Buying a camera lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by djstarrock, Mar 10, 2009.

  1. djstarrock macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #1
  2. jaseone macrumors 65816

    jaseone

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Houston, USA
    #2
    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?
     
  3. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #3
    I have right now EF 28-90mm 4-5.6 Ø58 III it just came with the camera.
     
  4. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #4
    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.
     
  5. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #5
    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
     
  6. PCMacUser macrumors 68000

    PCMacUser

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    #6
    It makes a lot of sense to get that 18-55mm IS lens. Although the website has a few promotion problems:

    Haha, it's on sale, so they've put the price UP.
     
  7. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #7
    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.
     
  8. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #8
    I can't seem to find a lens like that.
     
  9. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #9
    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.).
     
  10. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #11
    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?
     
  12. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #12
    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
     
  13. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #13
    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
     
  14. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #14
  15. anubis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #16
    Blimey :eek: £479 that is a lot, I was lucky for what i got it for, and it's a very sharp version too, sorry I stand corrected ;)
     
  17. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #17
    I'm deciding between:
    Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
    or
    Canon 17-85mm F4-5.6 IS USM

    I can get them both for roughly the same price.
     
  18. Kebabselector macrumors 68030

    Kebabselector

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #18
    The 28-135 wouldn't be wide on your camera. You should be looking to start at 18mm (or lower)

    Try www.camerapricebuster.co.uk for latest prices.
     
  19. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #19
    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.
     
  20. wheelhot macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #20
    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!
     
  21. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #21
    Nor a lens case. I had to shell out an extra 70 bucks or so for that and the hood. Grrrrrr.
     
  22. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #22
    They look quite good but I would want a lens with IS and it would be good with USM.
     
  23. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #23
    17-85. You wanted something wider than you have now, so why would you get a 28-135?
     
  24. wheelhot macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #24
    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.
     
  25. djstarrock thread starter macrumors 6502a

    djstarrock

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2006
    Location:
    UK, Scotland, Glasgow
    #25
    I don't mind having the lens without USM but as I was saying I really do want image stabilisation.
     

Share This Page