PDA

View Full Version : Recommend Me a Lens.... Please :)



Andreww
2nd February 2009, 01:34 AM
Hi All,

Recently got the Canon EOS 450D enthusiast kit with the stock EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS lens which after playing around with it for a month is fair average :p

I'm looking for a new lens, a general day to day one :)

I'm going to be shooting everything really, (Sport, Landscapes, Fam Portraits) so that makes it a bit harder to find a lens? Or maybe I need more than one?

Also we are going to Japan in about a month so I would like to have a lens that is lightweight if possible so I don't have to cart a brick round the snowfields :D

Price doesn't really matter at this point... as long as it's not uber uber expensive

Thanks :D And

krasivy
2nd February 2009, 02:09 AM
Given that you already have an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, then I won't suggest you the EF-S 17-85mm variant.

Personally, I would personally recommend the "Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Standard Zoom Lens", which goes for around $1,400. It has a constant aperture setting over the entire zoom range, and is a lens that I love using when I'm on trips or whenever out and about. Discount Digital Photographics have them going for $1,389 here (http://www.d-d-photographics.com/canonlenses.htm#24-105).

Alternatively, the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is another possible contender, giving you quite a big zoom range (but without the constant aperture setting as per the previous lens). I believe this one would be similar to the stock lens that you've been using, with the exception that you have a greater zoom range to play with. I have no idea on the image quality for these. DD sells this model for $845 here (http://www.d-d-photographics.com/canonlenses.htm#18-200).

There are more selections on their site - so just browse through and check it out!

The L lens is probably overkill in some ways. But either of these shouldn't be too bad - just depends on what you're really after, specifically.

negatory
2nd February 2009, 02:14 AM
You can't go past the 17-85 IS. Cheap, sturdy and sharp. I've used it primarily in urbex photography - with some landscape, portraiture and night as well - and it still works as well as the day I bought it, even though I've hit it on numerous ladders and metal things (so clearly it should be fine for all your travelling needs!). The image stabilization is incredibly useful too. Here's a link to some photos I've taken with the lens: Flickr: tokicat's stuff tagged with 1785 (http://flickr.com/photos/tokicat/tags/1785/)

forno
2nd February 2009, 06:47 AM
I thought enthusiast kits came with a 17-85??

If you have only been using the camera and lens for a month, and you dont have any prior SLR experience I would stick at it a while before buying a lens. There are many variables that will relly affect your photos. what modes and focus settings are you using?

And yes for the type of photography you are wanting to do you will need 2 lenses

bartron
2nd February 2009, 07:21 AM
The stock 18-55mm lens is actually quite sharp around the f8 mark if this is what you're worried about.

The 18-200 is a good all-rounder lens. Many people I know use it as their 'walk around' lens as it gives a good range and is fairly decent quality. With this you wouldn't need to worry about a 2nd lens for the majority of your shots. Learn your camera back to front though before splashing out on high end lenses...expensive glass won't magically make your photos any better.

Personally my favourite lens is the 24-70 f2.8L..costs about the same as the 24-105 f4 L mentioned above.

arkenstone
2nd February 2009, 07:46 AM
Tamron 28-75. It virtually never leaves my camera.

Fast 2.8 the whole way through, it won't break the bank (grab a second hand one) and I'm really pleased with the sharpness, colour and AF.


If I had to find a fault with it, i'd say 28mm on a 1.6x crop is a little too long but as I don't like the image quality of the 17-85, never mind it being so slow, I'm making do.

fuller
2nd February 2009, 09:15 AM
You want to pick yourself up a 50mm 1.8 prime, its a set focal length but having a prime lens will do you wonders and at 1.8 give you great borkeh, i have this lens on my 450D and 40D and i love it, great for portraits, close ups and street. These go for about $120 new, which leaves you some change to grab a tamron 28-75mm 2.8 which is another lens i have, as mentioned it has a fixed aperture all the way through (2.8) which is great if you want to use polarizing filters or ND filters (the front element does not rotate when focusing allowing you to put filters on that rotate such as the polarizer) These sell for around $550 new on ebay.

If you have change after those two then grab yourself a cheap telephoto and you will have most things covered you 18-55mm for landscapes, 50mm prime for portraits etc, tamrom is a great walk around lens that can be used for pretty much anything, plus it has macro ability's :)

Any other questions feel free to ask.

