I have been searching through the site and taking notes. . . can you please tell me if I am on the right track? I have a Canon XS with the Lens that came with it (18-55mm), I am looking for a wish list of reasonable priced "toys" to go with it :) I figure if I actually find myself loving one specific aspect, I can then go for a better lens that will suit that one purpose. ...
Half my life is spent in the stands at the Hockey rink, or at the pond at dusk, the other half is spent on the sidelines of a Lacrosse field, so I would like a Lens that can help me get some good shots of the kids as they race around in tricky light. We also spent quite a loat of time hiking/ camping/ kayaking in some beautiful places, of course I would like to capture that. I need a good indoor lens for snapping pics of people/ etc. And I am completely intrigued by the waterdrop/ insect close up pix that I see on here.
Would this line up work for the above (see list below) ? What would you change? (and I apologize for yet another question on Lenses. .. I tried to figure it out on my own and ended up in circles doubting everything I thought I figured out)
~ UV Filters for everything (for protection)
~ Circular Polarising Filter (for the "scenery shots/ waterfalls/ etc)
~ EF 50mm f/ 1.8 (for indoor and all around good people shots)~ would this also help with the Hockey shots/ low light?)
~ EF (S?)55-250 mm (to get a zoom.. question on this, if I am going to have a mono/tripod do I need the image stabilizer function or would I just end up having to turn it off all the time?)
~ Extension tubes ...this is where I completely got lost. . they will help me when added to the 50mm to get in close so I can play with the macro pix, but they may mess up my AF and are really tricky to focus??? what should I look for if I get one?
~and one last question. .. . if I got the 75-300mm instead of the 55-250mm. .. what would I "miss out on" with the gap between the lens it came with (up to 55) and the 75 that this one starts with ~ if that makes any sense at all. . . . .
Again, I am sorry for the length of the post. . you should see all my notes hahaha!
UV Filters - I don't really believe in them, but if you're going to use one, don't go too cheap. Remember it's another piece of glass between your lens & the subject.
Circular Polarizer - Again, don't go too cheap, but it's great for removing reflections when you don't want them.
50mm - won't likely help with hockey, due to it's relatively short length. Low-light capabilities are great (even better with the f/1.4, but costlier)
55-250mm - I've never used the lens, so I can't comment on it. Generally, IS (or Nikon VR) needs to be off when on a tripod. Still, IS/VR is nice to have. The 250mm would help for hockey to get close to the action.
Extension tubes - These move the sensor further away from the lens, so it effectively changes the focal distance. You'll probably lose autofocus and aperture control. They're great for macro, but a tripod is (in my opinion) required, not simply recommended.
As far as the gap between 55-75mm, I don't think you'd miss much at all. I doubt there'd ever be a time when you would say 'rats, I wish I had 60mm available to me'.
Before buying anything, do lots of research. Ask questions here, go to various sites and look at their reviews and, if possible, try them out. There are lens rental sites and some stores will rent lenses, or find someone close to you share lenses for a day.
55-250mm you can use to get range, but since it's a variable aperture - you'll need to use it in good light or up the ISO at night. if you use a tripod/monopod you turn the IS off. If you want to capture kids and sports you'll need to have a fast shutter speed (shoot in shutter priority), which also means turning the ISO up in low light.
50mm 1.8 - with the 1.6 crop factor of the XS - it's going to be 80mm and I feel like it'll be too close for indoor shots. Outdoor probably good, since you have more space.
I use a 28mm 1.8 indoors on a T2i but you can also buy the 35mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8 prime for cheaper.
Take your 18-55 and put it to 50mm and try taking pictures indoors. See if it's good or too tight. Then put it on 28mm and 35mm and see if you like that. I usually take my pictures indoors sitting across from a person and the 50mm is too tight. the 28mm is just right for those pictures in a restaurant sitting across from my girlfriend and to take pictures of the food.
Extension tubes....I don't know much about. Rather get a dedicated lens IMO.
UV Filters - I don't use, since only the best quality ones are worth using and they're pretty pricy $70+ each - the cheap ones are just going to mess up picture quality. I definitely buy lens hoods though. Protection, better contrast, etc.
@rddaisy
UV filters, I use....mainly because I'm not the best at putting my lens cap back on, and or losing them. They are just another piece of glass between lens and subject and don't really do all that much, until you scratch/dent it instead of your lens. And then it's worth it. Been there done that, thanked the uv filter profusely.
Polarizers, first "effects" filter you should buy IMO. screw on filters are easier to operate in this sense than square ones, usually I just leave it on my camera. Keep in mind however that it's going to take away a few f stops and reduce your shutter speeds.
Extension tubes, I have two. One I use, one I might know where is it's been so long since I've used it. The one I do use is a dedicated canon and does manage to get the autofocus pretty quickly though it is a slight bit slower than the lens itself. When used with a lens that already has slow auto focus it's sometimes better to go manual. Remember if you're further from the subject you may be able to set focus and leave it on manual depending on your DOF.
Also remember with extension tubes take away fstops as well, sometimes up to two. If you're going for something for low light you'll probably be better off getting a better lens and not the tubes.
monopod won't offer as much stability as a tripod but if you're on the sidelines it'll be a tad easier to maneuver with.
Practicing and knowing how to hold your camera steady is also worth a mention. Not everyone realizes that "hey I'm taking a photo I better stop jumping and take the photo" is something that needs to be in your head when you are shooting. For the people that have grown up (not necessarily talking about you here but anyone else that may be having a browse of this thread) using digital cameras straight up on the auto feature they may not know about things like shutter speed and how an auto setting will see a low light situation and immediately go to a high ISO. They're learning it's ok to be moving a little while taking a photo cause hey look the camera got it, never knowing that they're sacrificing image quality or DOF or stop motion to get the photo. Simple things like bracing yourself against a solid object, bracing your arms, using nearby objects for support or stabilization, even holding your breath (not for a 2" exposure) can help get a low light shot better.
good that you're doing research. I always find that no matter how much research I do I always end up needing something more out of my gear.
@rddaisy Already been a couple good responses, but I wanted to add a few things here for you.
UV filters are most definitely worth the price. I have UV filters for my lenses that I got for about $35 each. When you think about it, UV filters are mostly there to protect your lenses from scratches. It's FAR cheaper to buy a UV filter than to scratch a $300+ lens and either having to deal with the scratch or replace it.
Circular Polarizers (CPL) I consider to be an essential for outdoor photography. It does more than just block out unwanted reflections for glass or water. It can either enhance or block out polarized light, which comes at almost-perpendicular angles to the sun. It can allow you to see to the bottom of a shallow pond. It can enhance the reflections of buildings downtown. And, where I feel it does the most good, it can really enhance the deep blue colors of the sky. Of course, this filter can only work when held at certain angles to the sun, so it's only useful about 5 hours out of each day.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a great low-light lens for outdoor landscapes. It is wide enough that at f/1.8, focused to 30', your DOF is infinity. You can effectively shoot landscapes handheld about 30 minutes after sunset, so it is a great lens.
But if you want a good lens for shooting indoor hockey, I'd look at an 85mm f/1.8. It gives you a little extra focal length without sacrificing the larger aperture. Keep in mind, though, that you'll have a very limited DOF which may make focusing tricky.
The general rule of thumb about "gaps" in the focal ranges of your lenses is that you can double the focal length from lens to lens and still be fine. In other words, if you have a 50mm lens already, the next lens you would need would be a 100mm. So, jumping from 50mm to 75-300mm lens won't hurt you at all.
But the thing to watch out for with smaller, cheaper, lighter zoom lenses is that speed of the autofocus. I had a 55-200 for a long time but I found shooting fast-paced sports to be almost impossible. The lens just couldn't autofocus fast enough to keep up with the sports, which was what led me to buy my first 70-200mm f/2.8 (at $1900, so it's a hefty piece of equipment).
As for extension tubes, you'll get what you pay for. There are two basic types: the cheaper, plastic tubes run you about $30 a set, and the better, composite or metal tubes run about $100 a set. The difference is that the cheaper sets will not allow you to set focus or aperture through the camera; it would have to be done manually. If you are setting up on a tripod to shoot a water drop, this can easily be handled. But if you're trying to shoot insects, say a butterfly, this can become tricky. The more expensive versions, up to about $125 at most I think, have contacts built into the tubes so your autofocus and aperture controls still work. ideally, though, you want to buy a macro lens. They are much more expensive, starting at about $500 for the 60mm Macro, but will be worth it in the long run.
@bobtimmons@infonographist thank you so much for the replies!
So, if I had a $1000 lens and I wanted to invest $70 in the filter to protect I guess that would make sense, but with the cheaper lenses I can only afford right now, I can see how that is a pretty pricy insurance policy (I was looking at the cheap ones)
I googled the 70-200mm ~ yipes ~ it took me 19 months to save for the camera LOL, don't think I have the cash for that lens yet. LOL
I didn't even think of using the lens I had to figure out the whole 50/28/35 thing ~ duh!~ thank you! I am going to definitely do as you suggest.
one more question. . somewhere I saw a macro zoom lens. . looks like you switch to macro when you want it. .maybe this would let me do the Hockey/Lax and play with the water drops? I haven't seen them mentioned in any of my searches here. . . has anyone used one? I am off to google places near me that may lend me some lenses to try!!!! thanks again for the help!!!!
@wahyusp wow those are great photos, I have a "true" macro on my "someday" list. . that last one is so crazy clear!!!!.....on the extension tubes do you find them super tricky to focus? Is there something I should look for?. . . I can just see myself trying to fiddle around with the focus while the bug flies off to never never land laughing at me as he gets away :) I'm OK with it not being Auto, but I am worried I will get all jumbled in the moment if you know what I mean.
@rddaisy
i'm using a Kenko ET, it allow me to control aperture and autofocus. But, for macro shot, i prefer to use manual focus.
Yup, it is hard to find good focus on tiny objects (bugs), need alot of practise to master it.
If you interesting on macrophoto, i suggest you to invest a flash unit. Flash unit (speedlite) will help alot on freezing objects. With proper diffusing and some techniques it will come really great.
I'm not sure about a macro-zoom or one where you can turn macro on/off. Usually a macro is simply a lens that can reproduce a subject by a 1:1 ratio. Often you can focus closer than a non-macro lens. A macro lens, though, can be used as a normal lens. in fact, many macro lenses are great portrait lenses (Nikon 105mm micro lens is a good example).
My daughter has the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro lens and she loves it, and it's not too expensive.
If you are indoors for hockey games, get a good external flash with a 70-300 zoom or something along those lines. The reason I say that is because those fast lens that a few people mentioned (2.8 throughout) are very expensive. The flash will let you get some good shots with limited light. I have a Nikon with a 70-300mm VR2 lens ($500-600) and I think it is awesome, but in low light I have to really bump up the iso if I want to handhold it or power up my external flash. I just brought it to an indoor track meet and without my flash I had to keep it around a 1600 iso setting.
For regular indoor family situations (birthday parties and those types of things) I have a 35mm 1.8 and it has never failed me. It's wide enough to get a family portrait and at the same time, you can get pretty close to the person and get good focusing for a close up.
As far as the UV filter.....I agree with a few of the posters that it is just an added piece of glass to add distortion and take away from clarity. If you are using it for protection, just put the lens hood on and that will give you the protection you are looking for. If you drop your camera, you will most likely be screwed anyway because if the UV filter breaks, the broken glass with scratch the lens anyway. Get a circular polarizing filter if anything....it makes a difference (look at the pregnancy silhouette on my pictures for an example - the sky was not really altered much in PP)
@neda thanks! I am just slowly stepping out of the whole "auto" thing and the research is completely overwhelming! I am sure I will learn through trial and error . . but the information here is amazing. @jasonbarnette . . ..Yipes. . I think I am going to have to see if I can "borrow" one of the lower level zooms and see if it would work, I can see getting very frustrated if I miss all the shots while the lens is still trying for focus as they run by. .. and I am already drooling over that 70-200 from reviews and your comments! haha I think the whole sports lens is going to be the toughest to figure out.
I am thinking if I can get a few $200-$300 lenses to play around with, I will be able to understand more what I am missing and then I can try and focus (and SAVE $$) for that gap. . . .
thanks again! my notes are growing!!!!!!
If you are going to get a 'few' $200-300 lenses, just get one really good one instead. I fell into that trap and I wish I would have just saved my money and bought a 2.8 70-200 lens. They are awesome and every time I am at a track meet, I see the 'serious' photographers (local newspapers etc...) using that lens to isolate individual athletes.
But like I said in the previous post, I am VERY happy with the 35mm 1.8 and the 70-300 (4.5-5.6).
@rddaisy If you want a $300 lens, the first you need to buy is a Tamron 24-75mm f/2.8. I shot NCAA sports for a year with that lens before upgrading to the Nikon version of the same lens (24-70mm though). It's great for low-light, fast, and sharp.
