What should i do lens wise. PLEASE HELP!!

I have a 17-85 bought from a fellow TP member, very pleased with it, much more range as a general purpose lens than either the kit 18-55 or the 17-40. The 17-85 and a Sigma 10-22 cover most of what I want to shoot. My copy seems sharp so I am pleased.

I paid £260 including a polariser for mine, there are several dealers with them around £250-275 s/h, obviously their s/h price has dipped a bit since there is cashback on a new one.

see http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/index.php?id=23&product_uid=514 as an example.

Also since it's available as kit with a 40D, I suspect that many more will become available as people upgrade their kits. If bought with a 40D a new one could be had for £250 as well, but you need to buy the 40D as well!

Hope that helps

Mr Perceptive
 
Price-wise, there are quite a few of these knocking about, perhaps as a result of folks buying the 40D /17-85 kits and flogging the lens, so prices I've seen on fora and Fleabay are from £245 or so. Pretty good price for a pretty decent lens!
 
Good lens, almost as sharp as the 17-40L, doesn't quite give the colour saturation. In extreme close up it has more barrel distortion than the 17-40L, but it's an excellent walk round lens and the IS is a boon.

I only parted with mine because it didn't fit the 1D.
 
I have had a 17-85 for the past 10 months since new with my 30d , and have just (last month) invested in a 17-40 so put on my film camera for my recent trip. So I may just be about to put mine up for sale.
Drop me a PM if interested.
In terms of what shots I have taken with it .... Most of the shots on here and my web-site are with it.
Cracking lens in my opinion. CT is spot on with his review.
 
Sorry mark, neither owned nor used one so cant comment. i'd trust those that have posted so far though :thumbs:
 
i do i am just wondering if anyone has had any problems, is it that much different than my 18-55?
 
do you reckon it is worth going for a different type of lens and then upgrading the 18-55 at a later stage. Maybe if i went for a macro? or a wide angle
 
You really need to decide what type of photography you want to do first, and then buy the appropriate kit.

You are on a limited budget (by your own admission) and if you don't think this through carefully then you'll cock it up and end up with wrong equipment which you'll end up selling at a loss.

Most lenses have some kind of Macro facility so unless you want to a lot of macro photography at 1:1 then don't rush out and buy a macro lens. You can always crop the image!

Mr Perceptive
 
can i ask what you lot did, how did you progress?

i like the idea of macro but i also like things like food photography ( what should i use for that)

i do not think i need a wide angle lens and then i am partly happy with my 18-55 just i wouldn't mind being able to hold the camera at a lower shutter speed.

i already have a sigma 70-300mm telephoto so i do not need another telephoto lens. I enjoy the food photogarphy but the light was wrong so i wonder wether i should buy some new lights and accesories.

so how did you progress ( everyone i mean) not just Mr preceptive from the stadard equpiipment what did youu find most useful.

thanks

Mark
 
I think you want us to make the decision for you. But we can't. Only you know what you want...

But, for the record, as far as DSLR lenses go, here's what I did:

Nikkor 18-55 kit lens
Nikkor 70-300 tele zoom
Sold both and bought
Nikkor 18-200 VR
Then bought
105mm Sigma macro
10-20mm Sigma wide angle
Then got
Nikkor 50mm which was included with my D200

Can't see how this helps, but there ya go...

And what did I find most useful? All the lenses I now have. Cos if they weren't useful, I'd sell them...
 
400d user

You have the kit 18-55 (which is not as bad as is sometimes made out), you also have a 70-300, so you have most ranges covered. The 70-300 probably has a Macro mode so use that for Macro.

The thing that made the most diffeence to 'me' (and thats me not you!) was bying a 50mm f1.8 prime. I just put it on the camera and forced myself to use it for a period of time. It got me thinking a lot more about composition (than standing still and playing about with zoom), it made me move and think about the frame.

It's a cheap lens, I'd buy a new one as the saving for s/h is not very great, especially when Kerso and others like him do it for £60 or less inc postage. For the money it's an amazi lens and may get you thinking about pictures rather than equipment!

Mr Perceptive
 
Mr Perceptive said:
400d user

The thing that made the most diffeence to 'me' (and thats me not you!) was bying a 50mm f1.8 prime. I just put it on the camera and forced myself to use it for a period of time. It got me thinking a lot more about composition (than standing still and playing about with zoom), it made me move and think about the frame.

Mr Perceptive
Click to expand...

Hi 400d
I agree with Mr Perceptive
when I got my 350d the first prime lens i stuck on it was a 28mm F2.8, with the X1.6 sensor it gives a 44.8 mm lens. near as dammit a nifty fifty. good old sneaker zoom, does wonders for the composition. :thumbs:
Dave S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top