Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Buying a camera lens

djstarrock

djstarrock

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Nov 23, 2006
826
0
UK, Scotland, Glasgow
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Your link doesn't work but some googling reveals it is a decent budget lens, but do you not have that zoom range covered already?
 
Might not you be better off just getting the standard 18-55mm kit lens?

http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...mm+f3.5-5.6+IS+EF-S&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38

or http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr....5-5.6+EF-S+Unboxed&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38

Though the more expensive IS one is supposed to be worth it.

I should mention these are 'standard zooms' on digital. Giving you the equivalent of what a 28(ish) to 90mm would on a 35mm SLR. 28mm equiv is wide enough for most people but these are not really what most people would call a *wide angle zoom* these are more specialist and expensive. Most people use one of these 18-55 lenses most of the time. If it was me, and this was my budget, I'd get the 18-55 IS.
 
leighonigar said:
Might not you be better off just getting the standard 18-55mm kit lens?

http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...mm+f3.5-5.6+IS+EF-S&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38

or http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr....5-5.6+EF-S+Unboxed&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38

Though the more expensive IS one is supposed to be worth it.

I should mention these are 'standard zooms' on digital. Giving you the equivalent of what a 28(ish) to 90mm would on a 35mm SLR. 28mm equiv is wide enough for most people but these are not really what most people would call a *wide angle zoom* these are more specialist and expensive. Most people use one of these 18-55 lenses most of the time. If it was me, and this was my budget, I'd get the 18-55 IS.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links I'm thinking about getting
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...mm+f3.5-5.6+IS+EF-S&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236731711&sr=1-1
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
djstarrock said:
Thanks for the links I'm thinking about getting
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...mm+f3.5-5.6+IS+EF-S&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236731711&sr=1-1
Click to expand...

It makes a lot of sense to get that 18-55mm IS lens. Although the website has a few promotion problems:

Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS EF-S
Price: £149.98
SALE PRICE
Was £117.43
Click to expand...

Haha, it's on sale, so they've put the price UP.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
djstarrock said:
Hi, I'm wanting to buy a quite good wide angle lense for my Canon EOS 350D so I can get a EF or EF-S lense. I have a quite a low budget of £200. Does anyone know of a lense that fits these criteria? All I've found is this lense.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosina-19-3...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236721296&sr=1-1
Click to expand...

All depends on how wide you want. For example, while the 18-55mm Canon lens is somewhat wide at 18mm, three or four years ago I decided to buy a wider lens I could use for landscapes, and chose Tokina's 12-24mm f/4. It's not a low-light lens, but since I use it during the day, f/4 is not a problem at all. I use this lens most of the time from 12mm to maybe 14mm on all my landscape shots.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
AlaskaMoose said:
All depends on how wide you want. For example, while the 18-55mm Canon lens is somewhat wide at 18mm, three or four years ago I decided to buy a wider lens I could use for landscapes, and chose Tokina's 12-24mm f/4. It's not a low-light lens, but since I use it during the day, f/4 is not a problem at all. I use this lens most of the time from 12mm to maybe 14mm on all my landscape shots.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find a lens like that.
 
djstarrock said:
I can't seem to find a lense like that.
Click to expand...

There are lots of them, sigma make a couple, tokina make two, tamron have two, canon have a good one. They don't fit your budget though.

The canon 10-22 is about £650-700
The Sigma 10-20mm can be found for about £350 still
The Tamron 10-24mm is about £370
The Tokina 12-24 f/4 is about £450, and the 11-16 is a bit more.

If you want really, really wide, then one of the above may make sense. If you're happy with normal 'sensible wide' then something like the 18-55 is a good shot.

I did notice the £117 and the 'sale' thing. Either it's a mistake or it's the result of Canon putting their prices up. Most of these lenses have got more expensive as the pound has slid (from about £1 = $2 to ≈ £1 = $1.4, probably even worse against the yen, which matters.).
 
get the 18-55mm IS and get rid of the 28-90. i wouldn't be so quick to grab the 50 unless you like the focal length, which i didn't on a 30D.

if you'd rather have a 28-something and get 10-20mm or similar, get a Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II, 24-85, or 28-135 IS instead of the 18-55.
 
toxic said:
get the 18-55mm IS and get rid of the 28-90. i wouldn't be so quick to grab the 50 unless you like the focal length, which i didn't on a 30D.

if you'd rather have a 28-something and get 10-20mm or similar, get a Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II, 24-85, or 28-135 IS instead of the 18-55.
Click to expand...

