A good trio of DSLR lenses?
Oct 21, 2013 12:27:42 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
I keep wrestling with this issue. Here's what I have for use on my Canon T2i Digital Rebel body:
Canon 18-55 3.5/5.6 IS STM
Canon 50 1.8 II
Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM "L"
I figure I have about $1200 invested in these 3 lenses(new & used). And, other than for some longer tele uses for outdoor and in field wildlife, these 3 can do most of what I need them to do.
So my question is, keeping within my $1200 max. range, do you see anyway that I could reduce the 3 lenses to a mere 2? Understand that I would need to sell what I have to purchase anything else to replace it.
Could well be that what I currently have works best, and offers the best bang for the buck. And that's fine too.
Thanks.
Canon 18-55 3.5/5.6 IS STM
Canon 50 1.8 II
Canon 70-200 f4 IS USM "L"
I figure I have about $1200 invested in these 3 lenses(new & used). And, other than for some longer tele uses for outdoor and in field wildlife, these 3 can do most of what I need them to do.
So my question is, keeping within my $1200 max. range, do you see anyway that I could reduce the 3 lenses to a mere 2? Understand that I would need to sell what I have to purchase anything else to replace it.
Could well be that what I currently have works best, and offers the best bang for the buck. And that's fine too.
Thanks.
Oct 21, 2013 12:34:35 #
Bear2
Loc: Southeast,, MI
I do not know canon lenses, but nikon has an excellent 18-200 with zoom lock for around $850. add an 35-1.8 or 50-1.8 and you are around $1100 for two. I am sure canon has equivalents.
Oct 21, 2013 12:56:35 #
BobT wrote:
I keep wrestling with this issue. Here's what I h... (show quote)
Sell off that 18-55 3.5/5.6 kit lens for a Tamron 17-55 2.8 VC or Non VC (both are good)/ The rest of your line up is good.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=423714&Q=&is=REG&A=details
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=652136&is=USA&Q=&A=details
You will pay extra for VC.
Oct 21, 2013 13:12:24 #
BobT, Do you need the 50?
If not, sell the two short lenses and replace with the excellent 15-85.
If you need it, you may have to resort to cheap third party glass.
BobT, photography is a cruel mistress.
Good luck. SS
If not, sell the two short lenses and replace with the excellent 15-85.
If you need it, you may have to resort to cheap third party glass.
BobT, photography is a cruel mistress.
Good luck. SS
Oct 21, 2013 13:17:23 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Probably a good suggestion if not for the fact that the Tamron is twice the price of the Canon 18-55 STM lens. I must stay within the value boundaries here. No extra cash. That's what makes this such a difficult (if not impossible) situation.
It's almost a matter of needing to selling off all current lenses to get the cash ($1200)in order to purchase 2 different lenses.
So, if I were to do this, and in so doing acquire the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (@ approx. $500 New), that would leave me about $700 for the other option(s). That said, the newest Tamron 70-300 Di VC lens is getting some good reviews. So between that and the Canon 50mm 1.8(and the 17-50mm), I'd have $$ left over. But then the question becomes just how much excellent IQ would I be giving up by parting with my 70-200 F4 "L" lens? That actually may amount to THE question right now.
It's almost a matter of needing to selling off all current lenses to get the cash ($1200)in order to purchase 2 different lenses.
So, if I were to do this, and in so doing acquire the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (@ approx. $500 New), that would leave me about $700 for the other option(s). That said, the newest Tamron 70-300 Di VC lens is getting some good reviews. So between that and the Canon 50mm 1.8(and the 17-50mm), I'd have $$ left over. But then the question becomes just how much excellent IQ would I be giving up by parting with my 70-200 F4 "L" lens? That actually may amount to THE question right now.
Oct 21, 2013 13:32:30 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Sharpshooter,
I know that I'm making a bigger problem out of this than it really needs to be. I'm interested in seeing how you folks might work this out within rather strict budgetary restrictions.
The Canon 15-85mm lens has the obvious advantage of a larger focal range. Yet, I must admit, the 18-55 lens, the newest and STM version, is no slouch. Have you tried it? I feel it's as good as the 15-85(I use to have one). Looks like Canon has hit the jack-pot with this STM formula (or whatever it is). They have at least 3 STM lenses now, and they're all getting raves......and economical.
I know that I'm making a bigger problem out of this than it really needs to be. I'm interested in seeing how you folks might work this out within rather strict budgetary restrictions.
The Canon 15-85mm lens has the obvious advantage of a larger focal range. Yet, I must admit, the 18-55 lens, the newest and STM version, is no slouch. Have you tried it? I feel it's as good as the 15-85(I use to have one). Looks like Canon has hit the jack-pot with this STM formula (or whatever it is). They have at least 3 STM lenses now, and they're all getting raves......and economical.
