Best lenses for a beginner buying Canon EOS 50D as first SLR

B

bombfrog

Messages
190
Edit My Images
Yes
Following on from this thread here where I got some fantastically useful advice....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=233355

I think that I have decided to go for the Canon EOS 50D for about £680, body only (as I'm getting the impression I'd be best off replacing the kit lens anyway).

So, I know nothing about lenses and need some suggestions for a good standard lens to start off with. From what I've learned so far I think I'm looking at a 2.8 in the 25-75 range (Although I'm completely guessing), either Canon or another compatible brand. I don't have the money for the top end lenses but want something good so I guess I'm looking mid-range.

Soon after I guess I'm going to need a wide-angle lens for landscapes and possibly a longer lens if I want to try my hand at wildlife photography etc? I get the impression that 3 lenses would do me for most situations?

Sorry, a lot of questions I know but I have no idea where to start really. A good replacement for the standard kit lens would be a great start.

Thanks.
 
It all depends how much money you want to spend but as many others will tell you shortly the Canon 50mm f1.8 is your best bang for your buck. It's fast, it's sharp and it's small and light. Winner :)
 
SparkUK said:
It all depends how much money you want to spend but as many others will tell you shortly the Canon 50mm f1.8 is your best bang for your buck. It's fast, it's sharp and it's small and light. Winner :)
Click to expand...

So, that would give me no ability to zoom, right? Would it still be good for most standard situations?
 
I was in the same boat as you a few days ago, but after seeing the 50mm F/1.8 MKII "nifty fifty" thread I went and purchased one it seems like a great lens.

and like you I want to try wildlife and such so I've ordered a Sigma 70-300 APO for about £180 mainly due to budget reasons.
 
I'd be looking at getting some older 2nd hand Canon zooms with metal mounts if my budget was limited. Initially I'd also be looking at a 50/1.8 to learn as much as possible about potography at the most effctive cost. Despite its cheap price the quality of the image it creates are really good and at 1.8 its a fast lens for low light use.
 
andrewc said:
the kit lenses are ideal for beginners. Suggest sticking with these until you've decided what interests you most, then tailor your lenses to suit those needs.
Click to expand...

I gather from reading similar posts on here though that they offer a lot of versatility in the length but aren't particularly good quality?
 
The kit lenses are built to a cost certainly, but the IQ is more than adequate to start with. Not the best, but good enough.

Unless you're loaded, then 24-70 f2.8 L, 70-200 f2.8 IS II L and a few others.
 
bombfrog said:
So, that would give me no ability to zoom, right? Would it still be good for most standard situations?
Click to expand...


That's right, no zoom.... in return you get a super sharp, super fast lens for almost no money and it will make you think harder about composition etc, you can still 'zoom with your feet' though.
 
I've also just heard from somebody on this forum who has a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 lens for sale. Do you guys think this would make a suitable replacement for a standard kit lens in most situations?
 
andrewc said:
the kit lenses are ideal for beginners. Suggest sticking with these until you've decided what interests you most, then tailor your lenses to suit those needs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In my honest, non-wishing-to-insult, opinion, until your ability to use the equipment surpasses the ability of the equipment itself, there is no point in using anything other than the kit lens. Of course, that is until you decide what you need from your glass the most... but therein lies my point :)
 
There is far to much snobbery over lenses, and the kit lenses are more than good enough for starting out, and a long time afterwards too.

I've seen thousands of stunning shots taken with the original Canon 18-55 kit lens, and the newer ones are a much better quality.

Forget the 50mm 1.8 it's VERY poorly built and vastly over rated, yes it's fast at 1.8 and yes it's cheap, but far too limited as a general lens.

Get yourself the 50D and EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
 
I see no reason for the OP to pay for a 17-85mm lens, which I found quite poor, and will cost him over £200 and not buy a body only and then spend the same amount and get a nice 2nd hand lens from the classifieds here (Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or similar).
 
I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (the none IS one) over the 'standard kit lens' - I think its the best value for money lens I have ever had. On a crop body I find the focal length very useful, and the 2.8 is great when you need it.

As for image quality, I was very, VERY, impressed as far as I remember, similar IQ to my L glass... - its also built nice and solidly and comes with a lens hood. (kit lens does not) :)

I wouldn't personally recommend the 50mm 1.8 to a beginner, if anything it would put me off... let the OP get used to how the camera works, then buy glass to suit your style/needs.
 
bombfrog said:
I gather from reading similar posts on here though that they offer a lot of versatility in the length but aren't particularly good quality?
Click to expand...

why not look at photos taken with the lens you can find pages like this at Pbase you can put in any lens and look them up
here is a good set of photos
 
Thanks guys, all very useful!

Anybody got any opinions on the "Sigma 24-70 f2.8" to replace the standard lens?
 
