Next lens suggestions for the 60D...

Pants · 15 Mar 2011 at 20:44

Hi,

I'm not sure what lens to get next for the 60D for around £250.

I currently only have a 50mm 1.8 which I love, but I think I may need some kind of general purpose lens(s) so I can take a better range of photos.

I can get a 18-55mm IS plus a 55-250mm IS for around £200 which I thought would cover the bases until I can afford some posh glass. This would cover a large focal range and both have reasonable optics. However the manual focus ring is poor on the 18-55 IS, which will limit video work.

Another option is the 18-135mm IS. A little more expensive at £240. However the build quality is OK and this has a good enough manual focus ring. More convenience of having one lens cover all that focal length, and it should balance better as it's a bit bigger than the others. Optics seem very average.

These are the two options that come to mind but any thought on this or other options would really help me out. Anything that is good for video or macro stuff is a bonus and I would be willing to up the budget a touch.

An Exception · 15 Mar 2011 at 22:05

Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, it has semi macro capability, has a good zoom range and is fast at 2.8. Also if you get some extension tubes it will have FULL macro capability.

The 28-75mm is comparable to a Canon 24-70mm 2.8L in terms of IQ.
If shooting at wide open 2.8, it will also be pin sharp as long as neither your body or lens either front or back focus slightly. That's the shame about 60D, no 'micro adjust' to get the best from your lenses wide open.

bigredshark · 16 Mar 2011 at 10:04

Seems a waste on a crop body, 28mm isn't wide enough that you won't want another lens to cover that soon afterwards, which is fine if you want to carry two lenses. If you have an interest in video you also want a lens with IS, it really helpsin that respect (plenty of serious video makers will tell you the 24-104 f/4 L IS is a far more useful lens than the 24-70 f/2.8 L). The 18-135 seems a bit...budget...but then so is what you're spending I guess.

AtticusFinch · 16 Mar 2011 at 10:08

On a crop body I would def go as wide as you can afford with a "useful" zoom length until you're really sure what you want to to - with that budget you're talking about 17-55 or thereabouts depending on exactly which lens you get. If you can pick up a second hand Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (forget about vc) you should be well chuffed with it.

Vertigo · 16 Mar 2011 at 11:28

bigredshark said:
If you have an interest in video you also want a lens with IS, it really helpsin that respect (plenty of serious video makers will tell you the 24-104 f/4 L IS is a far more useful lens than the 24-70 f/2.8 L).

Well I've read that IS is a pain in the proverbial when shooting video as, unless you're using an off-camera mic, you get the constant whine/drone/clicking of the IS system in the background.

bigredshark · 16 Mar 2011 at 11:59

Vertigo1 said:
Well I've read that IS is a pain in the proverbial when shooting video as, unless you're using an off-camera mic, you get the constant whine/drone/clicking of the IS system in the background.

That is a potential issue if you're using the built in mic I guess, I'd kinda forgotten that people did that. It does give you far more usable handheld video though which would be my priority, an external mic is cheap, any kind of useful stabilising rig is not.

Rojin · 16 Mar 2011 at 21:04

I'd be looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the Sigma equivalent (there was a thread on here somewhere with the Sigma being £150). I bought the Tamron 28-75 back when I had a 1D and to be honest found it a bit average, ended up buying the 24-70L which was a big improvement. I do wonder though if I had a duff 28-75...

An Exception · 16 Mar 2011 at 21:13

Maybe it had a bit of front/back focus?
Did the version of 1d you had have 'micro adjust'?

Rojin · 16 Mar 2011 at 21:22

Focus accuracy was fine although it wasn't the quickest. My main issues were with the contrast and colour which I found very poor. All pics took a lot of post processing to get them looking right (normally I do very little pp, unless messing around). This was all on a 1Dmk3. It was ok sharpness wise at f2.8. I just didn't click with the lens

Pants · 17 Mar 2011 at 17:35

Thanks for all the suggestions - I'll have a good look at them all.

The Sigma 18-50 2.8 looks like a good shout, and gets rave reviews. But I don't think it has image stabilisation which I gather will really help with video work. Sound will be done externally so I'm not bothered about any camera noises.

I think if I want something good for photo's there are lots of superb non image stabilised lens's with great image quality. If I want image stabilisation it looks like I'm going to have either settle with average optics or up my budget...