What lens should i buy next?

Igor

Igor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
232
Name
Igor
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi people,

I have a Canon 60D with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC

I was thinking of either buying another lens or chopping mine in for a better lens

What does everyone think?

I was only looking at something under £300 so basically a used lens
 
Oh and if it makes any difference I've been looking at the sigma 105mm f2.8 macro.

Am I right in thinking that, that lens doesn't just have to be used for macro but also works well as a semi decent telephoto prime?
 
What doesn't the tamron do that you want it to?
Why do you want another lens, or why do you want to replace what you've got?
Do you want more length, wider angle, better build quality, better iq?

No one can help unless we have more info.
 
Ah, you posted more info.

Yes the 105 macro can be used for anything. It depends what you shoot. It won't be great for every landscape shot, but it's good for portraits and obviously macro.

Do you mean to replace the 17-50 with it, or have both?
 
TCR4x4 said:
What doesn't the tamron do that you want it to?
Why do you want another lens, or why do you want to replace what you've got?
Do you want more length, wider angle, better build quality, better iq?

No one can help unless we have more info.
Click to expand...

I think the tamron is great but a little cheap feeling. So maybe upgrade in terms of build quality

Basically I have a holiday to Madeira coming up in couple of months and I want to make sure I have a couple of lenses to help me get some great shots

If you had what I have, what would you buy next?
 
TCR4x4 said:
Ah, you posted more info.

Yes the 105 macro can be used for anything. It depends what you shoot. It won't be great for every landscape shot, but it's good for portraits and obviously macro.

Do you mean to replace the 17-50 with it, or have both?
Click to expand...

Have both :)
 
Well I currently have a 16-35 and a 150 macro, so not too dissimilar to what you are proposing.

I'd definitely keep the tamron, you won't beat it without spending out a lot of money for a canon 17-55 IS.

As for the sigma macro, it's a good lens, very sharp and a great macro lens.

If you are happy with it being a prime lens, and don't feel you need the zoom, then go for it.

Another option could be the canon 70-200 f/4. You loose the macro side of things, but have a more versatile zoom lens, which is very sharp and also has a fixed aperture of f/4, or you might be able to pick up a sigma 70-200 f/2.8 macro. It's not true macro like the 105' but does allow closer than normal focusing , and also has the low light capability and versatility of a zoom

It's what I'm currently looking to purchase, as I find my 150mm is a bit limiting.
 
I have bought and sold quite a few lenses, and have settled with a 16-35, 50, and a 70-200. Suits just about everything for me, and I haven't felt the need to upgrade for the past 2 years, just been enjoying using it.

I got a macro but found I got bored with it pretty quickly - its a bit of an awkward focal length so I would really try and be sure this is the lens for you before getting one.
 
How do you rate the Canon EFS 55mm - 250mm F/4.0-5.6 II IS Lens?

You can pick these up quite cheap. I know I won't get the macro but still a cheap telephoto for under £150 as a refurb. Or should I just stay away from cheap stuff like this
 
fridge said:
I have bought and sold quite a few lenses, and have settled with a 16-35, 50, and a 70-200. Suits just about everything for me, and I haven't felt the need to upgrade for the past 2 years, just been enjoying using it.

I got a macro but found I got bored with it pretty quickly - its a bit of an awkward focal length so I would really try and be sure this is the lens for you before getting one.
Click to expand...

It's quite interesting you should say 50mm because a friend of mine says I should invest in 50mm. The only thing that was putting me off a 50 is that my tamron reaches 50 at f2.8 so I'd still be getting great bokeh and pretty good low light
 
No point in you getting the 50mm. The difference between f/2.8 and f/1.8 isn't big enough IMO to warrant it.
Never used the 55-250 so can't comment on that.
 
Or even the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Lens. Anyone have any experience with either lens?
 
If its extended range you're after I'd suggest the 70-300 VC, price is pretty good and the VC is excellent.

But then I would suggest that as I'm selling mine (only because I got a 70-200 2.8 though)

The 55-250 is great for the price though.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about it and I don't want to keep upgrading all the time. I think I'm just going to buy the 70-200 f4 L lens. Just get it over and done with it and buy the best lens I'm going to need.

Especially now you can buy them for about £450
 
A very sharp lens, non-IS I assume at that price - I used to have one and it was okay.
 
Igor said:
I've been thinking about it and I don't want to keep upgrading all the time. I think I'm just going to buy the 70-200 f4 L lens. Just get it over and done with it and buy the best lens I'm going to need.

Especially now you can buy them for about £450
Click to expand...

You wont regret it, well you will, cos then you'll lust after the IS version, then the f/2.8 version!

I loved both my non IS and IS versions when I had them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top