Woodsy said:
Agreed. In my honest, non-wishing-to-insult, opinion, until your ability to use the equipment surpasses the ability of the equipment itself, there is no point in using anything other than the kit lens. Of course, that is until you decide what you need from your glass the most... but therein lies my point :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm not offended, I know I know nothing about photograpy! mY thinking though is that I want ME to be the limiting factor. Even, though I'm a beginner I figure that if the kit is good and it's giving me the best change of getting good, sharp, colourful photos then if I don't get the results I want then I've only got myself to blame.
 
bombfrog said:
Don't worry, I'm not offended, I know I know nothing about photograpy! mY thinking though is that I want ME to be the limiting factor. Even, though I'm a beginner I figure that if the kit is good and it's giving me the best change of getting good, sharp, colourful photos then if I don't get the results I want then I've only got myself to blame.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you make a good point... I suppose then the answer to your second to last post is that the Sigma 24-70 is a better lens than the kit lens.

Also, now that I think about it, I suppose it's not unheard of that getting good kit at the beginning is a bad idea; take EdinburghGary for example.

There are arguments for and against a prime lens, at least to begin with. In the early stages of your learning about photography, a prime lens would be good at forcing you to consider your compositions more. However I personally can't stand the 50mm focal length, so who am I to recommend it :D
 
bombfrog said:
Thanks guys, all very useful!

Anybody got any opinions on the "Sigma 24-70 f2.8" to replace the standard lens?
Click to expand...

If you want to replace the std lens i would go for 17 or 18mm at the wide end as this focal length is good for landscapes and architecture. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4 OS is suposed to be very good. My dad has one and he says the OS works really well and it's a good sharp lens.

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which has superb image quality but no image stabeliser as that version has problems! I compared it with the canon 17-40 f4L and the IQ i found to be very close plus the images 'felt' similar.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8.......It's the poor mans 17-40L :D
 
bombfrog said:
Following on from this thread here where I got some fantastically useful advice....

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=233355

I think that I have decided to go for the Canon EOS 50D for about £680, body only (as I'm getting the impression I'd be best off replacing the kit lens anyway).

So, I know nothing about lenses and need some suggestions for a good standard lens to start off with. From what I've learned so far I think I'm looking at a 2.8 in the 25-75 range (Although I'm completely guessing), either Canon or another compatible brand. I don't have the money for the top end lenses but want something good so I guess I'm looking mid-range.

Soon after I guess I'm going to need a wide-angle lens for landscapes and possibly a longer lens if I want to try my hand at wildlife photography etc? I get the impression that 3 lenses would do me for most situations?

Sorry, a lot of questions I know but I have no idea where to start really. A good replacement for the standard kit lens would be a great start.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The 28-75 is aimed more at full frame and I think the 50d is a cropped sensor (though I'm not 100% on Canons).

There's some excellent kit lens replacements out there, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is a great little lens and a decent replacement for your kit lens as a 'jack of all trades' lens.

Your kit lens is fine for landscapes though as you'll be shooting at f/8+ anyway.
 
Another vote here for the Tammy 17-50mm f/2.8, I love my copy and agree it's the poor mans 17-40mm. The only thing wrong with it is the AF is a tad noisy but apart from that it's a cracking bit of kit.

With the issues with the IS version you might find that the earlier non IS version holds it's price pretty well.

With that said though I also really like my 50mm f/1.8 as well and as others have said for the money it's an amazing lens, with it being a prime it will teach you to use your legs as a zoom to get the shot right.

Out of the two I would choose the Tammy though everytime..
 
17-50 f2.8, either tamron or sigma. They are just the right range on a crop camera for an everyday lens.
 
First of all thank you to everyone for their patience and help so far. I've been blown away by just how many people there are prepared to give advice on here and the forum is so busy I'm getting really helpful responses in no time at all. So thank you guys!

So, here's where I'm at, I've drawn up a list of contenders and put a few in red that I reckon miss the mark and a few in green that are front-runners....

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MK2 £95 (Cheap and fast. May buy this in addition to a more versatile lens)
Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS £169
Canon 17-85mm f 4-5.6 IS USM £282
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM £309 (3x the price of the 1.8)
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Di II LD CAF £309 (Recommended several times on this thread but no image stabilisation)
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM £399 (Good range and IS but slower aperture)
Canon EF 17-40mm F4 L Lens £649
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG HSM £789 (24 not wide enough for a 1.6 sensor?)
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM £809 (Expensive but seems to have everything. Is it worth pushing the boat out?)


In the mid-range the main 2 choices seem to be the Tamron with a faster aperture but no IS or the Canon with IS but a lower aperture, that seems to be the trade-off, unless I push the boat out and buy the £800 Canon 17-55mm.

Remember I need versatility, I'll be doing landscapes one minute and low-light party shots the next. The only thing I don't really need right away is a longer lens.

