I have a EOS 350D and the lens that it comes is a bit rubbish (plus my skills with a camera are a bit rubbish)
So i am after a lens that will do it all, with a good range of zoom etc...
I dont want to spend a lot on one though...
Chat Forum
[closed]
What Canon Lens
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
no lens will correct for "rubbish skills" :o)
[edit] particularly not a cheap one...
Posted 2 years ago # -
So i am after a lens that will do it all, with a good range of zoom etc... I don't want to spend a lot on one though...
Kind of mutually exclusive things really... what lens are you currently using? What don't you like about it? Are you perhaps blaming it for poor images when it may be that you need to work on your technical skills?
Posted 2 years ago # -
My misses has a thing for sigma lenses. But i know bugger all unfortunatelly.
Glad to be of help
Posted 2 years ago # -
wot psychle said, unfortunately
nbt, owner of several lenses that have failed to magically improve my picture taking
Posted 2 years ago # -
Try and find a Sigma. I've got a 17-70 f2.8 which is a decent all round lens. It lacks a big zoom range but is faster than most and decently sharp, ideal for MTB shots. There's an 18-125 which goes for around £125 on eBay and a 18-200 which is a bit more. They both have 'OS' equivilents ( optical stabilisation) which bumps the price up a lot but is worth it on the longer lenses if you can afford it.
Whatever yo do, check the NEW prices at Onestopdigital.com which are usually cheaper than anything new on eBay and very close to used prices a lot if the time
If you want a really sharp portrait lens that will do great action shots, look for a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime (no zoom). Not as versitile as a zoom but takes stunning portraits and great low light action shots. Search for 'canon 50mm' on Flickr to dee what it can do!
Posted 2 years ago # -
Depending on what problem you seem to have with the lenses a new lens might or might not be a solution. Extra zoom wont do much for the quality of your pictures though. Cheap lenses that span a great zoom range are very very average.
Posted 2 years ago # -
psychle - I need to zoom that little bit more, the images are not that bad but i dont claim to be SFB but some of them are ok.
The lens is a 18 - 55 i think the one it came with...
Posted 2 years ago # -
i dont claim to be SFB but some of them are ok.
thanks but I'm distinctly average too
I make up for lack of ability by taking many hundreds of shots every ride - 400 last night ride (2 hours) This is all I managed:
Posted 2 years ago # -
In that case 17-70 Sigma is a good option.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I need to zoom that little bit more,
Walk closer is the cheapest option!
Posted 2 years ago # -
what lens do you use then Simon?
Posted 2 years ago # -
or a used Canon 17-85mm IS, my first lens and quite good (though purists and pixel peepers will find fault!). The IS is very useful, definitely something to get if you can (IS = image stabilisation, helps you when the shutter speed starts getting too low, though it's not a magic wand!)
Posted 2 years ago # -
what lens do you use then Simon?
a) it's Nikon
b) it cost £500+
18-200mm Nikkor VRWalk closer is the cheapest option!
does not have the same result! And let's just hope there isn't a ravine in between...
Posted 2 years ago # -
On a budget the Canon 17-85mm IS is a good lens. I've tried a few Sigma lenses and with the exception of the 10-20mm possibly I wouldn't bother with them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
you using a tripod in that sequence SFB? I assume so?
Posted 2 years ago # -
The 70-300 IS zoom is a reasonable lens for the price,mine gave pretty good image quality for £400.
I may be selling my 70-300 4-5.6 IS and my 100-400L in the near future as my new lens has just arrived.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Couple of my most recent pics -
Lens - Canon 50mm f1.8 prime, straight off the camera (Canon 400D), no processing.....
Sigma 17-70 f2.8, aided with a cheap (£70) Vivitar flash, again, straight off the camera just how I like them....
I do like to see a bit of blur in mine, I can't see the point of freezing movement dead all the time.... On that second one, the flash is on the camera (I have remote triggers but wasn't using them there) with the camera set to second curtain synch. Shutter speed is slow at 1/50th sec (f5, 200ISO) the flash set on a low power to freeze most of the action of the bike and rider, but panning the camera produces the background blur. I don't know much, and I had to learn that technique by trail and error mainly, but I love the results. My camera is very rarely in anything other than fully manual at the minute, too.....
There's some great websites to learn this sort of stuff, but reading the camera instruction manual through properly is invaluable, IME
Posted 2 years ago # -
I reckon it depends what you want to do with the camera too.
Now, see, SFB shoots his MTB shots in wide open landscpe with (Generally) plenty of light available. His tight 200mm zoom will be very useful out in the Lakes, and I've seen he gets some great shots with it. However, for 85% of the riding shots I take, the 17-70mm Sigma is more than adequate because mostly I shoot in woodland. A 200mm zoom is useless when there's trees in the way, and the wide f2.8 apeture gathers more light than the equivilent Canon lens (f4-ish?)Price for price, Sigma make all the lens you'll ever need.