But be careful using an external flash at sporting events. If it is a professional or college-level event, they will probably ask you to stop using the flash since it can interfere with the game. At adult or little leagues they are usually pretty lenient, but it doesn't provide for the best quality since even the best strobes have a range of about 40-50 feet.
@mattyb ~ oh the decisions :) what you say makes a ton of sense! one more question and I will leave you alone for the night haha. . . when everyone says they are "forced" to use the higher ISO is that really a bad thing, does it mess up the photo? I "kind-of" get the whole "noise factor" thing, but no matter how much I read and mess around, ISO seems to be the hardest thing for me to grasp. Did you find that you didn't like the shots because they were at the 1600 ISO?
I have the 50mm 1.4 and think it is a great all around lens. I really like the colors this lens produces. Good in lower light shots.
I went crazy and bought the 70-300 and the 580 flash. It cost my bonus but I will never regret it. It opens up all sorts of shots I could not get before. I started out with auto too. Be brave and go for manual. You will soon be confident.
I also bought a circular polarizing filter. It is a must when you shoot through any glass - my zoo photos here were really helped by that filter. And the rich blue skies are great. Get the best one you can for the good results. Good luck and welcome to the bottomless money pit known as photography.
@wac thanks. . .the more I look at the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 the more I think I want one. (the macro one that bobtimmons mentioned sounds cool too).. I know I won't be able to get away with a flash at the rink, they will kick me out of the games...I am still completely on the fence on the lens for the sports issues. . hoping I fall in love with a nice reasonably priced one this weekend when I go poking around at the camera stores. .. . . oooh and I just ordered a polarizing filter because I just HAD to get something (I can tell where all my spending money will be going for the foreseeable future. . . my husband tells me it is a healthy habit though so maybe I can weasle some of his money while I am at it (hee hee)
thank you for the welcome, this place is amazing! @eyebrows WOW! I have so much to learn about these things, I would have never thought you could get that close on 60mm. . .. .
@rddaisy The higher iso you go, the grainier the picture gets. Additionally, It gets even more grainy if you want to crop your photo. To make matters worse, if you make a mistake in your exposure (like I so often do) when you make an adjustment to brighten it up with your computer, the grain gets even worse!! So the moral of the story......use the LOWEST iso you can possibly get away with. I learned that the hard way (over and over and over) until I figured out I had auto ISO set and it was giving me these high numbers.
Everyone was right about the flash!! I didn't really think about the fact that you probably can't use it in many sporting situations. The 50mm would be good, but very limited on how close to the action you can get.
Do this - Take your kit lens, put it at 50mm and see how you like the zoom. Use it in a well lit place so lighting is not an issue and only focus on the amount of zoom you have. That will give you a good idea of how much a 50mm lens will be. Best of luck!!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Circular Polarizer - Again, don't go too cheap, but it's great for removing reflections when you don't want them.
50mm - won't likely help with hockey, due to it's relatively short length. Low-light capabilities are great (even better with the f/1.4, but costlier)
55-250mm - I've never used the lens, so I can't comment on it. Generally, IS (or Nikon VR) needs to be off when on a tripod. Still, IS/VR is nice to have. The 250mm would help for hockey to get close to the action.
Extension tubes - These move the sensor further away from the lens, so it effectively changes the focal distance. You'll probably lose autofocus and aperture control. They're great for macro, but a tripod is (in my opinion) required, not simply recommended.
As far as the gap between 55-75mm, I don't think you'd miss much at all. I doubt there'd ever be a time when you would say 'rats, I wish I had 60mm available to me'.
Before buying anything, do lots of research. Ask questions here, go to various sites and look at their reviews and, if possible, try them out. There are lens rental sites and some stores will rent lenses, or find someone close to you share lenses for a day.
Hope this helps
55-250mm you can use to get range, but since it's a variable aperture - you'll need to use it in good light or up the ISO at night. if you use a tripod/monopod you turn the IS off. If you want to capture kids and sports you'll need to have a fast shutter speed (shoot in shutter priority), which also means turning the ISO up in low light.
50mm 1.8 - with the 1.6 crop factor of the XS - it's going to be 80mm and I feel like it'll be too close for indoor shots. Outdoor probably good, since you have more space.
I use a 28mm 1.8 indoors on a T2i but you can also buy the 35mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8 prime for cheaper.
Take your 18-55 and put it to 50mm and try taking pictures indoors. See if it's good or too tight. Then put it on 28mm and 35mm and see if you like that. I usually take my pictures indoors sitting across from a person and the 50mm is too tight. the 28mm is just right for those pictures in a restaurant sitting across from my girlfriend and to take pictures of the food.
