best £100 lens ?

arb264

arb264

Suspended / Banned
Messages
112
Name
roger
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking to buy a new lens with a budget of £100 and cant make my mind up between canon Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, my current set-up is, 400d 18-55 non IS and tamron 55-200. I am looking for a general purpose lens that will cope with low light hence the 18-55 IS lens, however, have read good reviews about canon 50mm, could you help me in the right direction.

Thanks

Roger
 
I'd get the 18-55mm IS after having sold the non IS version and the 50mm ones appear on the for sale/trade section quite a lot - usually around £55 posted (second hand). They're both good lenses for the price but I think you should go wider first. :thumbs:
 
The 18-55, isn't the best of the 2 for low light...;)
 
just get the 50mm, it will open up the possibilities of your photography with its subject isolating fast apperture.
 
Another vote for the nifty fifty... I am on my second one and still use it more often than not. The low light ability and DOF is what sets it apart in the sub £100 bracket.
 
I'm new to the forum and DSLR photography and I find this subject very interesting. I would have thought the choice would depend on what you are photographing in low light.
If you are taking a picture of a specific person/item/object that is moving the 50mm f/1.8 would be the best choice, but if you are photographing a landscape or cityscape where you need a longer DOF then the 18-55 IS must be the better option.

As I say I am new to this but I would appreciate anybody elses views.
 
for low light it's the 50mm 1.8. f3.5 on the 18-55 is not considered good for low light.

Strangways you can always drop the f number of the 50mm to change the DOF, for landscapes the question would be more around the focal lengh \ range you wanted. Whilst most people prefer wide angle for this, a good number like using lenses in say the 70-200 range.

But for lowlight, you are normally talking f2.8 or below.
 
If you need a low light lens, the 50mm f/1.8 is a no brainer unless you know how to use flash.

The 50mm will also make you compose the shot, always a plus.
 
Am I being a bit thick here! If you are taking photographs that need to be at f8 or above then the 50mm f1.8 has no advantage, but the 18-55mm has IS and will therefore help if it is hand held or if it is a bit windy with a tripod.
 
OP never mentioned f8, and at f8 the 50mm would be sharper as its a prime

I'd get the 50mm f1.8 they come up often enough, mine was my favorite lens ever until I got the 1.4. Just sold it for 60 quid delivered with a hood so some spare cash for a second battery or second cf card (or both) or other accessory
 
I think because you already have the 18-55 the nifty 50 would be a good buy :)
 
Strangways said:
Am I being a bit thick here! If you are taking photographs that need to be at f8 or above then the 50mm f1.8 has no advantage, but the 18-55mm has IS and will therefore help if it is hand held or if it is a bit windy with a tripod.
Click to expand...

Not at all! But if we re talking about lowlight lenses we are not talking f8, and that's not the OPs question.

For sure if you set two lenses to f8 then the one with IS should be easier to handhold, I think most people turn IS off if it's on a tripod (I've not used IS lenses and not sure if the latest IS lenses are different, but the old IS you were meant to leave it off when on a tripod).
 
Okay, lets try this once again! You want to take a photo of a landscape or cityscape that needs to be hand held. It needs at least f8 or smaller. What would you rather have? A nifty fifty or an 18-55mm IS.
 
If your are buying primarily for low light shooting, I would think again about a 50mm MKII
You would think that this would be a good candidate with its large aperture. The AF is very hit and miss in low light situations, hunts allot, very slow to lock on and when you do get AF conformation there's no guarantee its going to be right. Just the time taken trying to find focus can mean you've missed the shot, it can get frustrating.
 
Bagger;1602906]The AF is very hit and miss in low light situations, hunts allot, very slow to lock on and when you do get AF conformation there's no guarantee its going to be right. Just the time taken trying to find focus can mean you've missed the shot, it can get frustrating.
Click to expand...

BINGO :clap::thumbs:

That's why you got to love this bit of kit, when you get it right it's GOLDEN, almost like you know what you are doing :lol:, the other 99.9 percent of the time it's just a piece of plastic crap!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsdown:

Still love it though.
 
Strangways said:
Okay, lets try this once again! You want to take a photo of a landscape or cityscape that needs to be hand held. It needs at least f8 or smaller. What would you rather have? A nifty fifty or an 18-55mm IS.
Click to expand...


No, we want to take a photograph in low light, not an f/8 landscape hand held.

personally for a scape I'd take the 18-55, but only for the 18mm width, nothing else.

Generally, low light shooting is street/party's/indoor events/sports/weddings that kind of thing, not landscapes, although it could be, but we'd take a tripod if we were serious about it..:)
 
after selling your 18-55mm why not both, second hand? :D

Tough question really, but for a general lens the 18-55mm IS for versatility, because for the slight improvement in IQ, its not that worth it to miss shots you cant get at the wide end... but if purely for low light, then there's no fight and 50mm is best.
 
I will stir things up a little bit:

28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - great lens, I loved at 105mm, so fast and smooth for portraits, but 28mm was lacking
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - I guess similar performace
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - If you can find one that cheap! I'd say it is only second to f/4L non-IS
50mm f/1.8 - I'd go for a good clean mk1 if possible. Same lens, just more accurate and better made, with non-rotating filter thread
28-70 f/3.5-4.5 - old lens, but the reviews say it is very sharp

Avoid 18-55 like a plague! I don't know if the new one is any better, but still very poorly built, and the old was just appalling. The IS is not very effective in that lens anyway.
 
daugirdas said:
I will stir things up a little bit:

28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - great lens, I loved at 105mm, so fast and smooth for portraits, but 28mm was lacking
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - I guess similar performace
70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - If you can find one that cheap! I'd say it is only second to f/4L non-IS
50mm f/1.8 - I'd go for a good clean mk1 if possible. Same lens, just more accurate and better made, with non-rotating filter thread
28-70 f/3.5-4.5 - old lens, but the reviews say it is very sharp

Avoid 18-55 like a plague! I don't know if the new one is any better, but still very poorly built, and the old was just appalling. The IS is not very effective in that lens anyway.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the IS is great in that lens, i think you are forgetting it is one of the new IS designs which has panning and tripod detection built in. I've hand held great shots at 1/15 and 1/10 (and i can post 100% crops)

Arb264, you initially said 'general purpose' imo that points straight to the 18-55 IS. As others have said the AF on the 50mm isnt very good in low light, also it is noticeably softer wide open and i have found these two factors result in shots which are lacking sharpness and generally just get deleted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top