Have a look at the reviews here, the guy takes the same 4 test shots with every lens on a 300D, which is great for a direct comparison
Posted 2 years ago # -
you using a tripod in that sequence SFB? I assume so?
no way - far too much faff. I usually get 15 seconds to get in place before the riders arrive. The one time I took a tripe-pod, by the time I was ready no one was in sight any longer
Posted 2 years ago # -
check out ken rockwell's reviews. As above, the 18-200mm nikon is perfect for 99% of people, 99% of the time. Not sure what the Canon equivalent is. If you are shooting sports action type shots then the 70-200 mm is/vr is perfect, but big and expensive, the sigma 150-500 is pretty good -
http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=24_28&products_id=457 , but quite a big heavy lens. This should be your gold standard http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-28-300mm-f3-5-5-6-l-is-usm-lens/p12844 with this as the cheaper non stabilised option http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-28-135mm-f3-5-5-6-is-usm-lens/p12841 . One thing to remeber is that you will change your camera body and it will devalue, but you will never change a good lens, and the best lenses will often hold their value or even appreciate.Posted 2 years ago # -
the best lenses will often hold their value or even appreciate.
sadly mine is gradually filling up with mud
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd take whatever Rockwell said with a fair amount of grain of salt. I'd check dpreview before Ken Rockwell. Let alone that the 18-200 at over 500£ is not cheap.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'd check dpreview before Ken Rockwell.
* Huge 11.1x focal length range, ideal travel lens
* Decent build quality - much better than Nikon's 18-55mm kit lens
* Very effective vibration reduction system, at least 3 stops benefit
* Excellent fast, silent autofocus with manual override
* High image quality in the normal to short telephoto range, and good at 200mmConclusion - Cons
* Pronounced distortion across much of the range
* Extremely soft at 135mm
* Rather average close-up performance
* Zoom creepPosted 2 years ago # -
The kit lens that you have is pretty decent for getting started ("a bit rubbish" isn't really fair), and like psychie says you should develop your skills and knowledge to the point where you understand where the lens limits you (if at all) and what in particular you'd like in a new lens. From my experience, I'd say the money is better invested in a college course or photography books if you're starting out
Posted 2 years ago # -
("a bit rubbish" isn't really fair)
No, that's a fair assesment. In good light at f8 it might do OK, but stopped down it's poo.
Posted 2 years ago # -
In good light at f8 it might do OK, but stopped down it's poo.
do you mean not stopped down ? You can only go one stop down from f/8 before diffraction starts kicking in...
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've had a 17-85mm IS on my 350d for 4 years now and I've rarely found it wanting, I have a 50mm prime if I need a fast lens for low light, but I've not often thouught that I don't have enough zoom on it. I did haave a 200-300mm (?) zoom at one time but found it was gettingt no use, too much faff setting up the tripod etc..
Posted 2 years ago # -
i would say two lenses one for a day with the family or race events etc
where zoom isn't really necessary plus you will need to open the shutter a little bit longer when there is low light etc and the Image Stability is great for this!
canon 17-85mm IS its a great lens
and one for the far shots wildlife being in the cheap seats at the Grand Prix etc.
canon 70-300mm is lens
both great lenses!!
Posted 2 years ago # -
As above, the 17-85mm is a decent enough upgrade from the 18-55mm without breaking the bank.
Or, with markedly better image quality, the new Canon 15-85mm is a cracker at around 500 quid.
Not a fan of Sigma due to experiencing recurring quality issues from their 10-20mm. Put me off them somewhat.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a kit 18-55, a sigma 18-50, a couple of manual focus lenses and a fairly pricey sigma 70-300 macro lens. None of them take decent shots with below-par skills, I bin 50% of my shots. The short sigma takes godaweful shots most of the time, the kit 18-55 takes reasonable shots most of the time. The manual focus lenses take VERY nice shots when i have time to set it up and the pricey sigma takes stunning shots when I use it in it's sweet spot and enough light. From what I see and have read, stick to canon lenses and if you want stunning shots, pay for them. If not, make do with the decidedly good 18-55 or 17-85s. And work on your skills!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've got a Sigma 17-70 and 10-20, both are very good and no problems at all I have heard of quality control issues.
The 17-70 is only f2.8 at 17mm, soon increases after that, but still a decent enough lens
Also got a Canon 55-250 IS, cheap and cheerful, but amazed at just how good it is, would have been happy at twice the price, don't let the low cost put you offPosted 2 years ago # -
According to this you'd be best off with Canon or Nikon - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=202002
Posted 2 years ago # -
OH, if you want a really good long, cheap lens, The Tamron 55-200 is superb and available for about £90 brand new (Ebay). I might get one, see if I ever use it, then if I do trade up to a Canon 70-200 F4 L which is one MFing serious lens for the £450-ish you can get them for.....
Posted 2 years ago # -
There should be a Canon 17-85mm, 50mm and a Sigma 10-20mm wide angle going cheap somewhere, along with a spare 350d body as some barsteward nicked the whole bloody lot from a wedding last weekend. Grrrrrrrrr.
However, was bored with the faff (and lack of ability) with the SLR so replacing the lot with a Pansonic Lumix (Leica) wide angle compact and a new laptop with the spare insurance cash.
Posted 2 years ago # -
i'd vote for a sigma 18-200 os - worked very well as a single lens for me
I back it up with a 10-20mm sigma and a 200-400mm sigma for long range
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have a Canon 28mm-135mm IS USM that I don't use any more - upgraded to L Series. They are about £130 quid on ebay. Make me a near offer and it's yours.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For me, it's the Canon 17-40 F4 L as my standard lens - gets used lots, and you'd be surprised how little you actually 'need' (or in fact, use) more zoom than that. And then the Canon 70-300 IS DO for when I want something a little closer - the DO gets mixed reviews, but I like it and it's very compact for the range.
I have a cheap Canon 50mm 1.8 prime too - bought off ebay and great for portraits and indoor photos of the kids.
Whatever you get, practice lots and enjoy!
Nick
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
