything less defeats the use of an SLR He has become a great photographer who could really uses every minutia of that lens's capability.
It actually bugs the heck out of me since it's a better tele (for many things) than my 200mm prime is.
He later went back and bought a 50mm f/1.4 exactly like the one I have so that he can take photos at concerts, dances, and clubs if he wants to now that he has the flexibility of a f/1.4.
