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
Canon 85mm f1.8
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.
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...
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.
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
Macro? Hours of fun with that.
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.
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
nifty 50... And get it insured, my DSLR has been stolen today, though at least they left my bikes/guitars/xbox.
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
A fast prime. 50mm for full frame. 35mm or there abouts if you are on a 1.6x multiplier, which you are.
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 
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.
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.
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!
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 
85mm for portraits ...Sweet lens
the faster the better
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 £
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.
You got rid of a lens because it didn't 'feel solid'?
Yep.
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
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.
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.
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....
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Well not really, because something like a Sigma 70-210 2.8 would cost around £300 in really good condition.
Fair enough.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
