Im not a rich fellow by any means, have a 350d, base lens and 50mm lens.

I am really getting into photography but feel I need another lens. As mentioned to me before I should look at the 24-70mm 2.8, and I do like the look of this lens.

would it be worth, going into (more)debt by getting this lens if I am serious about getting into photography further?

What are you serious about shooting? How serious? You are already covered up to 55mm. Why get another lens that doesn't really give you much more versatility? No matter what you're shooting, a 70-200 would make more sense to me. Without knowing what kind of photography you are into, it's tough to make a recommendation. The faster 24-70 would be important for particular applications, but if you don't have a real need for this fast of a lens, I'd say go with something that will expand your horizons.

Also, if you can barely pay your monthly mortgage or car payment, I would recommend no new lens until you're financially more stable and don't have to go into debt to buy a lens.

Unless you are doing indoor sports, I do not thing a 24-70 F2.8 would be a good choice. I would have to know more of what you like to shoot before I can give a meaningful suggestion.

Well I am looking to get into portraits and architecture shots... the 24-70mm looks like a great versatile lens, and reading a number of the reviews I decided to go for it.

I managed to get it at a great price (250+ cheaper than Jessops). Have also got a 580ex II on the way :)....

let the fun begin hehe

A 24 won't be wide on that camera so I don't think it's a good answer if you're interested in architecture. You may want to look at a superwide - I think Canon has a 10-22 but I am happy with my Sigma 10-20.

Getting deeper, why do you feel you need a different lens? I'm assuming the base lens you have is in the range of 18-55, and the difference you'd get with a 24-70 is only the 55-70 area which to me isn't much. One thing you really may want would be a bubble level that mounts in the hot shoe - Bogen/Manfrotto and others make them. This will do a great job at making sure the camera is perfectly level which is very important with architecture.

The 50 should be great for portraits and I'm sure you could shoot a great portfolio with just that one lens. I'm really not a fan of debt, so unless you have a specific reason for needing a specific lens I guess I'd recommend against buying anything.

hi another view, I am not a fan of debt either, its very crap.

The main drive for picking that lense was due to it having excellent reviews.. 18-55mm has served its purpose well and is about the range I take my pictures at, but the quality compared to the 50mm 1.8 isnt that great. So I would like a nice all around lens, that covers a good range so I dont have to keep swapping lenses around.

Ive taken the plunge now and will get some shots up asap.

Thanks for the tip about the Bubble Level, ill look into getting one.

Some of my first shots with the 24-70mm

http://photos.valind.co.uk/flower1.jpg
http://photos.valind.co.uk/flower2.jpg
http://photos.valind.co.uk/flower3.jpg
http://photos.valind.co.uk/flower4.jpg

There is not a thing wrong with the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, but for portraits and architecture shots: your 50 mm f1.8 is the lens to use, as for architecture you need something wider than the 24mm which unless you have a full frame camera. You may consider a 10-20mm lens for your architecture photo needs.

Hello-
I am new to this website, and I am not quite sure where to post my question, so if you could please direct me if I am not in the right area.

I have a Nikon D40 and I love all types of photography, especially sports (I know that the D40 is not an ideal sports photography camera). However, I have decided that it is time to get myself a new lens. I went into a photography store and they recommended that I should get a Nikon 55-200 lens or a Tamron 70-300 lens (those are the only two lenses that were in my price budget). Could you please give me some advice on which one I should get? Also, does VR make a big enough difference to pay a good mount of more money for it? Thanks.

Hello-
I am new to this website, and I am not quite sure where to post my question, so if you could please direct me if I am not in the right area.

I have a Nikon D40 and I love all types of photography, especially sports (I know that the D40 is not an ideal sports photography camera). However, I have decided that it is time to get myself a new lens. I went into a photography store and they recommended that I should get a Nikon 55-200 lens or a Tamron 70-300 lens (those are the only two lenses that were in my price budget). Could you please give me some advice on which one I should get? Also, does VR make a big enough difference to pay a good mount of more money for it? Thanks.

It all depends on the photos you are thing of taking. Evening/Night stadium sports always have poor lighting for photography you will need a fast lens and with VR to squeeze an extra stop for free hand work. VR on a tripod is not a good idea.

It all depends on the photos you are thing of taking. Evening/Night stadium sports always have poor lighting for photography you will need a fast lens and with VR to squeeze an extra stop for free hand work. VR on a tripod is not a good idea.

If its the lens I think it is (sub $200), its not going to be very good for sports photography. I own this lens for Canon and its brilliantly slow and noisey--that's when you are lucky enough to get a focal lock at all. Moving objects really seem to confuse this lens. Its also soft. I can't say I've ever shot one truly sharp image with it, but that could be pilot error!