Extension tubes....I don't know much about. Rather get a dedicated lens IMO.
UV Filters - I don't use, since only the best quality ones are worth using and they're pretty pricy $70+ each - the cheap ones are just going to mess up picture quality. I definitely buy lens hoods though. Protection, better contrast, etc.
with true macro lens (ef 100mm f/2.8 macro), you can get this
macro lens+ET (full set 68mm)
basically, ET raise the magnification of your lens. I hope it can help you...
UV filters, I use....mainly because I'm not the best at putting my lens cap back on, and or losing them. They are just another piece of glass between lens and subject and don't really do all that much, until you scratch/dent it instead of your lens. And then it's worth it. Been there done that, thanked the uv filter profusely.
Polarizers, first "effects" filter you should buy IMO. screw on filters are easier to operate in this sense than square ones, usually I just leave it on my camera. Keep in mind however that it's going to take away a few f stops and reduce your shutter speeds.
Extension tubes, I have two. One I use, one I might know where is it's been so long since I've used it. The one I do use is a dedicated canon and does manage to get the autofocus pretty quickly though it is a slight bit slower than the lens itself. When used with a lens that already has slow auto focus it's sometimes better to go manual. Remember if you're further from the subject you may be able to set focus and leave it on manual depending on your DOF.
Also remember with extension tubes take away fstops as well, sometimes up to two. If you're going for something for low light you'll probably be better off getting a better lens and not the tubes.
monopod won't offer as much stability as a tripod but if you're on the sidelines it'll be a tad easier to maneuver with.
Practicing and knowing how to hold your camera steady is also worth a mention. Not everyone realizes that "hey I'm taking a photo I better stop jumping and take the photo" is something that needs to be in your head when you are shooting. For the people that have grown up (not necessarily talking about you here but anyone else that may be having a browse of this thread) using digital cameras straight up on the auto feature they may not know about things like shutter speed and how an auto setting will see a low light situation and immediately go to a high ISO. They're learning it's ok to be moving a little while taking a photo cause hey look the camera got it, never knowing that they're sacrificing image quality or DOF or stop motion to get the photo. Simple things like bracing yourself against a solid object, bracing your arms, using nearby objects for support or stabilization, even holding your breath (not for a 2" exposure) can help get a low light shot better.
good that you're doing research. I always find that no matter how much research I do I always end up needing something more out of my gear.
UV filters are most definitely worth the price. I have UV filters for my lenses that I got for about $35 each. When you think about it, UV filters are mostly there to protect your lenses from scratches. It's FAR cheaper to buy a UV filter than to scratch a $300+ lens and either having to deal with the scratch or replace it.
Circular Polarizers (CPL) I consider to be an essential for outdoor photography. It does more than just block out unwanted reflections for glass or water. It can either enhance or block out polarized light, which comes at almost-perpendicular angles to the sun. It can allow you to see to the bottom of a shallow pond. It can enhance the reflections of buildings downtown. And, where I feel it does the most good, it can really enhance the deep blue colors of the sky. Of course, this filter can only work when held at certain angles to the sun, so it's only useful about 5 hours out of each day.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a great low-light lens for outdoor landscapes. It is wide enough that at f/1.8, focused to 30', your DOF is infinity. You can effectively shoot landscapes handheld about 30 minutes after sunset, so it is a great lens.
But if you want a good lens for shooting indoor hockey, I'd look at an 85mm f/1.8. It gives you a little extra focal length without sacrificing the larger aperture. Keep in mind, though, that you'll have a very limited DOF which may make focusing tricky.
The general rule of thumb about "gaps" in the focal ranges of your lenses is that you can double the focal length from lens to lens and still be fine. In other words, if you have a 50mm lens already, the next lens you would need would be a 100mm. So, jumping from 50mm to 75-300mm lens won't hurt you at all.
But the thing to watch out for with smaller, cheaper, lighter zoom lenses is that speed of the autofocus. I had a 55-200 for a long time but I found shooting fast-paced sports to be almost impossible. The lens just couldn't autofocus fast enough to keep up with the sports, which was what led me to buy my first 70-200mm f/2.8 (at $1900, so it's a hefty piece of equipment).
