First lenses for early-stage amateur - Please help!

[sagramore]

Hi everyone. Long time OcUK member but my first post in this sub.

tl;dr - New to the hobby, Canon 550D, people/places/things/landscapes/buildings (everything!), budget <£500 in total, Canon f/1.8 50mm? Sigma f/2.8 17-50mm? Both? Canon f/4.5-5.6 10-18mm? A single something more expensive? Thanks!

I'm an amateur astrophotographer so what I know about photography has come from that direction but is (just about) more than the average Jo(e) on the street. I have a Canon 550D (T2i) that I use for this hobby but I would really like to get into a bit more "conventional" photography because, let's face it, the skies are usually cloudy round here..... My Flickr stream shows you roughly where my ability currently lies.

I currently have just the standard 18-55mm kit lens and I want to upgrade to something a bit different, higher quality. I do already own a reasonable tripod and intervalometer for situations that may require them. My budget is pretty low, perhaps I could convince myself to spend up to £500 in total. I'm not looking for the top top spec glass but something with a notable improvement over the kit lens is what I'm after. Two things that immediately spring to mind are that I am having my first "big trip" away in years heading to Canada in 2 weeks and I'd love to take whatever I get with me. On top of that a friend is doing a very low budget wedding and has asked me (as his only friend with any experience with a camera at all) to take some photos for him. As such my targets are likely to be a mixture of people and landscapes/buildings in a variety of situations. Simple, right?

I've done some reading about "first lenses to upgrade to when you start off with a DSLR" and I've also been considering the "nifty 50" for a long time.
The "Canon EF 50 mm 1.8 STM Lens" for ~£90 seems like a no brainer. I have also been looking at the "Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM" for ~£280 as a more direct replacement of the kit lens. Obviously at the 50mm length the f/1.8 Canon will likely be superior, but would you guys think in my situation the Sigma alone would be enough to satisfy me? Avoiding buying both and being able to afford something in another focal length range may be preferable?

Finally I have also been considering the "Canon 9519B005AA EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM" as a wide-angle / landscape / whole room lens at ~£180 as it seems well reviewed for the price but I would value your thoughts.

I have also read about things like the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens" and the "Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Lens" but I feel these are just a little too far out of the price range just now - unless someone can explain to me why I'd be far far better off getting something like these in my situation.

Any advice gratefully received by this novice! Thanks, everybody.

sagramore / Hamish


EDIT: In the time since posting this I have chatted to some friends and done yet more reading. I've started to lean towards getting the 10-18 mm (for some wider shots, landscapes when in Canada, etc) and the 17-50 mm as a kit lens upgrade for more general use - I found a place to get both for under £400. Hopefully the 50mm at f/2.8 will work as a portrait lens until I can afford something else further down the line (85mm prime or similar?). Does that sound like a ridiculous idea? I may have to live without telephoto for now...

 

[D.P.]

I find 50mm little long on a crop camera, 35mm is a little nicer.

For landscapes your 18-55mm is fine. A lot of beginners will try to buy a wider angle lens "to fit more" in but this is typically a recipe for disaster, computationally, because invariably all that happens is you get more sky and ground around your feet but the actual subject gets pushed to the distance. Ultra wide angle lenses are incredibly hard to use properly and are a niche lens. I would look at getting a 70-300mm for landscapes, portraits and wildlife.

 

[Jono]

Do you want a free Sigma 70-300mm macro thing (Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro, I think)? It looks like a pretty hefty scratch on the front element but I never noticed it on the 3 photos or so I took with it. Also you can have a battery grip (3rd party) that should work - I had it with a 600D...

 

[sagramore]

D.P. Quote

Thanks for the tips. Point noted about the crop sensor and the wide angles being very specific / difficult to use correctly. In your opinion would the 17-50 f/2.8 still be a worthwhile upgrade from the kit 18-55 then or are you saying I should stick to the standard kit? Regarding the telephoto it looks like I've had a kind offer below.......

Do you want a free Sigma 70-300mm macro thing (Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro, I think)? It looks like a pretty hefty scratch on the front element but I never noticed it on the 3 photos or so I took with it. Also you can have a battery grip (3rd party) that should work - I had it with a 600D...

I would be incredibly grateful to receive anything at that price! That's very generous of you if you are sure. Can I contact you by PM or otherwise? My personal email is in my trust.

 

[Jono]

Yeah just send me a trust message

 

[D.P.]

Thanks for the tips. Point noted about the crop sensor and the wide angles being very specific / difficult to use correctly. In your opinion would the 17-50 f/2.8 still be a worthwhile upgrade from the kit 18-55 then or are you saying I should stick to the standard kit? Regarding the telephoto it looks like I've had a kind offer below.......

For landscape the 17-50mm f/2.8 wont make any visible difference. It will be nicer for portraits, but if you by a faster prime then I wouldn't bother.

 

[Genoma]

Just as an aside, I agree the 50 doesn't feel that good on a crop, but it's a great lens to hack macro with on the cheap with a reverse ring + extension tubes.

 

[Holst1981]

The question to ask is - what's wrong with the kit lens?

Answer this and I'll recommend a lens.

