Canon 60D

[jeffo]

Hi.

I am purchasing a Canon 60D camera. But there seem to be 4 different lens kits available. Can someone please explain the differences. Here are the kits and one shops prices...

Canon EOS 60D + EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Kit (£1685.00)
Canon EOS 60D + EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Kit (£1149.00)
Canon EOS 60D + EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens Kit (£1099.00)
Canon EOS 60D + EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens Kit (£975.00)
Canon EOS 60D Body Only (£919.00)

I am leaning towards the 18-135mm lens. Purely because it has the longest range, and therefore (I assume) is the most flexible. Mostly I will be photographing the kids, sports, holidays, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Dave Stone]

The 18-135 covers a good range and will make a good walk about lens. the 17-85 will distort a bit at the wide end the 18-55 not a great lens at all. The 17-55 is reputably a very good lens but expensive, worth the money if you need the conststant F2.8

 

[tijuana taxi]

Presumably that's from abroad with those prices, wait a bit longer and UK price will also get under the grand for body only

As for lens choice, I would start with the 18-55 IS kit lens for an extra 55 quid and then see exactly what you need without being restricted to just four options

the 18-55 not a great lens at all

Sorry, but the majority disagree especially for the price and the 17-85mm gets far worse reviews

The 17-55mm is very nice though and if money isn't a problem, go for it

 

[jeffo]

Thank you very much.

That is exactly what I am looking for.

I think I will go with the 18-135mm lens kit.

and, no, these are the best UK prices that google could find....discounting the obvious chinese imports on ebay.

I am waiting until Friday to buy one though, as I have family coming from Canada who are checking DutyFree in Toronto.

 

[Dave Stone]

I've had both the 18-55 & 17-85. Neither is a great lens. The IQ from the 17-85 is better than the 18-55. However, the 18-55 isn't a great lens. Under certain circumstances it will produce some good shots.

 

[jeffo]

I wouldnt expect that any kit lens would be fantastic.
But then again, nor am I an amazing photographer. No doubt any of these lenses will suit my skill level and requirements.

I think I've started something.

 

[swag72]

However, the 17-55 isn't a great lens. Under certain circumstances it will produce some good shots.

From experience of this lens I would disagree with this. The 17-55/ 2.8 IS is an absolute belter of a lens and I would buy this in a heartbeat as a walkabout for a crop sensor. It produced pin sharp results and great colours - It was a fantastic lens and there are plenty on here who would agree with that sentiment.

 

[Dave Stone]

I think you must have posted as I was correcting my post Sarah. I typed 17 instead of 18. Rich was disagreeing with the 18-55 not a great lens statement.

 

[mipevo6]

Other alternative is is the 15-85 which is very highly regarded....

 

[tijuana taxi]

I wasn't suggesting the 18-55 IS was a great lens Dave, but for 55 quid extra its pretty decent and the OP could easily sell it for that and then buy something a bit better

All depends what you compare it with, bit like the 55-250 IS, cheap and surprisingly good for the money, but not when seen against something costing considerably more

Think your edit about the 17-55mm still hasn't shown up, now that I would have disagreed with as its a brilliant lens and very happy with mine indeed

 

[Dave Stone]

The 18-55 isn't a great lens at all.

Sorry, but the majority disagree especially for the price and the 17-85mm gets far worse reviews

wasn't suggesting the 18-55 IS was a great lens Dave

:shrug:

I don't think you'll go far wrong with the 18-135 for starters. Once the photography bug bites it will start hitting your wallet!

 

[TCR4x4]

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a belter and would be my 1st choice if you were planning on lots of low light stuff or just a excelent walkaround lens. Of course it doesnt offer the flexibilty of range as the 18-135, but it offers a much more robust and resellable lens IMO.