Confused and need some help...

A

adseybear

Suspended / Banned
Messages
43
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd like to step up to a DSLR now, and I thought I had settled on the 550d.

But now I'm also considering the 60d, the faster fps would be very nice, as I go to motorsport and off road events. The tilt-screen would be nice, but not a critical factor.

What I'm really struggling with is deciding on lenses.

If I was to go for the 60d, at the moment I'd probably only have enough to buy one, same with the 550d or two cheaper ones.

Now I've ruled out the standard 18-55mm because I really dont want to spend the money on it, and to just be looking to move on in a couple of months.

It's cropped up in a few discussions, that the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC is a lens I should be looking at. Then to save up for something in the telephoto end, and then a 50mm prime lens.

Is that a good way to go about things? I just get the feeling I might get a bit irritated not having any increase in zoom wize than my pointy shooty camera for a while.

Also the 550d/60d with the 18-135mm kit lens is an option. Is this lens any good?

Feel free to throw any suggestions about, I've also seen a 18-270mm Tamron, are lenses which appear to do everything to good to be true?
 
Last edited:
tamron 17-50 but not with the VC is a v good start.

for a cheap zoom long reach 55-250 or a bit more classy 70-200 f4 L... can get them for v good price 2nd hand.

50 1.8 is a nice cheap addition for when light starts to fail but again the tamron is good for that too.
 
optic wise its a better lens. The VC version was brought out as an upgrade to the non VC but somehow it was apperently a fail upgrade and the non VC kept on its popularity even more as being a stunning lens (optics) while the VC is considered an average.

I have the non VC and can vouch for it but havent tested it against the VC so has to stay according to reviews
 
I have the 55-250 which is a great lens, but with hindsight, I wish now I had bought the 70-200 f4 L, has suggested by P-Chan. I shall probably get the "L" lens and sell my 55-250 sometime in the future.

Alan.
________
WILLYS GO DEVIL ENGINE
 
Last edited:
killwilly said:
I have the 55-250 which is a great lens, but with hindsight, I wish now I had bought the 70-200 f4 L, has suggested by P-Chan. I shall probably get the "L" lens and sell my 55-250 sometime in the future.

Alan.
Click to expand...

unfort many people I know regret not getting the 70-200 in the 1st place.... there are way too many distractions slightly cheaper by a whole ocean difference in quality

75-300 USM (mediocre my 1st tele)
70-300 IS USM good to a certain extant but dissapionting to another. The major distraction to the 70-200
55-250 IS the best for the money of the 3.... the best lens to start with to be eventually changed to the better L lenses.


just some insight for the OP
 
P-chan have you tried all the tele zooms you've mentioned as well as the 70-200L? I went from Sigma 70-300 to 70-200L and although I'm happy with it I sometimes wonder whether I should have gone with the 70-300 IS USM for better reach and IS.
 
RedTele said:
P-chan have you tried all the tele zooms you've mentioned as well as the 70-200L? I went from Sigma 70-300 to 70-200L and although I'm happy with it I sometimes wonder whether I should have gone with the 70-300 IS USM for better reach and IS.
Click to expand...

Hi Red

I never tried anything other then Canon so do not know about Sigma.

I had the longest of the 3 the 70-300 IS for the better reach and the better more solid looking.

While it trashes the 75-300 once extended to 300 it starts getting soft. I tried everything, tripod monopod, meditation to hold still they still kept coming soft. Infact I ended up giving up on bird photography in the end. Granted in my last months before quiting I used to leave it not beyond 250mm, until 200 its a glorouis lens mind u
 
Back to the Tamron 17-50mm, as probably most of my shots will be hand held, would I not be better with the VC one?

I'd add a telephoto next, but just wondering would this combination be ok for general use, I mean just going for a walk etc. I wouldnt want to be swapping lenses. The Canon 70-200 although being a very nice lens, just seems a bit large, but will pop into a store and have a good look around sometime soon.

Can't help thinking I'm better of starting with a large range lens (kit 18-135mm), then buying the two better lenses for more specific uses.

I'm not going to be doing anything serious like studio work etc, nor am I going to be zooming into images and comparing pixels, just want something good :/
 
Last edited:
usully at that short range like 17-50 VC is not a do or die like the bigger telefotos can be sometimes. I easily shoot hand held with perfect quality without VC at that short range. Unless u are shooting at very low Shutter speeds u should be fine.

And VC will only work if your subject isnt moving.

But if u still feel safer with VC then its not a big difference in price not ure about IQ

as for reviews the 18-135 have yet to see anyone complaining about them :)
 
Last edited:
I use a 18-135 on my 550D, its a cracking lens, very nice for when you dont want to change lenses all the time or want a one lens solution. Its not as sharp as the Tamron 17-50 which I also use and at 5.6 its two stops slower than the Tamron as well. But with a little sharpening in photoshop it gives good results and the IS is very helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top