Canon Lenses...

DjLukeW

DjLukeW

Suspended / Banned
Messages
638
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
Have done some searching but would love some personal advice. As some of you know, Im new to this had my DSLR a few weeks now and I love it - Canon 1000D with standard 18-55 kit lens.

So Im looking at new lenses. Not wanting to break the bank. If you see my threads, most of my pics are outdoors. But the lens seems limited when Id like to take some longer scenery landscape shots. Its also difficult i low light conditions also

So am I right in thinkin that the Canon EF 28mm f2.8 is a good option?

Any opinions are greatly appreciated.

Cheers Guys n Girls

Luke
 
Anything would be better than the kit lens you have.

Depends what you want to use your camera for i guess?
 
cam1986 said:
Anything would be better than the kit lens you have.

Depends what you want to use your camera for i guess?
Click to expand...

I know thats why Im buying ;)

Well as I said, mainly outdoors stuff but Ive been doing close range, occasionlly Id like to do some wider landscape shots.
 
manualfocus-g said:
The 28/1.8 would be better if you want to use it in low light :) But it's another £100.00 or so...
Click to expand...

1.8 USM is £419 at Jessops, 2.8 is £174

Guess I could try the 2.8 and then move upwards after a few months.

When I was out the other evening it was really difficult with the kit lens, so I guess the 2.8 would make noticable difference, and give wider shots?
 
Landscapes? First get a tripod and a cheapie remote release. Seriously, it's a lot cheaper than lens upgrades and will get you better results.

I have found most of the Canon consumer primes in the wide end (wider than 35mm) wanting - but your mileage may vary. I would recommend you save your cash for a better general use zoom first, even the 18-55/3.5 - 5.6 IS II is a definite upgrade and won't break the bank. After a while of using it, you can review your shots and get a better feel for the focal lengths that you use most.

If you really feel like you want to go with a prime, the 35/2 and 28/2.8 are probably the best of the bunch.
 
Cheers for the info :)

Ive got a tripod, not got a remote release yet though
 
I've got a moveable tripod. Its called the wifes shoulder!!
 
I personally don't see any point in a 28mm f2.8 or any non macro or non tele f2.8 as you can get 28mm and f2.8 from a zoom.

As previously mentioned, a 28mm f1.8 will be worth thinking about but they cost more as does the Siggy 30mm f1.4.

I suppose another sticking point is that you said that you wanted to take longer scenery and landscape shots and wider shots too and 28mm isn't either longer or wider than your current lens.

All in all, sorry, but I'd say that a 28mm f2.8 is pretty much a non starter here and will offer you very little over what you already have. Maybe a better move would be a quality 17/18-50mm f2.8 or used 20/28/50mm f1.8?
 
Last edited:
DjLukeW said:
When I was out the other evening it was really difficult with the kit lens, so I guess the 2.8 would make noticable difference, and give wider shots?
Click to expand...

Wider? The aperture of f/2.8 won't affect your field of view, ie. give wider shots. It's all in the focal length (and projection - fisheyes are special).

Wider than 18mm you'll start getting distortion soon, and the Canon 10-22 while a cracking lens isn't cheap. Best way to go wider outdoors.. take a few steps back :D
 
woof woof said:
I suppose another sticking point is that you said that you wanted to take longer scenery and landscape shots and wider shots too and 28mm isn't either longer or wider than your current lens.

All in all, sorry, but I'd say that a 28mm f2.8 is pretty much a non starter here and will offer you very little over what you already have. Maybe a better move would be a quality 17/18-50mm f2.8 or used 20/28/50mm f1.8?
Click to expand...

okidoke, this is info Im looking for as I sid, its all new :)
 
vaizki said:
Wider? The aperture of f/2.8 won't affect your field of view, ie. give wider shots. It's all in the focal length (and projection - fisheyes are special).

Wider than 18mm you'll start getting distortion soon, and the Canon 10-22 while a cracking lens isn't cheap. Best way to go wider outdoors.. take a few steps back :D
Click to expand...

I know aperture doesnt affect that, but I know its help with low light.

The reason I thought itd give a wider angle, is becauce it came up on the website as a wide angle lens, where as the kit lens doesnt.

Thats all
 
Distortion? I don't think so as the "ultra wides" in the 10-20mm type range are almost certainly better corrected than 17-50mm lenses. I've owned two wide zooms and each was better corrected with much less distortion than the two 17-xx zooms I've owned.
 
DjLukeW said:
okidoke, this is info Im looking for as I sid, its all new :)
Click to expand...