Oct 21, 2013 13:49:58 #
The 18-55 STM no matter how new, cant hold a candle to the Tamron 17-50 due to the constant 2.8 aperture across teh entire zoom range. I used to use one of those on my D300 and my father now uses it on his D7000 and its basically welded on. The IQ on the Tammy 17-50 is almost as good as my 24-70 Nano Coated Nikon lens.
While it may seem like its not a game changer because the its mostly the same focal length, you forget that your lens has much slower apertures at both the wide and long end. Those make a HUGE difference especially at the 50mm end of things in low light.
The 50mm I would keep. It can be, on Crop, a decent portrait lens in a pinch and the 70-200mm F4 L could be replaced by the 100-400mm L http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/telephoto-zoom-lenses/ef-100-400mm-f-45-56l-is-usm?utm_source=google&utm_medium=Product_Search&utm_campaign=Google_Product_Feed&cm_mmc=GA-_-Camera_Lenses-_-G_Canon_Product%20Listing%20Ads-_-7344
While it may seem like its not a game changer because the its mostly the same focal length, you forget that your lens has much slower apertures at both the wide and long end. Those make a HUGE difference especially at the 50mm end of things in low light.
The 50mm I would keep. It can be, on Crop, a decent portrait lens in a pinch and the 70-200mm F4 L could be replaced by the 100-400mm L http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/telephoto-zoom-lenses/ef-100-400mm-f-45-56l-is-usm?utm_source=google&utm_medium=Product_Search&utm_campaign=Google_Product_Feed&cm_mmc=GA-_-Camera_Lenses-_-G_Canon_Product%20Listing%20Ads-_-7344
Oct 22, 2013 08:05:57 #
BobT wrote:
I keep wrestling with this issue. Here's what I h... (show quote)
Do not get rid of anything. You have everything you need. Do not get talked into a wide ratio zoom by some jerk that thinks it will be a one lens for everything. Absolutely wrong.
Oct 22, 2013 09:01:13 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
You know, it's a comment like that which brings some degree of comfort to me. When I step back and look at my lens choices, these 3 that I have pretty much can cover all of my needs, and well, too.
Thanks for the reality check.
Thanks for the reality check.
Oct 22, 2013 09:32:32 #
You do not need a nifty 50 unless you are doing portraits. I have one only because I was able to get a 1.8 for $50. I found that an 35 to 70 is a very useful lens then add a 70 to 300 and you pretty well have it covered. For wide angle you can always take 2 overlapping photos and merge them on PS or elements. Just my 2 cents!
Oct 22, 2013 09:42:27 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Don,
It happens that I do take occasional portrait shots. That plus the f1.8 lower light benefit, and I think this lens might be worth holding on to.
It happens that I do take occasional portrait shots. That plus the f1.8 lower light benefit, and I think this lens might be worth holding on to.
Oct 22, 2013 09:53:48 #
BobT: I think the question is (as usual), what do you shoot? If it's a hobby and you shoot everything & anything (like I), I'd say those lenses are good enough. I have to agree, the lenses you have cover the range. Forget PhotoShop; get the effects you want by using the camera settings. If nothing else, for fun, throw in a fisheye lens! That's about the only effect the camera can't match!
Oct 22, 2013 09:58:28 #
I just sent for the Sigma 18-35 1.8. It has gotten some great reviews for APS-C sensors. The 1.8 is constant and takes the place of several primes.
Was going to go with the Sigma 35 1.4 for when I "graduate" to a grown up sensor. Decided that when that happens, I will keep my T3i as a second camera since (by then) it will have little resale value.
Was going to go with the Sigma 35 1.4 for when I "graduate" to a grown up sensor. Decided that when that happens, I will keep my T3i as a second camera since (by then) it will have little resale value.
Oct 22, 2013 11:49:21 #
BobT wrote:
I keep wrestling with this issue. Here's what I h... (show quote)
Bob,
You have a nice range of lenses for a beginner and I would not change anything. If anything, I would add the Canon 100-400mm and a 1.4 TC when you can afford it, for wildlife and birds.
Quit worrying and go shooting, get out and enjoy yourself. Go have some fun!
Jim D
Oct 22, 2013 11:56:49 #
BobT
Loc: southern Minnesota
Jim,
Not worrying at all. Just pondering. The advice to secure a 100-400 lens has been on my mind. I think I could make good use of this focal length. But can't "add" it. It would have to come at the cost of selling away my 70-200 f4 IS. Not sure trading off superb IQ for 200mm more in FL is worth doing, however. I could add a 1.4X TC giving me a max. of 280mm. But honestly, the extra 80mm in tele length is really not that noticible to me.
Not worrying at all. Just pondering. The advice to secure a 100-400 lens has been on my mind. I think I could make good use of this focal length. But can't "add" it. It would have to come at the cost of selling away my 70-200 f4 IS. Not sure trading off superb IQ for 200mm more in FL is worth doing, however. I could add a 1.4X TC giving me a max. of 280mm. But honestly, the extra 80mm in tele length is really not that noticible to me.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.