Canon 60D - What lens(es) will give me an all-round coverage for various situations?

thezeronumber

thezeronumber

Suspended / Banned
Messages
29
Edit My Images
Yes
I've taken a course in BTEC Photographgy and i also own a film SLR (which i haven't used much outside of education), but still consider myself to be a newbie as i haven't got a great deal of hands-on experience. I love Photography and the art it creates, i've just not got around to doing it myself. A few weeks back i finally decided on my first DSLR and long-term investment; the Canon 60D. But in my obsession of finding a camera i forgot about the lenses completely. Cue a random turn of events that life likes to throw at you and the search never really began until yesterday night. I have had a look around but the choices are overwhelming - Choosing a camera is a breeze compared to choosing some glass! I've come here in the hope some people can aid me.

(My old SLR may have compatible lenses, i will have to check them out).

The "various situations" part of the title is just that really. It might be easier to choose if i specifically did one thing but i'm a fingers-in-many-pies kind of guy and like to dabble in different areas, so my subjects are pretty varied. For example, i own a hobbyist RC car so if i got my friend to drive it i would be taking fast-action shots outdoors, yet at the other end of the scale i might be indoors with fairly poor light and would be taking photos of my Jack Russell, Rolo. For filming i might want a large DOF so it's easier to focus on a moving subject (it being manual and all), yet for stills i might want a shallow DOF to give that special effect. When it comes to the opposite ends of focal lengths i'm not too fussed. Sure, i might find a scene where a decent telephoto would be brilliant for capturing the moment which i cannot simply walk up to, likewise i might come across a large landscape which i feel the need to shoot in wide-screen, but neither one is high priority and i could live without them. The only thing i am really set on doing is Macro and for that i am likely purchasing the Canon 100mm (subject to change). At around £400 though, it's on the "things to buy after i have the main lenses sorted out" list.

I don't have a budget as such but i would like to avoid spending a small fortune. I was tempted to just buy the "nifty fifty" EF 50 mm f/1.8 II and call it a day for £80, but i would be without the option for larger DOF and i know i'd miss it (not to mention i may need some IS when starting out). So i started thinking about having that and another lens, maybe a zoom that can go for both wide and tele shots, but then comes the potential problem of warping on both extremes and the quality of the image may suffer for the very reason of it being a zoom lens. Hmm...

I know the 60D has 3 kit options (the EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which seems to come with almost everything, the EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and the EF-S 17-85 mm f/4-5.6 IS USM), but i see a lot of people talking negatively about these lenses. Are they really that bad or is it a stigma which the term "kit lens" brings? All of them have image stabilisation which i imagine is going to be very handy when i don't have a tripod. The 18-135mm sounds pretty good on paper but it's hard to tell without hearing it from experienced users. Anyone can go on a site like Amazon and give a good/bad review of it, which is fair enough, but those people could be newbies such as myself and that apparent issue of soft-focus could be down to inexperience and the fault of the user, not the product. The same can be said for every other lens out there, be it Canon, Sigma, or another brand.

All-in-all, i'm lost in a maze of glass and i don't know which way to turn. Can anyone offer some advice or suggestions? Sorry for the lengthy post, i wanted to get as much background information down as possible in case it helped people to help me!
 
Last edited:
Do you have a budget? If not then the Canon EF-s 17-55 f2.8 is a cracker of a lens.. But is probably well out of budget if your a student.
The Tamron 17-50 F2.8 doesnt have the IS of the above, but is under half the price... Seriously good lens for the money! http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1391.html

The nifty fifty is a great purchase, and you will learn a lot using it.. Good in low light (f1.8), nice tight DOF at 1.8 and shows up a lot more expensive lenses...

