Which lens option?

Energize

Energize

Energize

Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,954
Location
England
Bearing in mind I already have an EF 50mm f1.8 for indoor and sports photography.

For general photography in urban and rural environments, I can't decide whether to get

A: Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II £100 + Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS II £130
B: Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS £235
C: Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM £280

A obviously has best focal length range and larger apertures at portrait and above focal lengths, but is less convenient than having a single lens, question is whether the single lens will necessarily have enough reach in some situations. B and C will definitely be more convenient and probably have enough reach in 80%+ of situations. C obviously has a USM but is not as wide which may become a concern in certain situations again, not sure if it's worth the money above the other two.
 
I would choose A personally.

C is right out of the question, 28mm wide on crop is useless.

However, I can't say any of the options are that interesting.

I don't know what the canon Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USm is like, I have a similar Nikon lens (16-85VRII) that is by far my most used lens depsite owning things like a 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. I use the 16-85 and 70-300mm combo as a lightweight, versatile high image quality setup when I have sufficient light to work with.


I would maybe think about a tamron/sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, but try before you buy.
 
Last edited:
D.P.'s last recommendation is a good one; Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8 can be had for £280 from the rainforest, and although it's a bit more, it's worth the money. I have one myself and it's an amazing lens worth considering :)
 
I have the 18-55 as the kit lens on my 600d...it is fine, especially when you use lightroom to correct its distortion.

I'll probably add the 55-250 for some reach although I shoot at the wide end more often so really want the 10-22mm first.

The 18-135mm is never recommended on any forum I go on, I believe it is too much of a compromise.

Definitely agree with 28mm being useless on wide.
 
The 17-50mm definitely looks like a better quality option than the kit lens, the larger constant aperture is certainly more convenient and the minimum focusing distance is nicer too, but does it have IS and does it matter? I hadn't looked much at the available compatible lenses yet so I'll have a better look at them.

What is the difference between the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical going for £235 on digitalrev, and the £280 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]?
The overall cost is the same for now I guess as the other options, so I could just add the cheap 55-250mm later.

What are your opinions on the Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II at £156 or the Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD at £380? Too much distortion?

D.P. said:
I don't know what the canon Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USm is like, I have a similar Nikon lens (16-85VRII) that is by far my most used lens depsite owning things like a 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8.
Click to expand...

Only Canons 17-85mm is in my price range and that's f4-5.6. £100 more expensive than the 17-50mm anyway, would rather spend the difference on a telephoto.

Any ideas on what some of these lenses are going for on the bay?
 
Last edited:
With Tamron "VC" denotes Vibration Control, which is their version of IS. They offer a 17-50 2.8 without VC (slightly older, slightly cheaper, marginally (unnoticeable in presentation of images, only in post) sharper) and a 17-50 with VC (slightly newer, slightly more expensive, has the benefits of VC).

VC is definitely very useful if you're shooting static subjects but bear in mind you still need to keep an eye on shutter speeds for everything else - though you may not get camera shake at 1/4s expoosures, you can be sure that if anybody moves in your shtos they'll just wind up a blur..

Obviously better to have it than not, particularly if it's going to be your general walkaround/meet friends with lens.

Avoid the superzooms (18-200+) as there are too many compromises. It might be worth it for a few who want bridge camera versatility with better image quality, but ultimately if it's for anything more serious than memory capturing, you'll want better glass to allow both better image quality, and more creative options. The 18-270 isn't actually a bad lens and the VC is amazing, from what I've heard (and this is the sort of range when VC becomes truly useful because you can start shooting 1/50 at 420mm equivalent, which won't start getting subject blur in unless you're shooting sports). Again, it depends what you're shooting
 
I'll probably be using a fast shutter speed to capture motion at the telephoto end, eg galloping on the beach.

I found that 1/500 was not fast enough for the dogs fighting with each other, luckily though my nifty fifty gives 1/3200 at ISO 100 on a cloudy day.
 
If you're used to the 50mm 1.8, you'll find the kit lens quite soft. It's quite sharp at 35mm f5.6, but at the wide end it's pretty average. Fine for everyday stuff, but if you were planning on shooting landscapes you might be disappointed. I'd trade IS for a wider aperture any day, and the Tamron seems to get great feedback everywhere I see people talking about it.
 
Having used the 18-55mm, 17-50mm and 55-250mm, I'd say definitely go for the 17-50mm non-VC and 55-250mm if the budget allows. You can get the 17-50mm for about £200 and the 55-250mm about £100, both second hand.