Very generous of jono to offer his telephoto, ideal lens to try out a longer focal lengths.

I had a quick look at your Flickr, your astrophotography stuff looks fantastic, very impressed.
You have some other nice shots with your normal lens as well.
I don't think you "need" better kit.
Just keep practicing and enjoy making some nice images.

 

[sagramore]

The question to ask is - what's wrong with the kit lens?

Answer this and I'll recommend a lens.

Very generous of jono to offer his telephoto, ideal lens to try out a longer focal lengths.

I had a quick look at your Flickr, your astrophotography stuff looks fantastic, very impressed.
You have some other nice shots with your normal lens as well.
I don't think you "need" better kit.
Just keep practicing and enjoy making some nice images.

Hi, thanks for checking out my Flickr and I appreciate the kind words

I do agree that I don't "need" new gear. I perhaps haven't explored what I have to it's full potential. The offer of the telephoto is incredibly generous, and would open up a different range to me to try.

Regarding what is wrong with the kit lens. I guess the honest answer is nothing is strictly wrong with it! However, and please correct me if I am wrong, I feel like a higher quality lens would potentially give me sharper images across the FL range compared to the lens I have (assuming I can focus correctly!). I also think I may benefit from the faster optics, primarily from either shorter exposures or reduced ISOs but also to be able to play with some shallower depth of field would be something I would like to try.

 

[D.P.]

Hi, thanks for checking out my Flickr and I appreciate the kind words

I do agree that I don't "need" new gear. I perhaps haven't explored what I have to it's full potential. The offer of the telephoto is incredibly generous, and would open up a different range to me to try.

Regarding what is wrong with the kit lens. I guess the honest answer is nothing is strictly wrong with it! However, and please correct me if I am wrong, I feel like a higher quality lens would potentially give me sharper images across the FL range compared to the lens I have (assuming I can focus correctly!). I also think I may benefit from the faster optics, primarily from either shorter exposures or reduced ISOs but also to be able to play with some shallower depth of field would be something I would like to try.

The kit lens is already very sharp so you wont see a big difference unless you really hone your technique down. Even then, if you are shooting landscapes at appropriate apertures you simply wont see a difference.

the faster aperture has advantages to a point but you also have to put this in context. When you are shooting landscapes you want to be tripod mounted, and will be shooting a smaller apertures anyway, so a fast aperture lenses is fairly pointless. For portraits, when it really gets dark you will find you will want to use a flash anyway. you will get better DoF control with a faster lens. But that is why i suggest you get something like a 35mm f/1.8 prime lens for portrait and low light work to compliment your kit lens.


When i had a crop camera I used the Nikon 16-85mm f/5.6 lens a lot. I then had a 35mm and 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and wide aperture work. I found the 16-855m range extremely useful. Canon do a similar 15-85mm lens.

 

[sagramore]

Thanks again D.P.

Perhaps you're right and if I am to buy something new it would make more sense to get something like the Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 as this would cover me for a wide range of scenarios without lens swapping and I can always get some f/1.8 primes later when I have more of an idea what I'm doing.

I know I mentioned landscapes in my original post and I hope to be shooting some when I'm in Canada but it's likely that a reasonable percentage of my shots will be friends and family in everyday situations so maybe that would do me for a while.

Appreciate the input.

Yeah just send me a trust message

Jono - Have done! Thanks. I hope it hasn't been swiped by a spam filter or something as I'm basically asking you for something for free in it

 

[Genoma]

Your astro shots are superb! Followed! I'm going to try camping on the Long Mynd this summer and try get some milky way shots. Any tips?

 

[Genoma]

I got the Canon 17-55 2.8 to replace the kit. My experience was that although it is a superb lens the results weren't not the *dramatic* difference I was expecting over the kit.

I rarely shoot it at 2.8 and if it's bokeh you are after a prime will be a better choice. The aperture does come in handy indoors and lower lit locations though and ultimately if it's IQ you are after in this zoom range, it's the lens to aim at. 2nd hand market is worth looking into. Also the Sigma equivalent is also very well regarded but I don't know much about it (and it's much cheaper). See http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs17-55/

I've also owned the 15-85. It's a very versatile lens and would be up there in my list of choice if I was looking to carry a single zoom.

These days for me it's either RX100, or a bag with the crop DSLR (650D) 10-22 and 17-55. If I need more range the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM also goes in the bag, it's small, good IQ and a bit of a bargain tele IMO (but looks like you have that covered now!).

 

[sagramore]

Your astro shots are superb! Followed! I'm going to try camping on the Long Mynd this summer and try get some milky way shots. Any tips?

Thank you! I've actually not done much wide-angle milky way type stuff myself so I'm not the best person to ask. However things I've picked up to look at are:

1. Focus - insanely important as you can imagine, but spend the time to make sure it's right
2. Use the longest exposure you can but don't overdo it - you're better off using slightly shorter exposures to avoid any trailing and just stacking more of them
3. Stack Do lots of exposures and combine them, either manually in something like PS, or using some of the free stacking software like DeepSkyStacker
4. Take a nice foreground shot separately and compose the stacked sky with a nicely exposed foreground later

Astrophotography usually relies on stacking exposures and taking a lot of separate calibration frames (darks, flats, bias) etc. but I don't think they're so widely used in the context of wide-angle "whole sky" shots.

I got the Canon 17-55 2.8 to replace the kit. My experience was that although it is a superb lens the results weren't not the *dramatic* difference I was expecting over the kit.

I rarely shoot it at 2.8 and if it's bokeh you are after a prime will be a better choice. The aperture does come in handy indoors and lower lit locations though and ultimately if it's IQ you are after in this zoom range, it's the lens to aim at. 2nd hand market is worth looking into. Also the Sigma equivalent is also very well regarded but I don't know much about it (and it's much cheaper). See http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs17-55/

I've also owned the 15-85. It's a very versatile lens and would be up there in my list of choice if I was looking to carry a single zoom.

These days for me it's either RX100, or a bag with the crop DSLR (650D) 10-22 and 17-55. If I need more range the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM also goes in the bag, it's small, good IQ and a bit of a bargain tele IMO (but looks like you have that covered now!).

Thanks for all the advice. I am starting to see the dilemma I expect is faced by all photographers - there are so many options and I can't afford all of them

Thanks to all the advice here and the advice on another forum I've received I am swinging between getting a multipurpose lens like the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 because this will cover a wide range of scenarios while being a little faster than my kit lens or getting the even faster f/2.8 17-50mm and then a separate, longer (85mm?), prime. I imagine I would really be happy with either option but I just can't decide!

Perhaps the latter is the better option if having the capability and effects of faster optics is going to outweigh the inconvenience of carrying and swapping.

 

[D.P.]

The 85mm prime is a head and shoulders portrait lens on crop, very nice but very specific. I like the ability to completely throw the background into buttery smoothness while still keeping the foreground subject completely in focus. but its not a commonly used lens on crop, you are not going to be taking regular portriats with it unless you have a big house and a lot of space to stand far back, even then you would loose perspective.
IMO, 86mm for head and shoulder portraits, 35mm for whole body/couple, 24mm for small group, 16mm for large group (all on crop camera)

 

[Amp34]

Personally I don't really see the need for a 35 f/1.8. It's not different enough if you have a fast standard zoom. An 85 f/1.8 is a much better idea though. 50mm is too long for a prime on crop for most situations, the only reason it's such a popular lens is because it's cheap.

I'd also suggest you have a look at the Sigma 17-70 Art lens. It's a cracker (my other half has had it for a couple of years now). The only negatives are the slightly slower long end (but then you don't have 55-70mm at all with the 17-55) and the fact the focus ring rotates when focusing. Definitely recommended as a reasonably priced alternative to the kit lens, and it gives you those extra 15mm that fill in the gap from the 70-300.

Ultra wide lenses are great, certainly don't discount them even though they can be hard to use. The easiest way to get better shots with them is to realise that rather than a "far" lens, they are actually a "closeup" lens. Get down and dirty with the foreground and shove the lens a couple of feet from a decent subject, letting it lead you into the background. If you want to shoot a major scene then a composite panoramic is better, much of the time shot with a longer lens (brings the foreground and background closer, whereas the ultra wide will push the foreground and background further away).

 

[Holst1981]

Thank you! I've actually not done much wide-angle milky way type stuff myself so I'm not the best person to ask. However things I've picked up to look at are:

1. Focus - insanely important as you can imagine, but spend the time to make sure it's right
2. Use the longest exposure you can but don't overdo it - you're better off using slightly shorter exposures to avoid any trailing and just stacking more of them
3. Stack Do lots of exposures and combine them, either manually in something like PS, or using some of the free stacking software like DeepSkyStacker
4. Take a nice foreground shot separately and compose the stacked sky with a nicely exposed foreground later

Astrophotography usually relies on stacking exposures and taking a lot of separate calibration frames (darks, flats, bias) etc. but I don't think they're so widely used in the context of wide-angle "whole sky" shots.



Thanks for all the advice. I am starting to see the dilemma I expect is faced by all photographers - there are so many options and I can't afford all of them

Thanks to all the advice here and the advice on another forum I've received I am swinging between getting a multipurpose lens like the 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 because this will cover a wide range of scenarios while being a little faster than my kit lens or getting the even faster f/2.8 17-50mm and then a separate, longer (85mm?), prime. I imagine I would really be happy with either option but I just can't decide!

Perhaps the latter is the better option if having the capability and effects of faster optics is going to outweigh the inconvenience of carrying and swapping.

Same question as before.
What's wrong with the kit lens?
Why do you need faster glass.

I doubt it will make your photos better.
You will be able to take some f1. 8 selective focus shots you can't get now, but will they be better photos?

Work out what photos you want to take, buy a lens to take them.
Landscape family and stuff won't need anything more than what you have in most cases.
If you want better photos it's all about composition timing and understanding settings, lens isn't very important.

Personally I have a (nikon) 16-80 2.8-5.6 as a general lens.
Then a 300 f4 for wildlife.

But this is what suits me.
I could substitute the 16-80 for a kit lens most of the time.
But the 300 f4 is perfect for my wildlife stuff. I can't afford or carry anything bigger.