To have a read about any lenses you are considering take a look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ Lots of user reviews, ratings etc. Use www.camerapricebuster.co.uk to check prices

Hope thats some help,
Sam
 
Last edited:
You can forget the DoF issue. All lenses can be stopped down from their maximum to increase DoF. The nifty fifty will go to f 22 I think (someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

If DoF and fast hutter/low light is really important, the most often suggested zoom is the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 NON VC (supposedly sharper). If you want more range, the next often suggested is the 15-85 f3.5-f5.6, but that is much slower and won't give fast shutters (needed for freezing motion/moving objects in low light) or shallow DoF you may be after. Pair one of these with a 70-200F4L (or 55-250 IS if you want to spend less, but IMHO, the f4 is worth it) and you have a great set of lenses that will cover most eventualities until you have worked out what you want.
 
If you want 'all round covereage', I'd suggest you look for an ultra-wide lens, a walkabout lens, a telephoto, and a fast prime (and the macro afterwards). Depending on how much you want to spend, there are a couple of different ways of getting this. Firstly, the 'money-no-object setup':

  • Canon 10-22mm
  • Canon 17-55mm
  • Canon 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8, IS or non-IS (there are plenty of threads weighing up the pros and cons of these 4 lenses)
  • The fast prime depends on your shooting style, personally I'd suggest the Canon 85mm f/1.8, but you could also go for the Canon 50mm 1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.2, Sigma 85mm f/1.4, Canon 85mm f/1.2, etc etc.

The lenses listed above are some of the best you can get, but carry hefty price tags. You can spend a LOT less, and get kit that's only very slightly inferior (but still really, properly good!). In my view, the best 'bang-for-buck' lineup would be:

  • Sigma 10-20mm
  • Tamron 17-50mm (the non-VC version)
  • Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS, OR Sigma 70-200 f/2.8
  • Canon 85mm f/1.8

Alternatively, you could swap the 17-50 for a kit lens (which has limitations, but is arguably the best lens per pound available!) and go for a slightly wider fast prime to cover all of the indoors type stuff. Hope this helps!

Chris
 
Last edited:
I agree with Chris. I have the "budget" version above apart from the uwa (which is next on my list).

If you go 2nd hand you will be looking around
Tamron 17-50 non VC £210
Canon 50mm 1.8 £60
Canon 70-200 f4 non IS £370
Sigma 10-20mm £275

If you are interested in macro photography I'd suggest either a Tamron 90mm or sigma 105mm. I got the former for approx £160 from the classifieds here
 
I also agree with Chris and have as he suggests Canon 10-22mm, Canon 17-55mm, Canon 70-200 f/4 IS and a Canon 400mm f/5.6

Pretty much sorted for anything and all bought s/hand to keep the cost down a bit, not looking for anything else and only possible omission is a Macro lens, but not really my thang
 
My advice would be get the camera and the best standard range zoom you can afford. Anything from the kit 18-55 (which is actually pretty good, and exceptional value) to the rather more costly (and superb) 17-55 2.8. There are numerous choices inbetween - just concentrate on getting that right, because that's the lens you will use for the majority of everything you shoot and you want to make it a keeper.

Don't buy anything else until you're fully comfortable with that combo, then fill the gaps - one at a time - on a priority basis. Don't forget a decent flash gun, and learn how to use it fully, which will expand your photography more than many extra lenses.

If you rush out and buy everything at once, you will make costly mistakes. It's almost inevitable, because right now you won't know for for sure what you want to do, exactly how to go about it in equipment terms, where it sits in the pecking order, or how much you're prepared to spend.

For example, if you put a budget of £2k on all the things you want to do above and asked for recommendations, nobody's list would be the same. That's guaranteed! Take it one step at a time ;)
 
I wouldn't buy a whole bunch of glass up front - I think it makes more sense to start simple and find out what works for you. But if you did want to cover the examples you give above for not too much cash I'd get:
  1. Ultra Wide Angle (UWA): Don't bother to begin with, but get the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 later if you want to try it out
  2. Standard zoom: Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as others have recommended, I've not used it personally but it has a good reputation
  3. Fast prime/macro: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 - Fastish prime, different focal length to the standard zoom, gives you macro as well. Or give up on the macro, save some cash and get the 50mm f/1.8 instead
  4. Zoom: Canon EF-S 50-250mm f/4-5.6 IS - cheaper than the 70-200mm f/4L, more useful range in my opinion, although a bit less IQ and focussing ability

