My lenses

A

AdamcMWCK

Messages
152
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
Hi all currently I have the following lenses:

Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6 III
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II
Also got an old Hoya wide angle lens from eBay which has turned out pretty good lol.

Anyway I was thinking about upgrading my lenses as follows.

Canon 18-55 mm to the Sigma 17-70 mm f2.8-4.5 DC macro?
Canon 75-300mm to the canon EFS 55-250mm

Would these be considered a good upgrade for basic affordable lenses, or should I just keep the ones I have as the difference would not be massive in end result?
 
But really you're not gaining anything by swapping, sure the 55-250 is a slightly better lens but personally I wouldn't bother.

In getting the Tamron 17-50 you are getting constant f/2.8 which is something really worth paying for.
 
Ok so keep the 75-300mm (I think I have used it twice) most of my pictures are close range anyway.

Would you suggest the tamron with stability control or the one without? One has VC one has not.
 
The non-VC is supposedly sharper but then it doesn't have the benefit of VC. You pays your money you takes your choice...
 
No, neither will.

The clue is that it is an 18-50 (more or less lens). These are only ever designed for crop bodies as they replicate the filed of view from more traditional 28-70 lenses on a full frame camera.

So, any zoom lens that starts with an 18 will be for crop bodies and any that starts with 24 or 28 will be for full frame. Problem being that 24 isn't really wide enough for a walk around lens on a crop body.
 
Last edited:
Ok thank you for that as I am still learning. I don't think I will upgrade to a full frame for many years, however do not want to stockpile lenses that will be no use in the future if I do.

I see the ones that start with the above tend to be more expensive also.
 
Last edited:
Buy 2nd hand and you won't lose any money if you sell on (y)

My personal opinion is that apart from primes you should use DX lenses on a DX body as they have more useful zoom ranges and are lighter and less expensive.
 
Nawty said:
No, neither will.

The clue is that it is an 18-50 (more or less lens). These are only ever designed for crop bodies as they replicate the filed of view from more traditional 28-70 lenses on a full frame camera.

So, any zoom lens that starts with an 18 will be for crop bodies and any that starts with 24 or 28 will be for full frame. Problem being that 24 isn't really wide enough for a walk around lens on a crop body.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself.. :nono:

I'm happiest with a 30mm prime as walkabout on a crop body.. (y)

You've got to be careful when anyone says, "That lens isn't right for that", when they mean, "That lens isn't right for that for me".


Adam, why do you want to "upgrade"? What do you want to do? Are you chasing the sharpness genie, or looking for something faster, or something with better colour/contrast?

Would changing lenses make the biggest difference or a upgrade to technique and/or processing? What difference do you want to see?
 
get the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC if you can. Personally VC is not really needed for that kind of focal length. Is good to have it but not end of the day tho.

Also if you feel you need to swap out the 75-300mm i would suggest getting the 70-200 f4 L instead.
 
If you can get a 70-200 f4 L non IS (from £350 second hand) you could get a 1.4x teleconverter that will give you a 280mm focal length at f5.6 and will still give you good IQ and AF speed. I had a 75-300 MkIII lens for a couple of months and TBH it was awful. It's the only lens I've had that I've not kept any photos taken with it.
 
I am pretty new to the whole photography world. Just thought if I'm am to get better would it not be wise to get 2 half decent lenses.

I'm in no need for them as I'm still learning, just figured they may help going forward.
 
Learn to use what you have properly, when your current kit stops you shooting what you want, then upgrade.

Enjoy using what you have before spending oodles on upgrading................:)
 
I have to be honest and say i think i took some perfectly acceptable photos with my 75 - 300 and 400d,


IMG_6882 by jalizcazan, on Flickr

and with my 18 - 55, granted this is on my 40D when i got it but same lens as you have


_MG_0424 by jalizcazan, on Flickr

the thing was learning to get the best out of them really helped, when i did come to upgrade
 
Nawty said:
But really you're not gaining anything by swapping, sure the 55-250 is a slightly better lens but personally I wouldn't bother.

In getting the Tamron 17-50 you are getting constant f/2.8 which is something really worth paying for.
Click to expand...

The 55-250 isnt a slightly better lens, it's a MUCH better lens!
 
Thanks everyone. I have decided to stick with what I have for the next few years. I reckon I should learn what I need to without spending money, then when the time is right I can upgrade the body first and go from there. My wife will Inherrit the current body in the next few years.
 
Good man, and congratulations for making a wise decision rather than chucking money about...........:clap:
 
I use the sigma 17-70 as my walkabout and the canon 55-250 for my closer bird shots to back up my 150 -500 sigma and am realy happy with both lenses theres no doubt there are a lot better lenses out there but not for the same money
 
Alastair said:
You've got to be careful when anyone says, "That lens isn't right for that", when they mean, "That lens isn't right for that for me".
Click to expand...

Absolutely great advice (y)


With regards to your lenses, the 55-250IS is a belter of a lens for the price and def worth an upgrade to over the 75-300 lens.

Keep your eyes open in the classifieds here, they do appear 2nd hand at good prices...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top