Which lens on my budget?

Paul870

Paul870

Messages
139
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm at the point where I wish to get a new lens, however can't put my finger in which to go for.
I currently have a 50mm 1.8, and a 18-55mm IS lens.
I like to shoot landscapes, objects, buildings, and abit of wildlife.
My current lens do this well, however I sometimes lack abit of length if I need to get closer.
I've considered upgrading to a 18-135 canon lens, as I'll have what I do now and then some.
Or should I aim for a lot longer telephoto lens?

I'm making a trip to the lake district on Monday-Tuesday and wish to put my camera to use, would be a nice time to take a new lens along too!

My budget is about 300-very maximum 450 and I'd prefer to buy new with a warranty or something that will include one.
Some advice would be great.
 
Hi Paul

Tricky getting both landscape and wildlife with the one lens.

I know what I would do in your shoes is to get a used copy of the non-is Sigma 50-500 (Bigma). These have been selling on this forum for crazy low prices recently. Really good glass for not much money. Lots will recommend the Canon 70-300 IS but to me 300mm is fairly useless for wildlife (except in parks). The Bigma matches very well with your existing lenses as well !

Good luck with your choice.

All the best.

Gary
 
Indeed, I think my 18-55 is pretty good for landscapes, I like to shoot wide open so 18-25 is around what I use.
The 18-135 I liked as I could sell my 18-55 on, however I'm more looking to see what lens is more specific to which area to decide what I'd go for.

Seems there's so much range, really is quite confusing!
 
Paul870 said:
Indeed, I think my 18-55 is pretty good for landscapes, I like to shoot wide open so 18-25 is around what I use.
The 18-135 I liked as I could sell my 18-55 on, however I'm more looking to see what lens is more specific to which area to decide what I'd go for.

Seems there's so much range, really is quite confusing!
Click to expand...

If you really want an upgrade in quality you need to decide which area you want to invest telephoto or wide angle no one lens will do both with an increase in IQ over what you have, however the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM and Tamron 18-270mm VR get good reviews as an all rounder, both under £400, but IQ will suffer as you are squeezing in alot of focal range.

Wide angle the Sigma 10-20mm is great for lanscapes, and the IQ is good. About £350 new for the vbariable aperture model.

For a bit longer since your wanting to by new the 70-200 F4 L Canon would be a good shout I think its around £450, and IQ and handling is great. A cheaper option is the 55-250mm Canon, about £140 new.

I would strongly suggest having a look at the second hand market for a better deal.
 
Last edited:
Dig a bit deeper and get the 70-200 f4 L and keep what you have for the time being.

The fifty will serve you well and the kit lens when opened up will be OK for landscapes.

Then you will have the 70-200 for that extra reach. Its a great lens, highly respected amongst all Canon users, you cannot go wrong with it. Don't be fooled into buying lesser lenses, you probably will regret it and end up with "proper" glass in the future.

I know, I have been there. I bought three low/mid range zooms and have off loaded all of them, shouldn't have bought them in the first place, but there you go.
 
Is it the 70-200 f4 L non IS your on about? As the IS version is About 900-1k which is way out of my reach. I could probably stretch up to around the f4L mark which is 500ish

I think telephoto is what im more looking towards. My current lens do what they do well for what I'm after with what they produce.

Does not having the IS on the 70-200 lens hinder it much? Or would I have to lug a tripod around to get the most from that particular lens?
 
Depends entirely on where and how you shoot. Low light and indoors you may find problems.

But if you're using it outdoors during the day then you wont likely need IS.
 
For the price tag I wouldn't want to restrict my self over not having IS as indoors and low light would be something I'd like to shoot in, however as a majority outside, daytime, sunrise, sunset is what I enjoy to do.
 
What do you shoot indoors?

If it's moving subjects then IS will be needed (or you can up the ISO, I don't know what the noise handling is like on a 500D). But static subject can be done with a tripod.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm teaching you to suck eggs, just explaining that IS isn't the only option. :)
 
I'd prefer if you would teach me to suck eggs haha! I'm still relatively new to photography (9months) and I've never looked into other lens options before!

Indoors would be static objects, however my 50mm would do here I suppose!
Currently I don't shoot much movement other than wildlife, squirrels around here are on speed and don't sit for long!
I do sometimes shoot at the local radio car club, they're pretty fast and quite tricky to shoot!
But when I'm out and about buildings, people, interesting scenes are what I go for.
 
For those uses I'd say IS isn't required. For fast moving objects you need a fast auto focus, which the 70-200mm above has (ring type ultrasonic). Turn the AF mode on the camera to AI servo and you'll be laughing.
 
Thank you very much for the help, so in a nutshell I'd be on the right track with the 70-200 L?
Is it worth me looking at any other options around that price band or is that the maximum I'd be looking at for what money I have to spend?
 
You're welcome. I'm surprised no one has come along yet and totally ridiculed what I've been saying lol. But that's the great thing about forums, a wealth of knowledge and varied opinion.

If you want to buy new; pretty much your only option, yeah. Although you can get a 70-300mm IS if you feel like you need the extra reach. But of course that comes with the problem of less sharpness, lower build quality and slower focusing.

Second hand in your budget there's the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and some other third party offerings I can't think of at the moment...
 
Last edited:
Or you could think of it as no other replies, so your advice must be good!

I think with 200 I'd have all the reach I'd need. From what I've read above 200 and things start to go soft, so i think the 70-200 is perfect for me. Lots of very generous reviews online.

I'll have to look around tomorrow and see if I can play with one and see what I make of it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top