new camera

I have decided to get a Canon Rebel T3i . Now I need to find a telephoto lens that will cover my bases for nature & wildlife pics. I am also interested in macro photography. A friend suggested that I get a good, "vacation lens"?It appears that one could spend a lot of money on lenses. Any suggestions on a quality lens that will not cost me an arm or leg? Thanks

You have conflicting wants. High quality, low price; long-distance, close-up. You can't have everything for cheap.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wildlife-Lens.aspx

http://the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Macro-Lens.aspx

A cheap "vacation lens" won't do what you want. You're going to have to spend some money, and you should expect to spend at least twice what you paid for that camera body.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug

For wildlife you want at least 200mm, preferably 300 or more. These lenses are expensive, especially if you choose a zoom lens. So consider a fixed focal length moderate speed lens -- say a 300mm f/4. That should cost a little over $1000. You will see zoom lenses with a range of something like 70-300 for considerably less. These are optically inferior but might meet your needs (i. e., if you don't intend to sell wildlife images or make large prints).

A "travel zoom" typical has a very large zoom range -- something like 18-200. It is intended for people who don't want to carry multiple lenses. But travel zooms are severely compromised optically. Don't bother.

For macro work you will need a macro lens.

So you seem to be looking at a three lens outfit: kit lens, moderate long zoom, and macro lens. Welcome to the world of dslr photography.

and remember bodys come and go, but a quality lens is for life and will retain its resale value well. Better than stocks and shares at the moment, anyway!!

The kit lenses from Canon (18-55 and 55-250) are pretty good and cheap enough for start. I almost bought this kit, but due to them not being available back then, I opted for a Sony A55 with 18-55 and 70-300.

But when you are bitten by the DSLR bug, you start to "need" always more... I want now something wider than 18, and something longer than 300. It´s a neverending game.

--
Fabio Leoni, from Brazil
My galleries:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Fabio.jose.leoni
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9741796@N05/
http://www.pixels-urbanos.blogspot.com

There a plenty of very good lenses that are reasonably priced. The Canon 55-250 IS that fatman mentioned is very good and under $300 I believe. Also very good are the Sigma 70-300 OS for $359 and the Tamron 70-300 VC for $399 (B&N prices). OS and VC are Sigma's and Tamron's name for IS.

When you spend a small fortune for a lens you are generally getting a faster lens and a better built lens. If you print no larger than 8x10 or display your images electronically you will see little or no difference in IQ between these lenses and lenses costing far more.

Photography can get very expensive very fast if you allow it. If and when you have the money, you can add more expensive lenses to your kit if you see a need for them. You may find tests for the above lenses on this website or popphoto.com. You can also read the user reviews on B&H and Adorama's websites. Be careful of user reviews on other sites as they may not be honest. At least with B&H and Adorama you know the reviewer actually has the lens.

The fact that you have decided on a camera without knowing the first thing about lenses is very troubling. I'm guessing your decision process was less than comprehensive. What you should do is buy a Sony A580, then you can get the Tamron 70-300mm Di LD Macro lens. It is a bargain for just $150-160, and what do you know, it also happens to be a MACRO lens. And you don't havve to worry about its lack of IS/VR/VC since unlike Canon and Nikon, Sony's bodies already have it (they call it OSS). The A580 is a much better camera than the T3i. Even the D5100 is better than the T3i. But the A580 is the best of all.

Herky said:

I have decided to get a Canon Rebel T3i . Now I need to find a telephoto lens that will cover my bases for nature & wildlife pics. I am also interested in macro photography. A friend suggested that I get a good, "vacation lens"?It appears that one could spend a lot of money on lenses. Any suggestions on a quality lens that will not cost me an arm or leg? Thanks

Click to expand...

To expand on what icy veins said, you can have image stabilization in the lens or in the body. Each has its advantages. Having the stabilization in the body saves money because you can use less expensive non-stabilized lenses. Any lens you put on a stabilized body becomes stabilized. The advantage of having it in the lens is that you can see the effect of the stabilization. This is mainly important at longer focal lengths when a non-stabilized image may jump around in the viewfinder making composing difficult. This effect depends on how steady you are.

Nikon and Canon use stabilized lenses. Sony and Pentax have stabilized bodies. If you're not sure which is best for you, put a 70-300 on a Sony or Pentax body an see how steady the viewfinder image is for you.