Hellobee Boards

My Canon T2i came with the 18-55mm lens, and that was pretty good as a beginner. The majority of my photos are of Xander though, so I ended up wanting a prime lens with a good aperture (the 50mm f/1.8 is a great beginner prime lens) and then I pretty much used that exclusively until I splurged on the 35mm f/2.0 lens which is now the only one I use.

For indoor shots, you'll want a lens that can open wide (has a low f-stop, like the f/1.8, etc) so you can get as much light in as possible. For outdoor shots, that won't be as important unless you take pictures at night.

I rarely zoom IN, so going to 135mm would not appeal to me at all. With the 50mm prime, I often wanted to zoom OUT and couldn't, which is why I made the switch to the 35mm.

I should add, my husband HATES my prime lenses because he's soooooo used to the ability to zoom in and out, which you'll get with both the 18-55 and 18-135 lenses. And I'll admit, it does take a little getting used to with a prime lens to just move your feet to get the picture you're wanting (which can be hard or impossible if you're inside and constricted).

@thismustbetheplace: Are the costs the same for the 18-55 vs the 18-135? If so, then you might as well get the 18-135 since you'll be able to same the same kinds of pictures (close range) AND have the ability to zoom in. If the 18-135 is more expensive, then I'd suggest going with the 18-55 and putting the savings towards a better lens once you have an idea of what you like and want.

I know @thismustbetheplace: is not reading this, since she just had a baby (congrats!!) but I agree with everything that @Adira: said about prime lenses (and reasons why you might not like them) and needing low aperture.

For me personally, I started with a kit that gave me an 18-55 and a 75-300 (I think, roughly). That was perfect to start, but I quickly learned that I couldn't take good indoor pics without the flash (and flash=ugly pics, imo). Then I got the 50 1.8 because it was so cheap ($100), but like Adira said, it didn't work well for my cropped sensor camera... unless you were taking detail shots of say, a baby's nose, you'd have to be out of arms reach, or for group shots you'd have to be clear across the room to get everyone in it. Once I had more experience and $$, I got a Tamron 17-50 2.8, which was the perfect combo for me, because (like Adira's DH) I liked the ability to zoom, it zooms out far enough to get wide shots, and the aperture is low (2.8 is plenty low enough for most indoor situations).

My T3 came with a 18-55 and I wanted a zoom lens for vacations so I bought a 18-200, but then that lens broke so I was looking for replacements and thought I wanted a zoom again. But when I went back and looked through my pictures, I'd say they were 95% 18-50 and I never even used that extra range, so I'd say the 18-55 is a good general purpose lens. For portraits though, I'd definitely invest in a good prime. I started with the 50mm 1.8, but I hated it. For a crop frame with the canon rebels are, it was just much too zoomed for me and I had to be too far from the subject. I got a sigma 30mm 1.4 now and love it. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't even waste the $100 on the 50mm, and save up the $300-350 for the 30mm.

I would buy the highest quality/fastest lens you can afford.

Fast = widest aperture (1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, etc.) <-- Lower numbers are better

The 18-55 is f/3.5-5.6 with image stabilization
The 18-135 is also f/3.5-5.6 with image stabilization

If the price is equal and weight is not a factor, then I'd go with the one with greater range.

But if Lens A was f/2.8-5.6 and Lens B were f/3.5-5.6, I'd go with lens A.

@Shutterbug: @Adira: @thismustbetheplace: I was going through threads with no replies and decided to bump this one.

Great advice on this thread. Maybe I'll rent one and/ or maybe I'll keep my eye out for a 35mm. I'll add it to my never ending baby wish list.