New to DSLRs - the (budget) used lens minefield... help!

ZoneV

ZoneV

Messages
3,163
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 30D on the way and need to chose a lens. The 30D stretched my budget a little more than I had planned (I had planned to get a 10D or 20D but the 30D was too tempting!) so whilst I would love to get some L glass, unfortunately I'll have to make do with something considerably less expensive for the time being.

Now, my problem... There are so many lenses to choose from! I've been gathering opinions from this forum (of course), Photozone's tests as well as generally searching the internet. The trouble is, I now have a growing list consisting of a mixture of lenses that fall within my budget - some are older lenses that can be bought very cheaply yet still have a good reputation for IQ, the few "kit" type lenses that actually punch above their weight (according to photozone's tests) and a few highly regarded fairly cheap 3rd party lenses.

I was hoping someone can help me out with some advice before I drown in the sea of choice.

Some of the candidates are:

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 28-70mm
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Canon EF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

Many thanks!
 
I bought an EF-S 18-55mm IS lens on here recently for under £75 so keep an eye out on here.

I also got an EF 28-135mm IS USM lens for well under its RRP which is an excellent walkabout lens for the 450D and would, I think, suit you perfectly.

So I'd say keep an eye out on here.
 
If you want to buy an L lens, drop a little cash on a nifty fifty for now and use it till you can afford an 'L' glass.
 
What you have not mentioned is you choice of subject (ladscpae, sport, nature).

The ef-s 18-55mmm IS lens is good value if you are prepared to live with the compromises (eg slow lens).


Equally, the partner 55-250mm IS lens is another that punches above its weight.
 
Be careful with Sigma, they are reverse engineered to work with Canon so may not work if they were brought out before your particular camera.
Any Canon with a metal mount will/should have good IQ.

I can confirm a good example of the 28/70 and 70/210 metal mount Canon lenses you have listed are great and are very good value for money. I have both and have compared them to my nifty fifty 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 100 2.8 and they compare very well throughout their aperture range.

Personally I steer clear of 3rd party old lenses when I can buy good 2nd hand Canon ones.

Matt
 
Thanks for the quick replies.

@Peter - That's good to know. I'll have a look into the EF 28-135 and how much they go for, it could well be another to look out for. (Yet another to add to the candidate list! :bonk:)

@trencheel303 - This is something I've considered, especially after seeing the Canon 50mm offer in the advertisers section. I'm concerned that "only" having a 50 would restrict my photography until I can afford another lens. On the other hand, it may not be such a bad idea to play with a 50 for a while, and everyone should have one in their collection, right?

@graham - Well spotted. I deliberately didn't state any particular subject because, well, I don't really have a favourite. I suppose I've shot mostly wide-ish angle landscapes up to now but I am very keen to try other things once I get my new camera - street, portrait, a little motorsport (local track) etc as well as landscape.

@mat - thanks for the tip re Sigma lenses, I didn't know that and will bear it in mind. I'm encouraged by your experiences with the older metal mount 28/70 and 70/210 lenses. Can I ask what kind of photography you found them to be particularly useful for (I'd love to see some pictures if that's possible).

What about the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? Looking at the second-hand prices these go for it's close to the absolute top-end of my current lens budget but on paper it looks like a very good performer indeed, I'm surprised no-one has anything to say about it.
 
28/70 - general stuff, I prefer longer lenses to wider ones
70/210 - recently purchased to replace push/pull f4 70/210 which seems very soft, so far just done some testing. The Af on this one is very good on my 1D (Mk 2)

Will see if I can find some snaps and upload, but having just moved all my photos to an external drive it might take some time.
They both sit on my 50d and 1d, the 1d doesnt take ef-s lenses (1.3 crop) Full frame Canons dont like ef-s either, wrong mount.

Matt

70-210 100% crop flength 210 f5.6 1/500 iso 200
 
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 has a terrific reputation. You may find the f2.8 useful in lowlight or for subject isolation.

The image quality from it is meant to be very good.

What is your actual budget?

Al
 
Thanks for posting the photo, mat. I'm no expert, but that looks very sharp to me. It's amazing really, from such an old lens. What's it like wide open?

Very nice indeed, especially so considering the prices these go for. I'll keep an eye out for a good one.

@akr - it's from £0 to about £250/80ish with a heavy bias towards as little as I can possibly get away with. :) I'm after a good compromise between IQ and cost.
 
I hear you! :)

I don't have experience of any of the lenses below, however go for the Tamron.

It's a fast f2.8 lens, it's 17mm at it's widest which is the best of those you list (and you want to do landscapes - I think the Sigma may be too wide for this).

It will also allow some street \ portrait type photos.

The lens is also highly regarded. If you get a good copy second hand (check the sales forum on here) and you decide after a few months it's not for you, you can probably sell it on at little or on loss, but you'll have some good quality images (if your technique is good of course ;)) in that time.

Personally my favourite lens is my 70-200 and I hardly use the 17-70 range but if you get that lens you'll soon see if you need more or even wider focal lengths. It's about getting out there and finding out what you enjoy!

If you do go for say the 70-210 as mentioned above the 50mm 1.8 is fairly cheap and produces great images for the price *Edit - what I mean by this is get is as well so you have a bit more range and f1.8).

Good luck :)

Al
 
ZoneV said:
Thanks for posting the photo, mat. I'm no expert, but that looks very sharp to me. It's amazing really, from such an old lens. What's it like wide open?

Very nice indeed, especially so considering the prices these go for. I'll keep an eye out for a good one.

@akr - it's from £0 to about £250/80ish with a heavy bias towards as little as I can possibly get away with. :) I'm after a good compromise between IQ and cost.
Click to expand...

That was at the long end (210) and f5.6, not much different at 4.5 tbh, good at 70 and 135 too.
Matt
 
I have the 70-210 f3.5-4.5 as well (two of them actually, one I use and the other my OH when we want to travel light and not bother with the heavyweights), very sharp and a bargain for the price you can get it for.
 
ZoneV said:
@trencheel303 - This is something I've considered, especially after seeing the Canon 50mm offer in the advertisers section. I'm concerned that "only" having a 50 would restrict my photography until I can afford another lens. On the other hand, it may not be such a bad idea to play with a 50 for a while, and everyone should have one in their collection, right?
Click to expand...

It could make you think more on the other hand. Three of my four lenses are primes, so by now I'm used to 'foot zooming'.
 
"Foot zooming" :D. This is probably a silly question, but what draws you (and photographers in general) to primes, trencheel? Do they offer a better IQ/price ratio? I imagine they're a lot faster too, with less complex optics.

I can see this lens business is going to be very addictive - I had no idea there was such a vast array of options.

Thanks to all who contributed with advice and opinions. Motivated by my 30D arriving today I managed to find and purchase one of the lenses on my list in excellent condition an at a good price on Ebay. So, in the next couple of days I should have a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS to play with. Not fantastic perhaps, but one of the better "kit" lenses and a steal at ~£72 all-in.

I'll still be keeping my eye out for the others on my list though, of course. I can feel myself becoming addicted to glass and i haven't even held any yet!
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Rather than the 70-210 3.5/4.5 see if you can get hold of the older but better 70-210 f4,all my footy shots at my Flickr are on this lens and I only paid £60 for it 2 years ago
Click to expand...

I have both :) the 3.5/4.5 is a much better lens (sorry). AF is lightning fast and no zoom creep as its a twist zoom not push pull. I may have a bad copy of the f4 but IQ just doesnt compare.

Matt
 
ZoneV said:
"Foot zooming" :D. This is probably a silly question, but what draws you (and photographers in general) to primes, trencheel? Do they offer a better IQ/price ratio? I imagine they're a lot faster too, with less complex optics.

I can see this lens business is going to be very addictive - I had no idea there was such a vast array of options.

Thanks to all who contributed with advice and opinions. Motivated by my 30D arriving today I managed to find and purchase one of the lenses on my list in excellent condition an at a good price on Ebay. So, in the next couple of days I should have a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS to play with. Not fantastic perhaps, but one of the better "kit" lenses and a steal at ~£72 all-in.

I'll still be keeping my eye out for the others on my list though, of course. I can feel myself becoming addicted to glass and i haven't even held any yet!
Click to expand...

Common wisdom is that primes are better IQ than zooms, but tbh at amateur level there really isnt much in it when you compare a good zoom (not L) and a good prime, the L series are virtually identical to a prime, but expensive (generally)
Primes however usually win on having a much faster aperture (like for like focal length), often having better colour/contrast too. Then add in weight and af speeds and you can see why primes are so nice.
Of course zooms give you greater flexibility and a whole can of worms opens up regarding what is 'best' (whatever that means).

Yes, glass is addictive, but you'll be able to handle it (just like crack cocaine ::)

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top