Any help getting my short-list of 3 or 4 lenses down to 1 would be really appreciated :)
 
Do you really need IS though? I don't think its really required in lenses of this range and size. Telezooms benefit from it but not once have I ever wished for IS on my sigma 18-50 f2.8. Low light parties will need more than IS to help you- flash is your best bet there.
 
Personally, looking back at how I started on a canon 350D and the 18-55 kit lens, I would suggest something that might save you money initially.

Dont invest in the lens yet, go and shoot, learn the camera and enjoy the photography and after a certain while you will soon get to learn the limitations of your lens based on the style of photographs you like to do which ought to shape what lens you may need in the future.

Didnt mean to put you off in purchasing a lens, but it was an advice I followed and never looked back.
 
Bombfrog,

I am in exactly the same position,
I can't decide between the 17-85 IS kit lens or the siggy 17-70 f2.8-4, Optical Stabilisation, which seems to be faster, similar focal length.

By the way the nifty 50 is worth the money, I've just got one and for the price I thought the same and got one aswell and it has already 'opened my eyes'.

Hope someone will let us know what they think of this Sigma?

Cheech
 
I've been using the 50D for a year with a selection of lenses. For the most part I've found the 17-85mm to be an OK, yet sometimes annoying walkaround lens. So far it's done just enough to head off replacement.

What's good about it? OK it has a usuable range but works best in the 24-70 area. It's also pretty fast focusing - not brilliant but good enough. It feels pretty solid and the IS does have benefits. It's usuably sharp in the 24-70 range, and not too bad either side of that.

What's bad about it? It suffers barrel distortion 17-24mm range. At 17mm-19mm there is dramatic light fall off in the corners (a polariser make it far worse). Also at F4-5.6 it isn't the fastest.

So that said I think it has some pretty big flaws, but not terminal ones - if you can live with them, then you'll be fine and you will get some good shots from it. After using it for a while you will want to change it, but at least by that time you'll have a good idea of what you want from a lens.
 
For low light party shots the IS won't be as important as a faster aperture due to the IS only stabilizing the camera. Moving subjects will quite often still be blurred due to the longish shutter time. (i.e. the room & furniture will be sharp but people dancing/moving won't be).

Also the Canon 18-55mm IS can quite often be found on the for sale section here going for £60-70 and could give you the answer whether IS or fast aperture suits you better then you could re-sell for the same as you bought it for and then get a better lens.

Another also, if you do decide to get the Canon 17-85mm then get it as part of a kit package not separate and you'll save a bit of money (as a kit it adds about £250 to the price, not £399 as buying separately).
 
cheech said:
Bombfrog,

I am in exactly the same position,
I can't decide between the 17-85 IS kit lens or the siggy 17-70 f2.8-4, Optical Stabilisation, which seems to be faster, similar focal length.

Hope someone will let us know what they think of this Sigma?

Cheech
Click to expand...

I had the orig non OS version of the 17-70 siggy and never really appreciated it until after i sold it. It's was and still is a cracking good sharp lens. My Dad recently replaced his non OS version with the new OS version and he says the sharpness is still there but when zoomed in the quality is better due to the OS system.

The 17-85 is good but the siggy gives you f2.8 and Os at the wide end which has got to be worth it!
 
Erm, this Sigma 17-70mm that everybody keeps talking about, I can't find it.

I can find one with this range but it's described as a macro lens?
 
Ah right, I knew macro lenses were for close-ups but I didn't realise a standard length lens could also be a macro.
 
OK, just one more question. That lens is described as f2.8-4 , rather than just f2.8, so under what circumstances would it not be able to do f2.8?
 
bombfrog said:
OK, just one more question. That lens is described as f2.8-4 , rather than just f2.8, so under what circumstances would it not be able to do f2.8?
Click to expand...

At 17mm it will be f2.8 and at 70mm it will be f4 so it will increase from 17mm up to f4. Most lenses with long focal lengths have high f numbers. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 manages to be 2.8 all through the focal range!
 
I can not rate the EF-S 17-55/2.8 highly enough. It was my standard walkabout lens on my crop bodies. I only got rid of it because I moved to full frame. It is a cracking lens and for me was worth the extra money. Infact it was because of this lens that I got rid of the 50mm as there was just no use for it anymore.
 
Down to 3 possible choices....

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM £328.99 - http://biSPAM/a2ivbO
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF £335.99 - http://biSPAM/9EPMGb
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC £459.00 - http://biSPAM/VLkAs

I'm definitely buying one of these 3 :)

I'm guessing it's going to come down to personal preference. Can anyone think of any reason why any of them wouldn't be suitable?
 
i took this with the kit lens, pretty good for £60 worth of kit.. :D


i also have a sigma 135-400 tele lens in the sales forum for £200 ono ;)


canon 450d, 55mm, f5.6, iso 800, speed 1/100..
eye.jpg
 
Right, I've made a decision. It's the "Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC", it's the only one that's f2.8 all the way through and with image stabilisation for around £450.

:)

Thanks to everyone who's chipped in on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top