Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)
  • DSLR photographers, your advise on which lense to buy if you please?
  • Bianchi-Boy
    Free Member

    I am thinking of getting a new Canon 60d body.

    I can probably negotiate a good deal on a lens to go with it. At the moment I have;

    17-85 kit lens
    70-300 sigma
    10-22 sigma

    So what lens should I get to complement these, I think it will have to be about £350 max.

    Thanks in advance for any help.

    BB

    Capt.Kronos
    Free Member

    Canon 85mm f1.8

    MikeG
    Full Member

    Depends what sort of photography you do, I wouldn’t be without my 50mm f1.4 and I’m considering the 60mm EF-s macro or maybe the 28mm f1.8 next.

    donsimon
    Free Member

    As MikeG says, what are you going to photograph.
    the 85mm f1.8 is a very nice lens,but too slow, for me, for sports photography.
    28mm prime (I’ve got f2,8) is a nice lens
    Primes are generally worth a punt.

    Maybe look at a fish eye.

    Most important is what you want to photograph though…

    prettygreenparrot
    Full Member

    Depends on what you take pics of and how you like to shoot. You have 3 zooms, so perhaps it’s time to explore a prime. I’ve not regretted getting a 50mm f1.4. Magic!

    Sage advice I saw recently was from elizabeth halford – if you’re after a prime, stick your most appropriate zoom to that length and see how you like it for a few days’ shooting. It’s not as convincing as using a loan lens, but makes it easier.

    Bianchi-Boy
    Free Member

    I want to be able to do a bit of everything, hence why I didn’t put my main interest in the OP. But I mostly like to do portraits of the homeless whilst out and about with urban decay thrown in as well.

    Never likely to do sports shots, not my thing.

    Thank you very much for the ideas so far, please keep them coming.

    BB

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Macro? Hours of fun with that.

    donsimon
    Free Member

    I’d go for the 85mm f1,8 Having said that I don’t have a 50mm f1,4, I did, however, have a 50mm f1,8 but preferred the 85mm for portaits.

    TijuanaTaxi
    Free Member

    Sell the first two, add the 350 quid and buy the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS, the finest lens in that range and would do the 60D justice. It would be ideal for your street photography especially in low light, lightning fast AF too

    Your first two lenses will struggle with the 18mp and you will notice the weakness in them far more than on your current camera

    meehaja
    Free Member

    nifty 50… And get it insured, my DSLR has been stolen today, though at least they left my bikes/guitars/xbox.

    Bianchi-Boy
    Free Member

    Thanks all, I have ordered a 50 before I posted this thread., though it hasn’t arrived yet.

    Tij Tax, sort of thought the same as you, thank you for confirming it, that my old lenses wouldn’t be good for new body. That said, really pleased that my daughter, 15 yo, has asked if she can have my old Canon with lens

    Don S, 85mm f1,8, a mate has that lens, maybe I could borrow it before laying out the cash.

    BB

    donsimon
    Free Member

    Found this earlier which kind of reflects what I said, except for the fast focus, maybe I had a dud, part-exed it for a 70-200 L and still miss it. Always try before you buy, even if it’s only in the shop.

    IanMmmm
    Free Member

    A fast prime. 50mm for full frame. 35mm or there abouts if you are on a 1.6x multiplier, which you are.

    bomberman
    Free Member

    well you’ve got your sigma 10-20 for urban decay style shots. Portraits… you’ve got a 50mm on the way for shallow DOF stuff at close range. Candid street portraits you can use your sigma 70-300 to zoom in from a distance. Not sure what else you need really? if you want a longer prime then you could get a 100mm f/2, or an 85mm 1.8, theyre both good primes. Or you could get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 which i’ve just got myself – sharper than your 17-85 but no USM or IS..

    lenses do my head in, i always think i need something that i don’t! I’d be happy with a 5DII and a couple of primes. and a wide angle 😉

    kudos100
    Free Member

    A fast prime. 50mm for full frame. 35mm or there abouts if you are on a 1.6x multiplier, which you are.

    This is a good shout. A prime will help you become a better photographer, but takes a bit of getting used to.

    Other than that I would look at the tamron 28-75 f2.8 to replace your kit lens. It’s as sharp as the 24-70L (not as well built) and less than half price. Amazing lens for the money.

    TijuanaTaxi
    Free Member

    Sorry to sound harsh about your existing lenses or at least two of them anyway
    The 70-300mm will suffer the most especially at the tele end and still surprised they bundle the 17-85mm as the kit lens. Wasn’t great with the 50D and 15mp, so will fare worse at 18mp as some 7D owners have already found

    Still think you need a standard type kit lens, always nice to have something versatile. The new Canon 15-85mm IS seems to get good reviews and gives a good range, also consider the Sigma 17-50 OS as well

    Good lenses do make a big difference and I stand by my recommendation of the Canon 17-55mm IS, I wasted money buying others before i finally bought one and found it a marked improvement.
    Admittedly I do not own any primes apart from a 400mm for wildlife, but between the 17-55mm and a 10-22mm I haven’t found myself wanting for anything else.

    Capt.Kronos
    Free Member

    Ok, I shall explain the 85 a little.

    It’s a 1.8 so pretty fast, has a wonderful bokeh and is one of the sharpest lenses out there, an utterly wonderful piece of kit that is in the bags of many portrait and travel photographers. It is only slightly less good in terms of image quality than the 85mm f1.2 L which costs a scary amount of cash, and the relative value of it makes it ideal for taking to places that are perhaps a little less “safe” (for want of a better word).

    I haven’t got one yet myself, but it is on the shopping list 😉

    If you were shooting full frame my second suggestion would have been the Sigma 24mm f1.8 which is rarely off my 5D II (given that every other lens I own is a Canon L series that is saying quite a lot about the quality of that little gem)

    If you can get a loan of the 85 then it is worth having a play with!

    Hadge
    Free Member

    I have the 85mm f1.2L and don’t get a Mk1 version as it’s not good. Fuzzy at max ap and hunts too much compared to my Mk2 which also produces better colours. I would recommend the 50mm f1.4 for any non-full frame users and even the 85mm f1.8 as they are very very good lenses.
    I would definitely recommend a 70-200 f4L as they are superb lenses even second-hand. My all-time favourite lens is my 70-200 f2.28L IS which is just incredibly sharp, super fast and esy to carry as well – more so than my 400 f2.8L IS which knackers me out 😕

    yetiguy
    Free Member

    85mm for portraits …Sweet lens

    the faster the better

    el_boufador
    Full Member

    I bought a cheap 50mm (1.6 multiplier) f1.8 prime lens recently – really opened my eyes – shocked with how good the results are. In hindsight ~30mm would have been better for what I use if for most (low light portrait) but that would have been much more £

    donsimon
    Free Member

    If you go for the 50mm, don’t get the f1,8. On the budget you’ve given I’d go for the f1,4 because despite the f1,8 having great optics and being a great lens, it’s made from plastic and simply didn’t feel that stong to me. Another lens tried and then sold.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    You got rid of a lens because it didn’t ‘feel solid’?

    donsimon
    Free Member

    Yep.

    .duncan
    Free Member

    50 1.4 for my 7D rarely comes off, my sharpest lens by far and i use it for the majority of mtb stuff and general pics

    IA
    Full Member

    Can I be slightly radical, and say don’t get a lens. Get a speedlight instead, and some triggers (or TTL cord). A bit of flash can lift up portraits a treat, or add highlight to an urban shot etc.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Ah yes.. I just got the dedicated flash for my Oly, the FL36 (non wireless version unfortunately) and I can say it has completely transformed my indoor pictures. If you are not already using something other than the built in flash, then absolutely get one before any other lens.

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    As one who learned how to do tography mainly using prime lenses, I’d say ditch the 3 you’ve got, and replace them with quality primes. You can pick up some great bargains second hand.

    I like:

    24mm (Wide angle for landscapes, architecture and that)

    50mm (Indispensable fast bright non-perspective-distorting standard)

    135mm (Portraiture; less obtrusive than an 85mm, better at isolating subject from background using shallower dof)

    200mm (Longest that can be carried about without doing yer back in)

    For full-frame 35mm format. Other people like different combos; a mate swore by a 35mm and an 85mm.

    I find zooms, particularly cheaper ones, too bloody dark to look through in all but bright conditions, and almost impossible to work with in dim conditions. Mind you I am talking about using manual focus, so maybe not as important with hocus-pocus.

    The 85mm 1.8 is a good recommendation; equivalent to a 135mm on 35mm.

    Another option is something like a 70-200 2.8. Bit bulky, but loads better than those compromised f4-5.6 cheaper zooms. Should be a fair range s/h, and Sigma etc do decent versions.

    With lenses, I’d always go for as bright as possible, and the best glass available. Cheap zooms are just not up to the standards of primes or fast ‘pro’ zooms. The worst are things like yer 18-800mm ‘megazooms’. Significantly lower quality than using the ‘right’ lens.

    Use primes. Learn to frame the subject better. Move around to get the best shot more. Zooms make people lazy, imo.

    Photography is an expensive business….

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I find zooms, particularly cheaper ones, too bloody dark to look through in all but bright conditions, and almost impossible to work with in dim conditions. Mind you I am talking about using manual focus, so maybe not as important with hocus-pocus

    I would say it’s even more important for autofocus since AF seems to be worse than MF in low light. I end up switching to MF when it’s dark. The thing is though, zoom definitely has its uses and you can’t say it’s worse than using primes, it’s just a different experience. One I personally would not want to do without.

    Photography is an expensive business….

    Only if you make it by doing stuff like you suggest 🙂 It is as expensive as you want it to be.

    Some flash photos that would not look as good at all with the built in flash:


    _C312429 by molgrips, on Flickr


    _C312428 by molgrips, on Flickr

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Only if you make it by doing stuff like you suggest

    Tell me about it. When I started, you could get a basic K-mount body for £50-60, and a proper decent Pentax SMC 50mm 1.8 for about £40 s/h. Top-quality results for a hundred pounds. The amount of decent s/h manual focus kit about meant you could get some fantastic bargains. £500 or so could buy you a proper decent little outfit including flash and tripod etc. And the build quality of a lot of stuff meant you could buy a scuffed (body) yet optically and mechanically sound lens for a lot less. Hocus-pocus added a big cost to lenses without added any optical quality. Plus stuff got really plasticky and flimsy.

    I’m still waiting for Nikon to produce a full-frame DSLR for about a grand. The F700 is too big and to spensive for me.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Surely the same old MF stuff is usable with a modern dslr and is now even cheaper? There’s an Olympus OM mount adapter for my camera which I’d be interested in but I find MF a bit fiddly without a split circle. For most of the other Oly cameras you can retrofit a split circle viewfinder prism but not mine, there’s no room inside it 🙁 big shame, because I’d love to be able to quickly MF.

    And to be honest I don’t care if my stuff is made of plastic if it makes it as lightweight and super portable as it is without compromising quality.

    donsimon
    Free Member

    Sound advice as always, but this is going to push the budget out of shape, isn’t it?Which is why I was suggesting the 85mm over the 50mm and the f1,4 over the f1,8.

    Another option is something like a 70-200 2.8. Bit bulky, but loads better than those compromised f4-5.6 cheaper zooms. Should be a fair range s/h, and Sigma etc do decent versions.

    I love my 70-200 L f4, nice and (relatively) cheap and light not a problem for what I do, plenty of sunshine see!

    If we’re kicking the budget into touch……. where would you like to stop? 😉

    Elfinsafety
    Free Member

    Well not really, because something like a Sigma 70-210 2.8 would cost around £300 in really good condition. If the OP is buying a 50mm, then I’d suggest praps p/xing the 17-85 and the 70-300 for a bit towards the next lens. Keep the 10-22 for now, to cover the wide angle stuff.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Personally I will be getting (eventually) one or two primes as well as my zooms. For biking, for instance, I would only take one lens so a zoom would be good in that respect.

    Mine will be the 25mm pancake I reckon.

    donsimon
    Free Member

    Well not really, because something like a Sigma 70-210 2.8 would cost around £300 in really good condition.

    Fair enough.

Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)

The topic ‘DSLR photographers, your advise on which lense to buy if you please?’ is closed to new replies.