In your place I think I'd look at the following and try and decide which way to go...

1. A wide in the 10-20mm range. This will give you wide angle shots and great creative opportunities. Wide angle lenses are possibly the most challenging.

2. A quality 17-50mm f2.8. This will give you the same multi purpose zoom range as your kit lens but with better quality and a wider aperture for low light shooting and creative effect.

3. A prime, 20, 30 or 50mm, probably a f1.8 as a f1.4 will cost much more.

4. To throw something different in... a 50 or longer f2.8 macro.

Good luck choosing! :)
 
The 18mm is wider than a 28mm prime (the numbers tell the story there ;)), so you won't benefit there I'm afraid. The 28mm is only "wide" on a full frame camera with a bigger sensor.

Looking on ebay, the 28/1.8 sells second hand for between £200-300, whereas the 28/2.8 goes for £100-150.

If you are after something fast for low light conditions, the Sigma 30/1.4 is a cracker! But it's not that wide on a 1000D, just shy of a traditional "normal" length lens.
 
would I be on the right track with a Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6? Or is that another to avoid? Not so great in low light Im guessing though
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
In your place I think I'd look at the following and try and decide which way to go...

1. A wide in the 10-20mm range. This will give you wide angle shots and great creative opportunities. Wide angle lenses are possibly the most challenging.

2. A quality 17-50mm f2.8. This will give you the same multi purpose zoom range as your kit lens but with better quality and a wider aperture for low light shooting and creative effect.

3. A prime, 20, 30 or 50mm, probably a f1.8 as a f1.4 will cost much more.

4. To throw something different in... a 50 or longer f2.8 macro.

Good luck choosing! :)
Click to expand...

cheers :)

off to google I go........ :lol:
 
I haven't tried that lens so all is wild speculation on my part... :) :lol:

It'll only be as wide as your kit lens but it is longer... and it'll probably not give you much improvement in image quality and the aperture range is... rather pedestrian and wont give you any more low light ability than you already have. All in all the only plus here is a bit more zoom length :|
 
Just found a Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 for £229, hopefully theres still some left by payday
 
I've had one of those, sold it here recently... they're good "standard" lenses and very sharp.

There's a version out now that has IS, but it'll cost more.
 
nice. Ill keep a look out though. There's a good chance I might wait until the end of sept as I know I'll have a lot more cash available.

I just like to get some reserch done :) took me weeks to decide on a camera
 
The Tamron 17-50 with IS or VC as Tamron call it isn't as good as the non IS version, so save some money and get the non IS one :thumbs:
 
Right so far Ive decided on the Canon 50mm F1.8 to replace my kit lens, and then Tamron SP 17-50mm F2.8 Di II
 
DjLukeW said:
Right so far Ive decided on the Canon 50mm F1.8 to replace my kit lens, and then Tamron SP 17-50mm F2.8 Di II
Click to expand...


Do you need both Luke the only thing I think you will gain with the 50 v 17-50 is a faster lens at the same focal length
 
Well I hadnt decided so I thought Id get rid of the kit one then have the 2. The canon f1.8 for the low light shots really. Can get both within my budget
 
Personally in your position I wouldn't be in such a rush. These days most kit lenses are not the attrocities they may have been in times past. Unless you can identify a specific limitation of the kit lens I'd hold on to it for a while and keep snapping to hone your skills.

I still use my Pentax kit lenses from time to time.
 
The problem with going ultrawideangle is that theres really no cheap way to do it since its only in the last 5-6 years that crop ultrawides have appeared, the Sigma 10-20 4-4.5 is probabley the cheapest quality option and thats over £300 new.

In terms of pure image quality your 18-55 kit isnt actually bad at all and I don't think you'll notice a massive difference in sharpness(unless blurinesst comes from subject movement or camera shake) with any other lens. Its more range, appature, build quality and the ability to use alot of filters easily(hard on your 18-55 since the front rotates) that you'd be paying for.

For evening shots like the ones you've posted I'd agree a tripod is probabley the best investment you could make if you want to use small appatures for max depth of field although ultrawide leneses are also easier to hand hold at low shutter speeds.
 
Last edited:
I've had the 55-250mm EF-S IS for a couple of weeks and am very happy with it. The IS is amazing. I took a reasonably acceptable hand held shot at the 250mm setting at 1/30s. It is also very light to carry around.
Miles better quality than the 18-55mm EF-S kit lens, which I don't like at all.
I bought a non-IS Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8 off ebay and it was no better than the canon kit lens, seems the ones made in China aren't up to much.
 