While writing this I've just seen Richard's post and fundamentally I agree (as usual) with him - take it easy initially and work out what you need for yourself as you go along :)
 
It wasn't clear in my first post but HoppyUK and SixToes (thanks to both) have advised me on what i was originally planning to do; buy one or two lenses now and stick with them until i am ready to move on. I wish to cover the various bases eventually but not all at once in a single purchase because i've still got some learning to do. A fast prime is probably going to be my most used lens so that is a must, but my second one (if i am to go with two) is yet undecided. Ultra wide angle isn't essential and Macro is best left until i am comfortable using the camera, plus they both require a pretty penny to invest in. It's really a toss-up between a telephoto lens or a general zoom.

Until now i had been relying on my phone to take 8mp photos and have thus gotten used to "zooming" with my feet; rarely have i wanted to get closer to the action and not been able to. Getting a general zoom for this seems a bit redundant when i could purchase a prime and use that instead, but at the same time the ability to zoom out below the 50mm focal length is appealing. My camera sensor is 1.6x crop and relying on a prime length of 50mm will result in an equivalent 80mm, which may be a little hard to swallow when i've only got a few feet of space to work in. Am i going to struggle with that prime for general shots around the house? I've looked at the lower focal length primes and they cost vastly more; the reviews seem to be mixed on these as some people struggle to weigh the extra cost with the quality, which apparently is very similar to that of the 50mm. Bit stuck on that one. As for the telephoto, i simply want to take nice quality shots from a distance away; sports, wildlife, that sort of thing. The only con i see here is trying to balance price versus quality because if i cannot achieve a fairly sharp image at longer focal lengths with a fairly low cost then i will wait until i can afford something which meets that criteria.

@ Sam_Cat - I mentioned i don't have a budget but that was because i didn't want to say "i wish to spend under £200" if something costing £300 may be a much better choice in comparison. Still a student although part-time now, i guess you could say i'm starting to bridge the gap between "being a student" and "being employed". Thanks for the links, those sites are going to help a great deal.

@ Arad - Didn't know the 50mm f1.8 could be stopped down that far, thanks for mentioning. Fast shutter/low light is indeed going to be fairly important, although concerning general zooms i may have the prime to cover that area. The L lens is too rich for my tastes but the 55-250 looks pretty neat and cheap too, i will research that a little more.

@ Chris - Yep, those type of lenses seem best to cover it all, i appreciate the suggestions. For an L lens the 70-200mm f4 is not that badly priced although it's still out of my league and i think going for a 50mm or lower length prime is best for me due to the 1.6x crop. I have a question about the Tamron 17-50mm though, for those which have experienced it: Is the transition from 18mm to 17mm (rough equivalent of 29mm to 27mm) going to make that much of a difference to a shot? The Tamron has potential for larger aperture but if the lens was zoomed out to 18mm and compared to the kit lenses (both 18-55mm and 18-135mm) which were also at 18mm, would there be a noticeable change in image quality? As noted at the start of this post, general zooms are only holding my interest at the moment because they can achieve a wider view than the prime which will be great when there is a lack of space. There is a large price gap between the Tamron and the two Kits so i'm intrigued to say the least.

@ Mike Never really thought about going second-hand but i can see its appeal. What are the requirements for the trading section on this forum? That Tamron sounded like a bargain although the Canon/Sigma interests me more for the focal length, i will have to compare the prices to working distance when i get round to choosing. Thanks for the info.

Thanks for the help so far everyone. Sorry for another lengthy reply! :)
 
Last edited:
The thing is, all that is hypothetical. You will find that, for all sorts of reasons, reality doesn't stack up like you expect.

Start with the basic essentials, and build one step at a time. You will inevitably discover, probably sooner rather than later, that what you thought you wanted or have just bought, isn't quite what you expected. So you change it, or modify the next purchase choice, and then that throws out the whole long term plan. It gets expensive - fun, but expensive.

For example, I've had more than a dozen lenses over the last few years, since turning digital. None of the lenses I have now are those I started with, I've had four attempts to get macro and the 70-200-ish range right, one lens I've bought twice (50 1.8).

Maybe I'm fickle, maybe I don't know my own mind. Maybe, but I'm certainly fairly typical :)
 
"I was tempted to just buy the "nifty fifty" EF 50 mm f/1.8 II and call it a day for £80, but i would be without the option for larger DOF and i know i'd miss it (not to mention i may need some IS when starting out)"

What do you mean by larger DOF do you think that the 50mm can only be shot at f1.8 and why do you think IS is essential for a beginner
 
thezeronumber said:
@ Chris - Yep, those type of lenses seem best to cover it all, i appreciate the suggestions. For an L lens the 70-200mm f4 is not that badly priced although it's still out of my league and i think going for a 50mm or lower length prime is best for me due to the 1.6x crop. I have a question about the Tamron 17-50mm though, for those which have experienced it: Is the transition from 18mm to 17mm (rough equivalent of 29mm to 27mm) going to make that much of a difference to a shot? The Tamron has potential for larger aperture but if the lens was zoomed out to 18mm and compared to the kit lenses (both 18-55mm and 18-135mm) which were also at 18mm, would there be a noticeable change in image quality? As noted at the start of this post, general zooms are only holding my interest at the moment because they can achieve a wider view than the prime which will be great when there is a lack of space. There is a large price gap between the Tamron and the two Kits so i'm intrigued to say the least.
Click to expand...

1-2mm isnt of course going to massively change your view but when you get to the wide end it does make a noticble difference. The Big difference between the Tamron and the Canon lenses is the 2.8 appature vs Image stabalisation, the former will help you catch movement in low light and provide a bit of focus isolation/bokeh, the latter will allow you use longer shutter speeds in low light on static objects.

Your also paying for improved build quality on the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-85, mental mount, tougher plastics, better zoom/focus rings, a front element that doesnt rotate allowing you to use a polarizer and grad filters and with the Canon full time manual focusing(you can turn the focus ring manually even when in autofocus mode).

@ Mike Never really thought about going second-hand but i can see its appeal. What are the requirements for the trading section on this forum? That Tamron sounded like a bargain although the Canon/Sigma interests me more for the focal length, i will have to compare the prices to working distance when i get round to choosing. Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

There are of course dealers aswell like MPB and London Camera Exchange who generally provide a 6 month warrenty if your worried about buying from individuals.

One thing to consider aswell is that if you buy used then deside a lens isnt for you or look to upgrade you will lose alot less money than if you buy new. The Canon 17-85 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 are for example both around £200 most places and I'd guess will still be worth something near to that in a couple of years time unless so big unforseen shift in the market takes place.

One thing I'd add with the 17-85 is that alot of the reason it got a bad rep was that when it was first released it was far more highly priced, not far behind where the 15-85 is now I believe. For that price people expected a very high quality product where as used today its price is much more inline with its performance.
 
I've just looked at some test shots of 3 different lenses that I'm interested in the Canon 15-85 is usm , Canon 17-85 is usm and the tamron 17-50. F 2.8 and the tamron was the worst performer of them all in second place was the canon 17-85 is usm and first(not by much)was the canon 15-85 is usm
The 2 canons are very compareble and the result of the shots are almost identical, here is how I look at it ...
Canon 17-85 is usm £290
Canon 15-85 is usm £555
It's a no brained for me 555-290=£265 what do I get extra for £265? NOT much at all!
Get the 17-85 and a fast prime like the 50mm f1.8 and save up for the 24-105 f4L
 
Second hand you can get the 24-105 for around £600....
Just a though..
Sam
 
lucky_13 said:
U can get it brand new for £730
Click to expand...

And at any price, most folks find it's too long at the 24mm end as a general walkabout lens on crop format cameras. It's designed for full frame.
 
Stick with Canon,, too long for what? Wide angle? There is always the option of UWA canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for wide angle shots. Let's face it a UWA will always be better then a mid range zoom for landscape etc.
 
You are obviously on a pretty tight budget here so keep it as simple as possible.In your situation it's a no brainer to pick up the 18-55is with the camera.Splash out on the 50 F1.8 and you have a lot of shooting situations covered.
If you can stretch to it also pick up the 55-200is and a cheap set of communicating extension tubes to use with the 50mm.That gives you some macro usability.
Upgrade when you see fit.If you are used to just using the phone on your camera all of the above kit is going to blow you away whatever happens.
Unless you have the bank balance to back it up stop reading about all these L lenses.All you will do is take the enjoyment away from whatever you decide to buy.

Cheers
Gary
 
lucky_13 said:
Stick with Canon,, too long for what? Wide angle? There is always the option of UWA canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16 f2.8 for wide angle shots. Let's face it a UWA will always be better then a mid range zoom for landscape etc.
Click to expand...

Between 15-18mm and 24mm isnt really close to UWA on a crop though, its a range that will fall into many peopels general purpose needs hence the need to carry both and swap between them often.

Everything works for some people I spose but to me the 24-105 on a crop just doesnt seem to make much sense. I can understand people going for the 24-70 2.8 over the 17-55 2.8 on a crop because they want more of a protrait zoom with a wide appature but is 105mm really going to me that much more useful than 85mm for most people?
 
Thanks once again for the replies.

@ HoppyUK: I appreciate the honesty and i guess this hobby is just one of those things where you have to try before you can know for sure.

@ CaptainPenguin: I worded that terribly, not sure what i was thinking when i typed it. I was trying to say that a prime lens is fine for photos but i know i'd miss the large DoF + zoom (keyword i missed out) another lens could bring when it comes to recording, which would result in better focusing and smoother zooms whilst filming. I don't think that IS is essential but it would certainly be handy for someone like me which is getting to grips with a new camera. The main reason i am after image stabilisation is for filming: Hand-held recording of videos is going to be the situation most of the time and i didn't want to carry around a stabilisation rig everywhere i go. The IS could soak up all the little jitters, hand shakes, etc. I'm worried that if i don't have IS the final clip will look very shaky and poor quality, regardless if i am sitting down, standing up, or walking slowly.

@ Moreorless: Fair point about the focal lengths. I've had a look at the Tamron 17-50mm and my impression of it has improved greatly. There are a couple of oddities, such as the apparently common problem of a rattling noise due to the front lens coming loose and the loud focusing motor which is best avoided in quieter situations, but those aside it does seem pretty nice. Distortion at the wider end is noticeable although not by a large degree and it's completely gone after 24mm. Only something you'd pick up on if you are trying to find faults whilst shooting straight-edged subjects at 17-24mm, overall i'm quite content with the performance. This could possibly be my very first lens, or even one of my two choices!

@ lucky_13: I was thinking the exact same thing when i saw those two lenses. It appears you are paying almost double the price for an extra 2mm on the wide end with not a lot else to add. Speaking hypothetically, i'd rather get the 17-85mm, save an extra £200+, and get an ultra-wide angle later on to cover the extra ground plus then some. Moving on, what was it about the Tamron that made you put it last in ranking?

@ WillieL: I will quote one of the reviews i've read on this: ""Complicated" is the best word I can think of to describe the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Lens' overall image quality." Having looked at various images and other reviews, i have to agree. It's great to have it all in one bundle but the quality loss is shown in the price and i know i'd feel frustrated having the focal lengths i want without the crisp images. As you've said, it's a Jack of all trades and Master of none. Thanks for the suggestion though, appreciated greatly.

@ vulcan2912: Not that tight of a budget but i see what you are getting at. I've briefly looked at the Canon 55-250mm IS (i believe you meant that, if not please correct me) and it seems brilliant. There was a topic about it here recently and everyone was singing its praises. Once i get to grips with my first purchase(s) i will take it into consideration.

