Bought a Canon 50D - lens advice please?

J

JYC

Messages
1,206
Edit My Images
Yes
As title says, I have managed to pick up a barely used Canon 50D body. Exciting times... However I wouldn't mind some opinions on lens selection. Bear in mind I'm starting from scratch here and not keen to spend more than about £500 until I know I'm hooked!

I'll be taking this on holiday (next trip Thailand in May :)), taking family snaps and portraits and would also like to use it to take photos indoors at parties.

So with that in mind what lenses would you suggest?

I'm currently pretty keen on the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 as my holiday/walkaround lens. Is this decent, or is it worth getting something with more reach even if I have to give up low light performance? For example taking photos inside temples or museums on holiday where flash isn't allowed.

Taking photos indoors at parties, 50mm won't be wide enough I suspect so I'd be looking for something like 35mm? The Canon f2.0 isn't that expensive but doesn't seem much better than using the fast zoom - thoughts on this lens vs the Canon 28mm f1.8? What about the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which also seems reasonably priced?

Any other thoughts welcome, I'm not committed to anything yet so am open to (and grateful for) ideas about how to start my lens collection!
 
Last edited:
Get a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS - you can pick one up for less than £450 these days. For the money it's one of the best lenses around with a very versatile focal length.
 
Last edited:
+1 For the 24-105 They're £449 brand new on Ebay
 
the 24-105 is a good lens but on an ape-c you have to factor in the crop size. i think the 17-50 is a good lens for this camera if money is tight the look at sigma 17-70os.
 
wave01 said:
the 24-105 is a good lens but on an ape-c you have to factor in the crop size. i think the 17-50 is a good lens for this camera if money is tight the look at sigma 17-70os.
Click to expand...

I've only ever used my 24-105 on a 60D and 7D and never found the crop-factor to be a bad thing. I previously owned a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and although I loved the fast speed of the lens, the wide-end 17mm was rarely useful.
 
Many say that 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop sensor.

I has a 50d and I use it with a 18-135mm, I think it is a great holiday lens. I also have a 35mm f2 which I love I think it is a much more useful length than a 50 on a crop, the AF is MUCH better too. However I didn't find it wide enough for parties/inside. I find my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is perfect for that, great low light performance and allows you to get really close.

1400406_10151941108763476_1564000297_o.jpg


11-16 + a Youngnuo flash at Halloween last year.
 
Lens choice is very personal. With a Canon ##D I'd be happy 90%of the time with a fast 30 and a fast 85, the Sigma 30/1.4 and 85/1.4 was the lens pair I was working towards with my 40D until I switched to to Fuji (I got the 30, but never got as far as pushing the button on buying the 85).

But you may find a two-prime set-up too restrictive,and it's ultimately about your style of photography - not anyone else's.

(and despite the usual forum convention, it's not pointless duplication to have the 17-50/2.8 and the 30/1.4 because it's all about the focal length and aperture combination - how much practical overlap there would be is down to your style)
 
Interesting, thanks for all the responses!

Hadn't considered the 24-105, but this does seem like a good lens. The prospect of some L glass as my first lens is appealing ;)

I guess the issue is the wide angle, but if I find myself missing wide angle then something like the 11-16 or 18-35 would be a good second purchase. Obviously this would be more of an issue indoors, I wonder how often this would be a problem while travelling?

Alastair - do love the images a good fast prime gets you but don't think I am brave enough to go without at least one decent zoom!
 
Have you considered the Canon 15-85mm IS which gives the same field of view as the 24-105 on full frame?
 
You might find the F4 a bit restricting (on the 24/105). The 50D is a nice camera but it's a little dated now in terms of ISO/low-light performance, in that I wouldnt push it much past 1600 unless you want "arty" grainy shots. I'd certainly be thinking a fastre aperture as necessity, possibly a prime as a second lens allowing you to use the flexibility of a zoom in most situations but backing it up for those other situations where there's not much light.
One thing we should mention, with Sigma some of their lenses are reverse engineered to work with Canon bodies, meaning if you upgrade the body later you may find the lens no longer works. Any lens you buy now should work with the 50D, unless its an old second hand one, in which case try before you buy.
Enjoy the camera, I had one, gave it to my wife and she's enjoying it a lot, it's still a very good camera in most "normal" situations.

Matt
 
Ahh this was never going to be easy was it?

Cheers DaveKing but I have definitely discounted the 15-85 because it's quite slow at the long end and expensive for what it is. I considered it at the start but the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 looked like a better option.

MatBin I had heard that high ISO performance was not too hot on the 50D, would you say 1600 was usable though - it would never get printed bigger than a large photo to put on my wall :p

People with the 24-105 is the IS really worth 3 stops as Canon advertise? I wouldn't be using it for sports, just people and things.
 
JYC said:
People with the 24-105 is the IS really worth 3 stops as Canon advertise? I wouldn't be using it for sports, just people and things.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the for 24-105, but with the 70-200 2.8 IS I managed a sharp image at 1/10 and at about 100mm
 
1600 is ok, depends how critical you are, especially in the shadow area.
 
I have a EFs 10-22 for wide stuff along with a couple of Sigma zooms 28-105mm & sigma 70-300mm apo. These three cover most of my needs.
I'm fortunate to have a lot on Nikon Glass which I also use with a Nikon/canon mount adaptor but these have to be focused manualy.
Something like a 18-200mm just might be a good way to go if you don't want to go to the expense of the Canon then both Sigma and Tamron have lenses in this range.
And it will give you chance to see if you get the photography bug big time!
If you do then I would advise you to spend more on the best glass you can afford.
If you buy the best glass you can afford then you will probably never have a need to upgrade it.
 
24-105L or 35L but the latter costs more than 500. Also on a crop its not exactly wide.

My money would go on 24-105. I assume the 70d has a digic 5 processor? If so iso performance should be better meaning for low light you can use higher iso speeds to compensate.

I rarely use my 35L at 1.4, too shallow dof. Stepping down to 2.8-5.6 is where I like it, armed with a high iso all is well!

Edit 11-22 is another lovely lens. Although the range isn't exactly huge.
 
Amin said:
24-105L or 35L but the latter costs more than 500. Also on a crop its not exactly wide.

My money would go on 24-105. I assume the 70d has a digic 5 processor? If so iso performance should be better meaning for low light you can use higher iso speeds to compensate.

I rarely use my 35L at 1.4, too shallow dof. Stepping down to 2.8-5.6 is where I like it, armed with a high iso all is well!

Edit 11-22 is another lovely lens. Although the range isn't exactly huge.
Click to expand...
High iso performance isn't down to the processor (though it does go short way to help with more powerful noise reduction software), its sensor dependant. Ie, all digic 5 bodies won't have the same iso performance.

A 70d (or Canon's high end compacts) will not perform as well at high ISO as the 5d3 or 6d, as they have completely different sensors, though share the same processor.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly I was about to make a thread about that! You've cleared it up, thanks!

So I guess I ought to be reading up on sensors.
 
Even more posts in favour of the 24-105 L :) I am waiting to pounce on a good copy arund the £400 mark, seeing as they are £439 new on the bay.

Sensor performance is another matter. I hear Canon are lagging behind for high ISO performance. The 50D I have isn't meant to be great at high ISO but Canon's next generations of APS-C sensors have only been evolutions not revolutions, or so I have read. Another reason why I didn't feel the need to plash out more for a more expensive body!
 
Canon aren't lagging behind, it depends what you're looking at?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top