DjLukeW said:
Well I hadnt decided so I thought Id get rid of the kit one then have the 2. The canon f1.8 for the low light shots really. Can get both within my budget
Click to expand...

Oggy said:
Personally in your position I wouldn't be in such a rush. These days most kit lenses are not the attrocities they may have been in times past. Unless you can identify a specific limitation of the kit lens I'd hold on to it for a while and keep snapping to hone your skills.

I still use my Pentax kit lenses from time to time.
Click to expand...

Hi Luke

Agree with this, the 50mm 1.8 is a cracker of a lens for the price and def worth getting. But I'd keep hold of the kit lens for now.

Don't rush into buying another lens that replaces the same focal length you already have, until you are sure this is the lens you want and it is a definate upgrade on the one you are replacing. It's better to save and wait a while and get the right one, rather than getting one because it falls in our budget now.

I'd def get the 50mm 1.8, and then just enjoy what you have, see what limitations you are finding, then address those.

Hope this is of some help...
 
andyred said:
Hi Luke

Agree with this, the 50mm 1.8 is a cracker of a lens for the price and def worth getting. But I'd keep hold of the kit lens for now.

Don't rush into buying another lens that replaces the same focal length you already have, until you are sure this is the lens you want and it is a definate upgrade on the one you are replacing. It's better to save and wait a while and get the right one, rather than getting one because it falls in our budget now.

I'd def get the 50mm 1.8, and then just enjoy what you have, see what limitations you are finding, then address those.

Hope this is of some help...
Click to expand...

I second that, get the 50 f1.8 and think about the canon 15-85 is usm f3.5-5.6
That's what I'm getting next. I also have the canon 55-250 IS, it's a brill lens I use this a lot when doing portraiture when outside.
 
OK let get one thing straight right form the start the 18-55 is not a bad lens, is it as good at the £750 17-55 f2.8 no, but to say it's a bad lens is just plain stupid.

Don't believe me then get on POTN and their lens archive section and look at the photos taken with it, now it's a huge thread so I'll just post a link that jumps 50 pages in, HERE Once your beyond the level of all the shots in there then it's time to upgrade.

andyred has really nailed it in the post just above, don't rush in to a same length lens, and I know 99% will say get a 50 f1.8 cause it's cheap, but if your not going to use that f.18 it's expensive, personally I sold mine as I never used it at all.
 
ashaz said:
I've had the 55-250mm EF-S IS for a couple of weeks and am very happy with it. The IS is amazing. I took a reasonably acceptable hand held shot at the 250mm setting at 1/30s. It is also very light to carry around.
Miles better quality than the 18-55mm EF-S kit lens, which I don't like at all.
I bought a non-IS Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8 off ebay and it was no better than the canon kit lens, seems the ones made in China aren't up to much.
Click to expand...

I'd find that very hard to believe!

The Tamron 17-50 non VC is supposed to be one of the sharpest standard zooms money can buy, bar the Canon 17-55 IS.
 
odd jim said:
I'd find that very hard to believe!

The Tamron 17-50 non VC is supposed to be one of the sharpest standard zooms money can buy, bar the Canon 17-55 IS.
Click to expand...


Someone else put it on their camera and took some test shots and agreed with me. I also sent some pictures(blind) with both lenses to a friend in the processing business and he couldn't see much difference either. Maybe I just had a bad example.
 
ashaz said:
Someone else put it on their camera and took some test shots and agreed with me. I also sent some pictures(blind) with both lenses to a friend in the processing business and he couldn't see much difference either. Maybe I just had a bad example.
Click to expand...

Possibly. It is supposed to be very good, I'm after one myself as I cant quite justify buying the Canon 17-55 IS.
 
whiteflyer said:
OK let get one thing straight right form the start the 18-55 is not a bad lens, is it as good at the £750 17-55 f2.8 no, but to say it's a bad lens is just plain stupid.

Don't believe me then get on POTN and their lens archive section and look at the photos taken with it, now it's a huge thread so I'll just post a link that jumps 50 pages in, HERE Once your beyond the level of all the shots in there then it's time to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Re. the POTN pics, I've not seen anything remotely resembling that sharpness coming from my 18-55mm kit lens!!
 
odd jim said:
Possibly. It is supposed to be very good, I'm after one myself as I cant quite justify buying the Canon 17-55 IS.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to do at the moment. Assume I got a bad one and go for another shop-bought Tamron rather than ebay and kick myself if it is no better or save for a lot longer until I can afford the Canon????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top