There's this too http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewPr...5.6+IS+USM+Un-Boxed&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=38 the Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS

it's a little over budget but might be worth it, if you can stand the size. Do others have any opinions on this lens?
 
leighonigar said:
The canon 10-22 is about £650-700
The Sigma 10-20mm can be found for about £350 still Jessops £329
The Tamron 10-24mm is about £370
The Tokina 12-24 f/4 is about £450, and the 11-16 is a bit more.

If you want really, really wide, then one of the above may make sense. If you're happy with normal 'sensible wide' then something like the 18-55 is a good shot.

I
Click to expand...

I was after a good all round lens to replace my 18-70mm, I was looking at the Nikon 18-200mm R lens, but i looked at wide angle lenses too, I tried a Sigma 10-20mm, and since i bought it about 5 weeks ago it's not left my camera, I am loving it, but you gotta decide, do you want wide angle (ultra) or just a zoom that kinda goes wide ish, ME ive decided ultra wide is the way to go ;) but it's your money
 
Mr.Noisy said:
I was after a good all round lens to replace my 18-70mm, I was looking at the Nikon 18-200mm R lens, but i looked at wide angle lenses too, I tried a Sigma 10-20mm, and since i bought it about 5 weeks ago it's not left my camera, I am loving it, but you gotta decide, do you want wide angle (ultra) or just a zoom that kinda goes wide ish, ME ive decided ultra wide is the way to go ;) but it's your money
Click to expand...

It's actually £479 from them now. The prices have gone up a lot!

http://www.jessops.com/online.store...m f4-5.6 EX DC HSM (Nikon AF)-20269/Show.html
 
Why don't you click on the sticky at the top of the Digital Photography forum titled "Links for lens and camera shoppers". You'll find more information and research than you could possibly digest about all of your lens options.
 
Of all the lenses you have linked, only the 17-85 is wide. But none of them are uw zooms. Proper UW zooms are not within your budget, at least not new. They cost about 370-400 pounds. I'd suggest Tokina's 12-24: built very sturdily with the best IQ -- especially for that price.
 
I suggest Tamron AF 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma AF 17-70 f2.8-4.5, if you want to invest into EF lenses, go for an L lens.

And since your second option is actually an EF-S, the lenses above especially the Sigma one is better then the Canon 17-85, its faster and if Im not mistaken cheaper.

Canon makes good glass but their attempt so far at the EF-S range has been disappointing, one of the good EF-S is the 17-55 f/2.8 but that would cost just as much as an L lens and without the L tag in it, it doesnt get a lens hood!
 
wheelhot said:
Canon makes good glass but their attempt so far at the EF-S range has been disappointing, one of the good EF-S is the 17-55 f/2.8 but that would cost just as much as an L lens and without the L tag in it, it doesnt get a lens hood!
Click to expand...

Nor a lens case. I had to shell out an extra 70 bucks or so for that and the hood. Grrrrrr.
 
wheelhot said:
I suggest Tamron AF 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma AF 17-70 f2.8-4.5, if you want to invest into EF lenses, go for an L lens.

And since your second option is actually an EF-S, the lenses above especially the Sigma one is better then the Canon 17-85, its faster and if Im not mistaken cheaper.

Canon makes good glass but their attempt so far at the EF-S range has been disappointing, one of the good EF-S is the 17-55 f/2.8 but that would cost just as much as an L lens and without the L tag in it, it doesnt get a lens hood!
Click to expand...

They look quite good but I would want a lens with IS and it would be good with USM.
 
17-85. You wanted something wider than you have now, so why would you get a 28-135?
 
They look quite good but I would want a lense with IS and it would be good with USM.
Click to expand...
Well you cant have everything :(, but for me, I would prefer better glass then focusing motor, in fact I heard that eventhough its not USM, its still good.

Like I said, Canon attempt in EF-S range lens is horrible!, they release their 18-200 just cause Nikon and other 3rd party has it and the performance its horrible too.
 
wheelhot said:
Well you cant have everything :(, but for me, I would prefer better glass then focusing motor, in fact I heard that eventhough its not USM, its still good.

Like I said, Canon attempt in EF-S range lens is horrible!, they release their 18-200 just cause Nikon and other 3rd party has it and the performance its horrible too.
Click to expand...

I don't mind having the lens without USM but as I was saying I really do want image stabilisation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back