Quamen
2nd February 2009, 09:50 AM
+1 for the 50mm prime. Great little lens. Especially for travel as it's so small and light.

+1 for the 24-105mm IS f4 L as well. It might seem expensive, but it's worth it. Good focal range and very usable constant aperture when combined with the IS.

Cods
2nd February 2009, 10:21 AM
+1 for a 50mm prime lens with good low light capability (f/1.8 or better).
{aside} As someone else noted, and you probably already know, on your camera every lens length needs to be multiplied by 1.6, due to the fact that the sensor isn't 'full frame' sized. See this recent thread (http://forums.mactalk.com.au/58/66236-noob-questions.html). {ends possibly suck eggs aside}

Arkenstone's recommendation of the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm sounds really interesting. I might have to have a look at that one myself!

Are you looking for a superzoom, or just a decent 'normal' zoom like the one mentioned above?

Andreww
2nd February 2009, 10:29 AM
Thanks for all the quick replys! :)

Yeah I already knew about the crop factor thing with DSLR's

Probably just looking for a 'normal' zoom lens.

jetsetkiwi
2nd February 2009, 06:52 PM
Hmm, as a newbie - there might not be much point in just getting another "normal" zoom lens.

I would recommend getting either a wide angle or telephoto lens. Not sure what type of photography you do, but a wide angle lens is always cool. Something like the Sigma 10-20 (not the best, but cheap) or Tokina 11-16 2.8 etc are great lenses. Even the Canon 10-22 if you can afford it is excellent on a crop body.

krasivy
2nd February 2009, 10:29 PM
Even the Canon 10-22 if you can afford it is excellent on a crop body.

Oh, forgot about the EF-S 10-22mm lens... now that's a truly fun lens.

However, I would probably get that as a third lens. A longer range telephoto is probably something that's more deserving as a second lens though...

BCains
2nd February 2009, 11:30 PM
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (which is 27-80mm on a crop)

nice range for travel/walkabout, fast enough for sports (not long enough really thou)
very sharp, comes with a lens hood also (bonus) and at a great price; can be hand new for about $550ish

i travelled the states and it never came off, i'm very impressed with it. take a look on my flickr for some shots.

decryption
2nd February 2009, 11:52 PM
50mm f/1.8
17-85 IS
10-20 EF-S

That's all you need to take good photos. Get a telephoto lens if you really need it.

negatory
3rd February 2009, 01:13 AM
50mm f/1.8
17-85 IS
10-20 EF-S

That's all you need to take good photos. Get a telephoto lens if you really need it.

Agreed. This is my pretty much what my kit consists of. I find myself sticking to the wider range of all those lenses, excluding the nifty fifty obviously. You might think you need a telephoto, but truth is, it's just really fucking annoying and a complete waste of money unless you're going to be taking photos of birds in trees.

decryption
3rd February 2009, 01:27 AM
You might think you need a telephoto, but truth is, it's just really fucking annoying and a complete waste of money unless you're going to be taking photos of birds in trees.

Or photos of race cars and cricket. If you're into that. Babies too. If the police don't let you too close to babies that is.

forno
3rd February 2009, 09:12 AM
I reckon the 17-85IS is a waste of money over the 18-55IS

Bluemist
5th February 2009, 12:15 PM
Tamron 28-75. It virtually never leaves my camera.

Fast 2.8 the whole way through, it won't break the bank (grab a second hand one) and I'm really pleased with the sharpness, colour and AF.


If I had to find a fault with it, i'd say 28mm on a 1.6x crop is a little too long but as I don't like the image quality of the 17-85, never mind it being so slow, I'm making do.

I have this lens too and it's great! i bought mine new...and it's fantastic.
It's not as sharp as my primes..but then zooms never are. Totally recommend it! Should do everything you need it to.!::)

tripwu
5th February 2009, 01:28 PM
get the canon 24-70mm 2.8 ...sharp as a tac

ninjamoeba
5th February 2009, 02:35 PM
+1 for the 50mm prime. Great little lens. Especially for travel as it's so small and light.

The 50mm prime is the single greatest lens you can buy. And cheap cheap cheap.

JonoNZ
18th February 2009, 06:39 PM
I have:
EF 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty)
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (fantastic lens and super sharp and fast, but pricey, my walkaround lens -- almost always attached)
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

Wishlist:
EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM