Canon lens debate

Jon162

Jon162

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13
Edit My Images
No
Hello,
I have a canon t3 rebel( 1100d ) and I'm trying to decide on what lens I should get next. I only have the kit lens so far (18-55mm) and I'm trying to decide between the canon EF 50mm ii f1.8 or the canon 75-300mm lens. I have heard good revviews of the 50mm and so so reviews of the 75/300, which one should i get??reviews of the
 
Jon162 said:
Hello,
I have a canon t3 rebel( 1100d ) and I'm trying to decide on what lens I should get next. I only have the kit lens so far (18-55mm) and I'm trying to decide between the canon EF 50mm ii f1.8 or the canon 75-300mm lens. I have heard good revviews of the 50mm and so so reviews of the 75/300, which one should i get??
Click to expand...
 
I really like taking macro shots and landscapes, I'm more into closer pictures rather than far away but also I sometimes find I need more reach than my 18-55mm lens will give me. I have heard the 50mm is very nice and sharp and that the 75-300mm can be OK at 300.
Thanks!
 
The 50mm is a cracker but instead of the 75-300mm check out the 55-250mm, probably the best value for your money by a mile from all the reviews and can be had used for around £100 and less :thumbs:
Atb
Cliff
 
Skip on the 50/1.8. Get the 50/1.4. Much better build quality, value for money, wider aperture, USM focusing. The 50/1.8 is not worth purchasing. It has 5 aperture blades and the bokeh gets very ugly when stopped down past f/2. Not worth the 100 bucks in my opinion.
 
tdphoto said:
Skip on the 50/1.8. Get the 50/1.4. Much better build quality, value for money, wider aperture, USM focusing. The 50/1.8 is not worth purchasing. It has 5 aperture blades and the bokeh gets very ugly when stopped down past f/2. Not worth the 100 bucks in my opinion.
Click to expand...

contrary to many other comments on the forum stating its a great lens and worth every penny of the £80 it costs.

Build quality might not be the best ever but its supposed to be a great little lens and is held in high regard by the majority
 
DTS said:
contrary to many other comments on the forum stating its a great lens and worth every penny of the £80 it costs.

Build quality might not be the best ever but its supposed to be a great little lens and is held in high regard by the majority
Click to expand...

Thanks! Most reviews I've seen say its a really great lens and you can't afford not to have it but I still want to make sure I'm not wasting $110
 
Jon162 said:
Thanks! Most reviews I've seen say its a really great lens and you can't afford not to have it but I still want to make sure I'm not wasting $110
Click to expand...

Look at it this way:

You but the lens for $110, and the best case scenario is you sell it a year later at most for $70, assuming it doesn't break (which the lens is known for. Literally breaking into two pieces). By the time you'll sell it, you will have become all too familiar with the awful, ugly, and downright offensive pentagonal bokeh when stopped down. You'll have broken the silence of a heartfelt moment you're trying to capture with a slow and noisy focusing mechanism. You'll wish you could get acceptably sharp photos at f/2. Now that you've sold the lens for 40 bones less than you bought it for, the superior 50/1.4 that you're longing for will cost you $40 more due to the investment in the disposable 50/1.8.

If you bide your time, save your money, and get a 50mm f/1.4, you will have saved yourself money and have a better lens for image making. The lens can be had for cheap if its a refurbished model which I highly suggest you look at.

The way I see the canon 50/1.8 is a way to throw away 100 bucks to shoot at a wider aperture with awful background rendering. You get what you pay for with lenses. Trust me.
 
Last edited:
tdphoto said:
Look at it this way:

You but the lens for $110, and the best case scenario is you sell it a year later at most for $70, assuming it doesn't break. By the time you'll sell it, you will have become all too familiar with the awful, ugly, and downright offensive pentagonal bokeh when stopped down. You'll have broken the silence of a heartfelt moment you're trying to capture with a slow and noisy focusing mechanism. You'll wish you could get acceptably sharp photos at f/2.

If you bide your time, save your money, and get a 50mm f/1.4, you will have saved yourself money and have a better lens for image making. The lens can be had for cheap if its a refurbished model which I highly suggest you look at.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks, good point about looking for a refurbished on, do you have the 50mm f/1.4 ?
 
Jon162 said:
Ok thanks, good point about looking for a refurbished on, do you have the 50mm f/1.4 ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a 50/1.4. Both the canon and sigma offerings are strong lenses even on an aps-c body. Granted, they're a little tight indoors, but I shoot with an 85mm on a full frame indoors quite regularly.
 
tdphoto said:
Yes, I have a 50/1.4. Both the canon and sigma offerings are strong lenses even on an aps-c body. Granted, they're a little tight indoors, but I shoot with an 85mm on a full frame indoors quite regularly.
Click to expand...

Whoops I meant the canon 50mm f/1.8 my bad
 
Jon162 said:
Whoops I meant the canon 50mm f/1.8 my bad
Click to expand...

No, but I've used it and based my post off of my experience with the lens. It's really not worth having if you're looking for a low light/portraiture lens.

But then again I am a stickler for image quality and aesthetically pleasing CoC rendering.
 
tdphoto said:
No, but I've used it and based my post off of my experience with the lens. It's really not worth having if you're looking for a low light/portraiture lens.

But then again I am a stickler for image quality and aesthetically pleasing CoC rendering.
Click to expand...

Alright thanks, and me to about image quality, ill show some pictures to my family and they will think its great but I will find something a slight but wrong with it haha thanks again
 
I'd skip the 50mm altogether unless you have an actual need for the f1.8 aperture . It's only a good lens if YOU are going to use it not because everyone else say so. You have that covered with your current lens, so as said above I'd look at the 55-250 just to give yourself more photo opportunities.

A 100 bucks lens just sat in you bag is still a 100 bucks wasted if it's never on your camera no matter how many people say it a must have lens, I don't have one and bet many others don't or don't use it.
 
i have the Canon 50mm 1.8 ... personally for the £70 it cost me I think its a fab lens ... mine works best at F2 or F2.2 but even wide open the results are not bad.

I shot this image in a nightclub with this lens... I didnt have flash and was obviously quite close to the subject ... This was at 400 iso @ F2.8 on a 450D


Ben Volpeliere-Pierrot by Tezz 5D2, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
The 50 1.8 is good for the price but doesn't sound like you need one as you mention extra reach and not large apertures/low light.
Agree that the 55-250 is great though, as do most people (awaits tdphoto comment on how crap it is and that you should buy some lens for £400 instead :) )
 
While everyone will agree that the bokeh of the 50mm f1.8 is not great how often will it actually matter to you?

If you go here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

you will see that it outperforms every other lens around, even "L" glass lenses.

It is very light and very small but not quite as fragile as its detractors say - I myself have dropped mine from 5ft onto concrete without any problems at all.

And if you want to see how it performs in real life situations then go here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=5154182#post5154182

it is also a very good macro lens when coupled with extension tubes:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157625975281497/

.
 
The 50mm 1.8 isn't as good as the 1.4

but having said that, I don't think anyone buys the 1.8 and expects a lens at less than half the cost to be equal...

50 1.8 has proven to be bang for buck for myself, It doesn't get used much (well hardley ever) but it's still handy to have around. If I began to use that focal length more, i'd buy the 1.4 or even sigma's offering.

it's cheap and not amazingly well built, but the IQ is reasonable - and that's as much as I need from it really.
 
I've had the 50 1.8 and I've now got the 50 1.4 and in my experience the 1.8 is decent but the 1.4 is fantastic compared to it. I bought the 1.8 new and it cost around £70 but the 1.4 was £225 second hand, but it was worth every extra penny.

As for a longer zoom I'd say go with the 55-250 IS as it far outperforms the 75-300, unless you get either the USM or IS models. I had the 75-300 MkIII when I got my first dslr (Canon 550D) and TBH the lens was awful. Very slow to focus, very noisy while focussing and very soft IQ from it. It was the worst lens I've ever used and the only lens I've had that I didn't get any 'keepers' from. The 55-250 IS is very sharp, fairly quick at focussing and fairly quiet too, and it has the IS going for it too.
 
Jon162 said:
Hello,
I have a canon t3 rebel( 1100d ) and I'm trying to decide on what lens I should get next. I only have the kit lens so far (18-55mm) and I'm trying to decide between the canon EF 50mm ii f1.8 or the canon 75-300mm lens. I have heard good revviews of the 50mm and so so reviews of the 75/300, which one should i get??reviews of the
Click to expand...

Hi Jon

The 50mm F1.8 is worth while getting and def worth it for the price, yes the 50mm 1.4 is a better built lens, but then is also quite a bit more expensive and if finances are playing a part, I'd opt for the 1.8.

Personally, I wouldn't get the Canon75-300, I'd be looking at either the Canon 55-250IS or Canon 70-300IS models...
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the Help and I think I'm going to go with the 75-300mm lens, thanks everyone for the help
 
Jon162 said:
Thanks everyone for the Help and I think I'm going to go with the 75-300mm lens, thanks everyone for the help
Click to expand...

The 75-300mm is not a bad lens and you can get them cheaply but from 200-300mm it gets quite soft.

But having said that it is also quite good up to 200mm and some of the softness beyond 200mm can be corrected in PP.

All of the photos here were taken with that lens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/sets/72157625949886818/

And this shows a 100% crop of the lens at 300mm:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/20926615@N05/5406278122/in/set-72157625161554200/

For small pics it would probably be OK but if you look at the largest image you can see the shortcomings at 300mm.

Personally I would be more inclined to save for the 70-300mm IS USM lens which is very good indeed.

.
 
Canon have made several xx-300mm lenses and it can get very confusing which one's are worth looking at.

All the variants of the 75-300mm lenses aren't great, budget lenses, very average performance

70-300mm IS is not a bad lens, but £300-400, good optics and just ahead of the 55-250mm everyone likes as well which is lens money.

70-300mm DO lens, small, compact, travel lens, issues with sharpness and the price, not really worth the money when you have the 70-300mm IS or 55-250mm available.

So personally its the 70-300mm IS or 55-250mm would be the lens I would chose
 
If you're really into landscapes, consider an ultrawide like the Canon 10-22mm. But you've got to really want one, because it's not a cheap lens. That said, it's pretty versatile; you have to frame things carefully to avoid unwanted distortion at 10mm, but at 22mm it's almost a walkabout lens, albeit a wide one.

I love mine.

(Sigma and Tokina make less spendy equivalents to the Canon lens)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top