I'm a big fan of large apertures so have 'swapped' my 17-50mm for the 10-22mm and 30mm 1.4 (I realise there's a massive price difference), but the 17-50mm is a great lens. Very good optics; better than my 30mm.
 
Last edited:
Razor-BladE said:
Having used the 18-55mm, 17-50mm and 55-250mm, I'd say definitely go for the 17-50mm non-VC and 55-250mm if the budget allows. You can get the 17-50mm for about £200 and the 55-250mm about £100, both second hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah sounds like a good plan, I am also a fan of wide apertures because I shoot action, often in low light, hence the 50mm. I find even 1/500 of a second to be too slow for dogs playing for example, so the wider the aperture the better.

I was wondering, do you use manual focus a lot? I have found that in many cases on my 550D the AF is inadequate for shooting portraits of horses and MF is superior, giving sharper images. For equines sports which follow I track I tend to AF on the jump and then mf back a bit so that the horse is in focus when it goes over it. I actually feel for what I shoot now I could completely do without AF.
 
Last edited:
^^^
If you have serious AF issues then either the canon 550d is a useless camera, your copy is broken, there is a calibration issue with your camera or lens, you have some settings wrong.


Now it is often the case that when you can predict focus in advance then manual focus is proffered but you should still find the AF in general fast and snappy and accurate, even on a basicn DSLR, at least even my old Nikon D70 had reasonable.
 
AF is normally fine, there are just certain situations where it doesn't perform so well, I assumed it was because a horses body is a solid colour with little texture so there's nothing much to focus on, much like taking a photograph of a wall.
 
There should be enough in general unless you are right against the body! Photographing horse is no harder than any other wildlife where good AF is critical.

What lens were you using? Lenses. An make a big difference, my 24-70mm and 70-200 2.8 are lightning. The primes are definitely noticeably slower due to the narrow aperture.
 
Energize said:
Yeah sounds like a good plan, I am also a fan of wide apertures because I shoot action, often in low light, hence the 50mm. I find even 1/500 of a second to be too slow for dogs playing for example, so the wider the aperture the better.

I was wondering, do you use manual focus a lot? I have found that in many cases on my 550D the AF is inadequate for shooting portraits of horses and MF is superior, giving sharper images. For equines sports which follow I track I tend to AF on the jump and then mf back a bit so that the horse is in focus when it goes over it. I actually feel for what I shoot now I could completely do without AF.
Click to expand...

I've noticed my AF sensors on my 50D are slightly off the markers. It might be worth checking to see if yours are aligned on the dots or if, like mine they're slightly off. It's usually a non-issue, but if I'm really close and focussing on a small point I have to take it into account.
 
Yeah, there shouldn't be a massive problem with AF. I would have thought the AF would be fine tracking horses but I've never tried so I wouldn't know! I guess if you're trying to photograph in a way that the horse is moving backwards and forwards, rather than side to side then you might have a problem. But for portraits, there shouldn't be any reason (other than a bad copy of lens, or AF misalignment) that AF doesn't work properly.

To answer your question nah I never use MF. I've actually been meaning to try because there are some situations where MF would be easier. f/1.4-2 is a nightmare to try and MF yourself though! I guess after practise it wouldn't be so bad.
 
D.P. said:
There should be enough in general unless you are right against the body! Photographing horse is no harder than any other wildlife where good AF is critical.

What lens were you using? Lenses. An make a big difference, my 24-70mm and 70-200 2.8 are lightning. The primes are definitely noticeably slower due to the narrow aperture.
Click to expand...

Im using a 50mm f1.8
 
^^ I think the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has a bad reputation for AF, perhaps some canon users can clarify. That being the case you might consider replacing it, although you will probably find the tamron 17-50 to be suitable unless you need the extra stop and a third. if you do need the wide aperture then I think the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 would be a good replacement.
 
After being involved in a car accident my budget will be increasing in line with the compensation. :D

Re above, I do need to have a very wide aperture for shooting indoor sports in ambient light, naturally I would love to upgrade to a high quality f1.4 it just depends on what my budget allows. If it was my lens causing issues it wouldn't surprise me its clearly very cheaply made.
 
Yeah, it is probably the nifty fifty giving you focus issues in this case. You may find the Tamron 17-50 to be a little better focusing.


You say your budget might increase, would this stretch to a 2nd hand Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom