first lens

Telephoto shots, like shooting ducks, wildlife, strangers at a distance, things where you're not going to be sticking your camera in front of their face or too far to reach by conventional means like shooting at say a squirrel (get too close and they scatter like you're going to kill them for breakfast).

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=459569&highlight=55-250mm
Prime example of what this lens can do - not as versatile when it comes to landscape and conventional portrait shots.

Might I also recommend you to install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3905 if you're using Firefox, so that way you can right click / properties to see the photo EXIF (notice the focal length used) to have a rough idea on what focal length.
 
cheers mr jones,

what would you say a max bid should be for that camera

20d , 18-55mm , 55-250mm?

thanks for all your help btw

or would you say I should go for a single 20d and then grab lens for it i.e. 17-55mm as Rakiri said..
 
You mean the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8? The 17-55mm Canon is way out of your price budget, at least 2x more expensive than the camera :p

Anyway, the 55-250mm can go for about 150 to 170 + delivery if not more on eBay if brand new, so if someone is selling it there, the 20D can fetch up to if not more than 240 inc kit lens + delivery and if condition is good. So I'd say it'll be sold for 400 to 450inc delivery - but with eBay, anything can happen.

At that price, you're far better off with a second hand 20D + the Tamron / Sigma f/2.8 lens (or the cheaper Canon 18-55mm IS lens) and save whatever is left for the next lens when you're more familiar on what exactly you'll want / need to shoot at.

That's my opinion.
 
xirokx said:
i shoot mainly landscapes, portraits and the odd macro..
also budget is very low..
Click to expand...

The cheapest soloution to cover all of your shooting requirements.

Canon 18-55 IS - Landscapes
Canon 50mm F1.8 - Portraits
Extension tubes for 50mm - Macro

Cost : approx £200
 
hey guys

is the 17-85mm any good for landscape? Or is it restricted due to lack of width?

What would you have over a canon 17-85mm IS or a canon 18-55mm IS if you had the choice? For landscape, portrait and general walk around lens..

If the canon 17-85mm how much would you pay for one second hand? Whats a fair price?

Also is the canon 75-300mm really good for zoom? Would you get good focus abilities at 300mm and decent aperture for DOF shots etc? I know this is vague compared to the amount of detail I could go into but at the moment thats all I know...Its like someone once said just because a lens is f2.8 doesnt mean you would get that full zoom...What would you say a fair price is for this , second hand?

Thanks
 
I would take the 17-85 anytime over the 18-55.
18-55 is very poorly built plastic toy lens. and manual focus ring is a joke.

If I was you, I'd buy the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 for the mean time and get real telephoto lens like the Canon 70-200mm L.
the 55-200 and 18-55 seems waste of money.

Don't try to buy all focal length just for the sake of having it...save your money and get the real deal. In the mean time learn to use the camera with one lens to really find out your photography needs.

I'm still saving to get Pro standard zoom lens for one year and it looks like I will have to wait another year but I have learned to get the most out of my 70-200 and use compact camera to cover standard zoom range.
 
Last edited:
thanks for your reply

is there much init between the 17-85 and 17-50?

just wondered what someone would use the 17-85mm for?

would everyone use the 75-300mm purely for its zoom capabilities so good for wildlife shots and planes etc...
 
I can't recommend the 17-85 at all, unless you want to make an offer tlfor mine ;)

It was my first lens and I've generally been disappointed with the quality of the shots it takes, particularly the colours. I was attracted by the range as a walkabout lens but I wish I'd done more research now.

Check Fred Miranda for a whole host of reviews.
 
The main difference with 17-50mm and 17-85 is the aperture - f/2.8 vs f/4 - 5.6 and ofcourse the zoom range. for landscape photos you will most likely to use f/8 - 16 range. for portraits with blurred background f/2.8 - 4.

The 75-300 will give you good range for wildlife but it simply isn't fast enough for most wildlife shots because the animals move fast and very unpredictable and also at longer zoom range handshake will be more noticeable, therefore it is best to have lens with aperture of f/2.8 - 4 to allow more light into the camera in return faster shutter speed, blur the unwanted background and only focusing on the animal.

For most 70-200 f/2.8 telephoto lens you will be paying £600 - 1200 pound and £400-600 for the f/4 version.
 
you could get the 70-200 f/4 L for around £400 and do wildlife, action, candid and some portrait photography or get the Tamron 17-50 / Canon 17-40 for landcape, street, architecture, portrait photography.

or save up bit more and get the Canon 24-105 to do (nearly) all purpose photography.
 
how much would you pay for a second hand nifty fifty?

And what is the actual model name of this lens?
 
People generally mean the 50mm f1.8 when they talk about the nifty fifty (it's also known as the thrifty fifty too).

There are two types - the metal mount MK1 and the newer but more plasticky Mk2.

Iirc the Mk1 costs around £60-£70 and the Mk2 costs around £40-£50 second hand.

Both are incredible budget lenses.

gt

P.S: The next step up is the 50mm f1.4 @ £160+ - some consider this to be 'the' nifty fifty but i think the guys here will mean the f1.8. :)
 
And just another side note, the Canon 55-250mm IS is sometimes also known as the Nifty 2 Fifty due to the pricing and great IQ for value.
 
D.P. said:
50mm 1.8. don't bother with anything else until you have more money.
Click to expand...

Whils this is an excellent option, I just think it's not wide enough to be a versatile single lens solution on a crop sensored body. I pesonally think that I need a 28 or 35 and those are both out of price range.

Also I would hesitate to recommend the 17-85 IS, I almost like mine, but evey now and then I feel really let down by it. My money is saving towards a 17-55 IS or 24-105 IS...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom