Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Looking to buy a new lens. So many options!
- Thread starter Abyssgh0st
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I too had the 50mm 1.8, but once I got my 17-55 2.8 IS, the 50mm barely comes out of my bag anymore. The f2.8 & IS of the 17-55 make it just as versatile in low light situations, and the image quality is certainly comparable.
One exercise I did when I was lens shopping was to go through the EXIF data of all of the favorite photos that I had taken so far to see what focal length they were shot at. 90% of my shots were between 20-50mm on a crop body, hence the 17-55...
One exercise I did when I was lens shopping was to go through the EXIF data of all of the favorite photos that I had taken so far to see what focal length they were shot at. 90% of my shots were between 20-50mm on a crop body, hence the 17-55...
Do you own a good quality tripod. There is absolutely nothing that will increase the quality of your images more than a tripod.
It does two things for you. first it eliminates camera shake which blur images. And just as importantly it will force you to improve composition.
The nest lens you buy should be something "faster". Maybe a 50mm f/1.4 or a fast 35mm. But if you don't have a good tripod get that first.
Then if you are doing people shots think about lighting even it that is as simple as bounce flash.
Just picked up a 430EX II from work, I like it a lot 
I'm trying to decide what to do tripod wise. I don't really want to spend more than the $100ish range.
The two I'm looking at from BestBuy This one, which is $84 after employee discount.
This one, which is $63 after employee discount.
They both look appealing, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 55.5" (latter one) not having the same way to adjust the camera.
I'm trying to decide what to do tripod wise. I don't really want to spend more than the $100ish range.
The two I'm looking at from BestBuy This one, which is $84 after employee discount.
This one, which is $63 after employee discount.
They both look appealing, but I'm not sure how I feel about the 55.5" (latter one) not having the same way to adjust the camera.
Well, the golden rule of tripods is that you can only have 2 of the following 3:
-cheap
-light
-stable
I currently have a Manfrotto 190XB from BH that was $125 but I bought it with a tripod head for a discount. A CLASSIC mistake is to buy a cheap tripod only to have to buy a new one later on (we've all done it at one point) but I really like the one I have for now and it surprisingly holds my 100-400mm, XSi, and flash very sturdily giving me tack sharp photos of birds.
-cheap
-light
-stable
I currently have a Manfrotto 190XB from BH that was $125 but I bought it with a tripod head for a discount. A CLASSIC mistake is to buy a cheap tripod only to have to buy a new one later on (we've all done it at one point) but I really like the one I have for now and it surprisingly holds my 100-400mm, XSi, and flash very sturdily giving me tack sharp photos of birds.
I made the cheap tripod mistake... twice
First a crappy $15 thing (to be fair, at the time all I had was a point and shoot), then a more sturdy, but heavy as lead Sunpak for $60ish. On the up side, now I use them to hold remote flashes 
For landscape get the 17-40 F/4L
Or the 17-55 F/2.8 EF-S
Lenses should be something that outlasts a number of bodies, if you plan on upgrading to a Full Frame camera in the future get the 17-40L
It is a great lens for landscape shots, is L quality and quite affordable.
Or the 17-55 F/2.8 EF-S
Lenses should be something that outlasts a number of bodies, if you plan on upgrading to a Full Frame camera in the future get the 17-40L
It is a great lens for landscape shots, is L quality and quite affordable.
Well, I bought a $70 Sunpak (was around $17 with employee discount from Best Buy), and the damn thing broke within 24 hours! The head wobbled so bad I was going to replace it anyways..
So I ended up buying a Manfrotto 7301B, and it is VERY nice. Now with a good tripod and flash, I'm really Jones'n for the 17-55mm f/2.8... I wish I could have a day to use the lens without renting it, because that would just lead to an added cost on something I would most likely keep; but I'd love to know what I thought of it before buying.
So I ended up buying a Manfrotto 7301B, and it is VERY nice. Now with a good tripod and flash, I'm really Jones'n for the 17-55mm f/2.8... I wish I could have a day to use the lens without renting it, because that would just lead to an added cost on something I would most likely keep; but I'd love to know what I thought of it before buying.
I wouldn't discount the Tamron 17-50 or VC version, they produce excellent results. Whilst a bit noisy, nothing major. And you get the same optical quality a the 17-55. It all depends if you are willing to spend the money. If you are not already apart of this forumthen I would suggest joining it! There are hundreds of lens sample archives from people taking pictures with various lenses.
As for the 50mm, I had it, liked it, sold it. I didn't find the focal length useful enough, and while it was sharp, I would consider my Tamron as sharp. The easiest way to see is just to stick your lens at 50mm for a day and see how you get on.
As for the 50mm, I had it, liked it, sold it. I didn't find the focal length useful enough, and while it was sharp, I would consider my Tamron as sharp. The easiest way to see is just to stick your lens at 50mm for a day and see how you get on.
A review or two that I came across rated the Tamron 17-50 VC version as very soft wide open (much more than the non VC version) which really negates the purpose of buying a fixed f2.8 lens in the first place.
I just picked up a 24-105mm IS L and it's fantastic! It couples very well with the 10-22mm. This setup gives me 10-105mm in two very nice lenses!
I also have the 17-85mm but it's for sale.
I also have the 17-85mm but it's for sale.
You've got two zoom lenses. Try a super speed prime lens.
I actually just picked up the Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $449. Nice lens.
I actually just picked up the Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $449. Nice lens.
This lens would be replacing my 18-55.. So I would only have the 17-55mm and the 55-200mm until I upgrade that one, or pick up a 35 or 50mm if I decide I need one.
True, but then some lenses need to be microadjusted or even calibrated. Some are just plain soft wide open. I no mine isn't (Non-VC) so I'm happy
True, but then some lenses need to be microadjusted or even calibrated. Some are just plain soft wide open. I no mine isn't (Non-VC) so I'm happy
This holds true for many lenses, though. If you have a f/4, it will probably be less soft being stopped down as well.
I'm glad I bought a 50mm f/1.8. I dropped it two days after getting it, and now it's broken. But if I hadn't bought it, I might have otherwise dropped a better lens ;p
I guess it's a good lens for the money, but the build quality is abysmal and everything just looked kind of muddy through it. I'm not going to be replacing it.
I guess it's a good lens for the money, but the build quality is abysmal and everything just looked kind of muddy through it. I'm not going to be replacing it.
Not that I can tell, yet. Most back focus issues I've encountered have been with zoom lenses however. I've only got about 100 shots out of it so far. Although my 85-1.2 is much more portrait-y.
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS
If you're into convenience of carrying one lens instead of two and don't mind losing the extra 50mm at the telephoto end, this lens will serve you well. Then you can sell the two lenses you have and think about how you could expand. May not necessarily be an "upgrade" to image quality but it's plenty sufficient for non-professionals.
May be you can expand your peripherals? Flash, tripod, remote... etc.
I had a 18-200mm and a 50mm f1.8 and most of my photographic needs, which sound similar to yours, were met. This way you won't be carrying four lenses if you choose to get two $400 lenses like it was mentioned.
Also, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM would be good for your landscape shots. Wide angle lenses are a great travel companion.
If you're into convenience of carrying one lens instead of two and don't mind losing the extra 50mm at the telephoto end, this lens will serve you well. Then you can sell the two lenses you have and think about how you could expand. May not necessarily be an "upgrade" to image quality but it's plenty sufficient for non-professionals.
May be you can expand your peripherals? Flash, tripod, remote... etc.
I had a 18-200mm and a 50mm f1.8 and most of my photographic needs, which sound similar to yours, were met. This way you won't be carrying four lenses if you choose to get two $400 lenses like it was mentioned.
Also, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM would be good for your landscape shots. Wide angle lenses are a great travel companion.
I don't mind the lack of 50mm at the end of the telephoto lens, but I'm not too keen on the aperture on that one. I'm really looking for something with a wider and preferably fixed aperture.
Currently I am thinking of getting the 17-55mm f/2.8 (still), the 85mm f/1.8 (within 6 months), and eventually the 70-200mm f/2.8 (within a year).
And about updating my peripherals runlsd, within the last week I've bought a Manfrotto tripod, a Speedlite 430EX II flash, and a Canon RC5 wireless shutter release.. So I think I'm covered for now.