As for extension tubes, you'll get what you pay for. There are two basic types: the cheaper, plastic tubes run you about $30 a set, and the better, composite or metal tubes run about $100 a set. The difference is that the cheaper sets will not allow you to set focus or aperture through the camera; it would have to be done manually. If you are setting up on a tripod to shoot a water drop, this can easily be handled. But if you're trying to shoot insects, say a butterfly, this can become tricky. The more expensive versions, up to about $125 at most I think, have contacts built into the tubes so your autofocus and aperture controls still work. ideally, though, you want to buy a macro lens. They are much more expensive, starting at about $500 for the 60mm Macro, but will be worth it in the long run.
Hope this helps.
So, if I had a $1000 lens and I wanted to invest $70 in the filter to protect I guess that would make sense, but with the cheaper lenses I can only afford right now, I can see how that is a pretty pricy insurance policy (I was looking at the cheap ones)
I googled the 70-200mm ~ yipes ~ it took me 19 months to save for the camera LOL, don't think I have the cash for that lens yet. LOL
I didn't even think of using the lens I had to figure out the whole 50/28/35 thing ~ duh!~ thank you! I am going to definitely do as you suggest.
one more question. . somewhere I saw a macro zoom lens. . looks like you switch to macro when you want it. .maybe this would let me do the Hockey/Lax and play with the water drops? I haven't seen them mentioned in any of my searches here. . . has anyone used one? I am off to google places near me that may lend me some lenses to try!!!! thanks again for the help!!!!
i'm using a Kenko ET, it allow me to control aperture and autofocus. But, for macro shot, i prefer to use manual focus.
Yup, it is hard to find good focus on tiny objects (bugs), need alot of practise to master it.
If you interesting on macrophoto, i suggest you to invest a flash unit. Flash unit (speedlite) will help alot on freezing objects. With proper diffusing and some techniques it will come really great.
My daughter has the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro lens and she loves it, and it's not too expensive.
For regular indoor family situations (birthday parties and those types of things) I have a 35mm 1.8 and it has never failed me. It's wide enough to get a family portrait and at the same time, you can get pretty close to the person and get good focusing for a close up.
As far as the UV filter.....I agree with a few of the posters that it is just an added piece of glass to add distortion and take away from clarity. If you are using it for protection, just put the lens hood on and that will give you the protection you are looking for. If you drop your camera, you will most likely be screwed anyway because if the UV filter breaks, the broken glass with scratch the lens anyway. Get a circular polarizing filter if anything....it makes a difference (look at the pregnancy silhouette on my pictures for an example - the sky was not really altered much in PP)
@jasonbarnette . . ..Yipes. . I think I am going to have to see if I can "borrow" one of the lower level zooms and see if it would work, I can see getting very frustrated if I miss all the shots while the lens is still trying for focus as they run by. .. and I am already drooling over that 70-200 from reviews and your comments! haha I think the whole sports lens is going to be the toughest to figure out.
I am thinking if I can get a few $200-$300 lenses to play around with, I will be able to understand more what I am missing and then I can try and focus (and SAVE $$) for that gap. . . .
thanks again! my notes are growing!!!!!!
But like I said in the previous post, I am VERY happy with the 35mm 1.8 and the 70-300 (4.5-5.6).
But be careful using an external flash at sporting events. If it is a professional or college-level event, they will probably ask you to stop using the flash since it can interfere with the game. At adult or little leagues they are usually pretty lenient, but it doesn't provide for the best quality since even the best strobes have a range of about 40-50 feet.
I went crazy and bought the 70-300 and the 580 flash. It cost my bonus but I will never regret it. It opens up all sorts of shots I could not get before. I started out with auto too. Be brave and go for manual. You will soon be confident.
I also bought a circular polarizing filter. It is a must when you shoot through any glass - my zoo photos here were really helped by that filter. And the rich blue skies are great. Get the best one you can for the good results. Good luck and welcome to the bottomless money pit known as photography.
One (just under 1cm diameter button)
Two
Three
thank you for the welcome, this place is amazing!
@eyebrows WOW! I have so much to learn about these things, I would have never thought you could get that close on 60mm. . .. .
Everyone was right about the flash!! I didn't really think about the fact that you probably can't use it in many sporting situations. The 50mm would be good, but very limited on how close to the action you can get.
Do this - Take your kit lens, put it at 50mm and see how you like the zoom. Use it in a well lit place so lighting is not an issue and only focus on the amount of zoom you have. That will give you a good idea of how much a 50mm lens will be. Best of luck!!