As for the chatter over the 24-105mm L lens, it's out of my league and would continue to be for a while to come. Even if i could afford it, i don't think it's something i'd be interested in as it's a weird focal length if you ask me. 24-50mm is covered by general zooms and the 50-105mm isn't that much of a telephoto, even when put on a crop camera such as my own. I know it's an L lens meaning it is built with survivability and great quality in mind, but i'd be tempted to save a small fortune and get a much more useful/longer focal length with a different lens. As noted in my earlier posts, telephoto and wide angle is nice but not something i'm greatly interested in, i would just like the option if it was there when i rarely need it. I would feel very uncomfortable spending £600+ on a lens which i barely use while one costing £80-270 is going to be practically glued to my camera 24/7.
 
Last night and this morning i started thinking about lenses (again) and it suddenly hit me that i was forgetting about one key thing; how well they perform not just for photography but also for filming. When hand-held, a decent shutter speed and stable-footing will give me the photos i'm after because i'm capturing a single frame at the right moment, but if i am recording a video then increasing the shutter speed won't help prevent the inevitable hand-shake which will be greatly amplified in the final result. While i may not need image stabilisation for photography, i most certainly need it for videography.

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 has a VC version (Vibration Control, aka Tamrons version of the Image Stabilisation) that costs around £50 more, but i've heard for one reason or another that it's lesser quality over the non-VC offering. I investigated a little and people seemed to be pretty happy with it, although a couple said it needed a bit of a auto-focus micro-adjustment to be as sharp as it can be. Naturally i checked if the 60D has AFMA and... No, it does not. Correct me if wrong but it seems that the non-VC Tamron 17-50mm is near-enough spot-on while the VC version needs micro-adjusting to be just as good, which my camera is sadly not capable of.

I cannot help but question if lenses need AFMA to reach their best or if they should always be at their best when you first receive and use the product. In my instance where i cannot micro-adjust, if i bought the Vibration Control version of the Tamron lens and it seemed a little soft then would i be right in saying i can get it replaced in the hope that the next one i receive is going to be sharp(er)? Hopefully that made sense, a bit tricky to word.

I've fallen in love with the idea of a general zoom that is both fairly fast and is capable of 17-18mm on the wide end (or 28-30mm on a crop) so i'm feeling torn in my decisions once again. The Sigma 18-50mm didn't get blazing reviews for sharpness and the f2.8 is increased to f4.5 the more you zoom in, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-VC is great for photography but not for videography due to a lack of stabilisation, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC is great if i have AFMF but i sadly don't, and the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 looks great aside from price tag which is more than 2x the cost of the previously mentioned lenses.

Argh, this is a nightmare to decipher. :(
 
Last edited:
thezeronumber said:
@ CaptainPenguin: I worded that terribly, not sure what i was thinking when i typed it. I was trying to say that a prime lens is fine for photos but i know i'd miss the large DoF + zoom .
Click to expand...

As has been said your incorrect if you think a Canon 50mm 1.8 or almost any lens can only be used at the listed appature, it can be stopped down for a greater DoF just like any zoom. The problem I'd say you'll have its that other than the 50mm 1.8 primes arent cheap, the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for example is nearly £370. Something like the 28mm 2.8 is worse than the 17-55 in every reguard I believe(well its lighter:D) and still cosst over £200. Primes only seem worth it to me if you want that really large appature for shallow DoF at lower focal lenghts.

What your seeing with the Tamron 17-50's is that to get everything(or many things) done well on a lens you need to pay for it. £50 extra for IS/VC is very cheap indeed compaired to say Canons 70-200 zooms where you can pay £400 more. The difference is Tamron sacrifced image quality to get the VC into the lens more cheaply where as Canon didnt. The same is true of the 17-85 vs the 15-85 you mentioned earlier, you don't just pay for the extra 2mm with the latter but also superior image quality at the wide end generally.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 IS might seem expensive but its effectively giving you the Tamron 17-50 non VC AND a Sigma 17-70 OS combined into one package(slightly less range but better image quality), if you really need both of those things and the best image quality its not a bad deal.
 
@ arad85: Interesting article, thanks for the link. Makes me feel a little better about having no AFMA. An external mic is already on my list of things to buy, no worries there. :)

@ Moreorless: The way you quoted my text makes it sound like i am thinking in that way but i'm not, it was one of those brain-freeze moments! Basically, the prime would give me the large DoF for holding manual-focus easier while recording but it doesn't have the zoom (or even the IS) i require either, meaning jerky hand-held shots and no ability to zoom in or out smoothly. That's where the talk of the Tamron comes in because it has the additional zoom with large DoF while still keeping the fairly fast aperture for Photos, but it has no IS (or VC in this case) which is vital for my Videos. Your statement of "to get everything(or many things) done well on a lens you need to pay for it" is sadly true 90% of the time. I looked at the Tamron VC again and it really is of lesser quality when compared to the non-VC, i dare say the images resembled ones you would see from a Canon kit 18-55mm.

Still not getting anywhere am i, ha ha. I don't see the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS selling for under £500 second-hand so it's still out of my league. I'm tempted to get the Tamron non-VC and chuck smooth video capability out the window but i have a feeling i will miss the stabilisation a great deal and it will scratch at the back of my mind every-time an opportunity to use video arrives. I know i'm going round in circles but it's a tricky situation for me and i bet every photographer has gone through the same when first starting out!
 
thezeronumber said:
@ Moreorless: The way you quoted my text makes it sound like i am thinking in that way but i'm not, it was one of those brain-freeze moments! Basically, the prime would give me the large DoF for holding manual-focus easier while recording but it doesn't have the zoom (or even the IS) i require either, meaning jerky hand-held shots and no ability to zoom in or out smoothly. That's where the talk of the Tamron comes in because it has the additional zoom with large DoF while still keeping the fairly fast aperture for Photos, but it has no IS (or VC in this case) which is vital for my Videos. Your statement of "to get everything(or many things) done well on a lens you need to pay for it" is sadly true 90% of the time. I looked at the Tamron VC again and it really is of lesser quality when compared to the non-VC, i dare say the images resembled ones you would see from a Canon kit 18-55mm.

Still not getting anywhere am i, ha ha. I don't see the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS selling for under £500 second-hand so it's still out of my league. I'm tempted to get the Tamron non-VC and chuck smooth video capability out the window but i have a feeling i will miss the stabilisation a great deal and it will scratch at the back of my mind every-time an opportunity to use video arrives. I know i'm going round in circles but it's a tricky situation for me and i bet every photographer has gone through the same when first starting out!
Click to expand...


Don't hold the 18-55 IS up as an example of poor image quality when making your choice, its actually a pretty sharp lens with its limataions being everything else besides sharpness(build quality, focusing, range, appature etc).

I'v not got much experience in this area since the only 2.8 lens I have is my 100mm macro but corner/border sharpness isnt always that big an issue aswell due to the shallow DoF meaning thsoe areas are likely out of focus anyway. I'm guessing at 17mm a 2.8 lens still has a reasonabley deep DoF but towards 50mm your probabley going to have trouble getting the softer borders in focus anyway(or indeed not want them in focus).
 
I had a go at the 24-105 15-85 and the 17-55 f2.8 and to be honest I was very impressed with the images on the 15-85 and I would honestly say that the image comparison was as good as the 24-105 lens but I wasn't as impressed with the 17-55 although the build quality was nice the shots I took were not as nice as the one's taken with the 15-85, and yes there is a big difference between the 17-85 and the 15-85 apart from the obvious 2mm, better quality glass better IQ better IS and it all makes a big difference to the outcome (awsome photographs) although the 17-85 will blow the 18-55 is kit lens out of the water the 15-85 will blow the **** out of both of them.
My next purchase gonna be the 15-85 is usm f3.5-5.6 and probably the speedlite EX430 II
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top