Lens

[.Adam.]

I've posted numerous lens threads before, but now need to make a decision.

I only have the standard kit lens on my Canon 500D, and want an upgrade. Better glass and all that.

Other than the Nifty, which I will be getting, is there another lens sub £200.00 that is a good "all rounder" to completely replace my kit lens?

Thinking for things such as when I go on holiday to take landscapes, scenery, buildings, people etc.

Any advice would be great!

 

[Cup_Phil]

Sub £200... no

 

[edmundator]

If you want to travel light, some of the 18-200mm lenses are pretty good (obviously not going to have the same sharpness and speed as a decent prime). There's nothing wrong with a 2nd hand lens if you buy carefully. But sub-£200 you'll struggle to get really great quality unless you ditch digital and autofocus and join me in 35mm manual world.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

You will struggle to find a 'quality' lens for sub £200.

 

[.Adam.]

Tbh, I'm still very much "learning" to use my camera, so I don't want to spend mega ££££ on a lens.

Would the Nifty be enough to buy for the time being, or do I really want another one?

 

[Tigger]

First one I got for my first DSLR was a Tamron 18-250mm then a nifty & 10-20mm

 

[.Adam.]

Nice one. Will have a look at the Tamron's.

 

[SamP]

85 1.8 comes in for 20 quid more than your budget second hand and thats a fantastic lens.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Steer the hell clear of tamron - dire lenses
Sigma are "ok" but have focusing problems

For the money you have stick with your 18-55 and get a 50mm f1.8 II
It is a SUPERB lens and 99% of what you need to learn around a dslr you can do with the 50mm

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

Sigma and Tamron lenses are very good for the money.

I have access to this which is a cracking all rounder for the money but double your budget http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-S-18-200mm-f3-5-5-6-Lens-NEW-UK-STOCK-/130521813882?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1e63b4d37a#ht_2865wt_1176

A couple of cheaper alternatives which are in budget.

This doesn't look too bad for the money. Can be had cheaper if you have a look on ebay. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sigma-18-...ers_Lenses&hash=item1c1c0b2169#ht_2467wt_1270

And the Tamron version http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tamron-18...ers_Lenses&hash=item1c1f6611e1#ht_3051wt_1586

 

[Cup_Phil]

Sigma and Tamron lenses are very good for the money.

If by "good for the money" you mean "soft and rarely ever focus accurately" then i'd agree

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

If by "good for the money" you mean "soft and rarely ever focus accurately" then i'd agree

I'm sorry but that is utter b****cks imo.

I've had my tamron 19-35 for about 8 years and it's never missed a beat. I also had a sigma 70-200 for a few years and that was also a good lens.

The op wanted a sub £200 lens. I offered my suggestions.

 

[Wick]

I wouldn't rule out the sigma and tamron. I am looking at them myself. Few 24-70 2.8's on ebay but all out of the £200 price range.

My nifty 50 was the first and only "upgrade" lens I have purchased since buying my camera and it has been superb!!

 

[Brazo]

If your still very much learning then the kit lens will be of a quality way above what you will need. Folk do like to slate their kit lenses on here but they are for the most part very competent with good centre sharpness. Personally I'd stick with it and wait until you outgrow it.

 

[dk]

This is the problem with buying a dslr, unless you are prepared to shell out for decent glass you won't get the true benefit from it.

The best money you will ever spend is £550 on the 70-200 f4L from jessops.

It is the best lens for the money you can buy, it perfectly compliments a kit lens starting at 70, is as sharp as they come, very fast to focus, great colours and dof.

It really should be every persons first lens purchase with a canon, you seriously will not regret it.

I'd even say save the money from the 50mm and buy this next, I've had a 50mm for 4 years and have used it once! Not an easy lens to use, has a very shallow dof. The 70-200L lens has a 90%+ keep rate for me.

Plus the 70-200 is the famed white lens, so also looks cool as f**k at the same time.

I've never heard anyone say a bad thing about one of them.

 

[TOGUSA]

i have the tameron 18-200mm lens as my walk around lens its great for general perpose if your not worried about super sharp images, its got a very soft focus its dose most of what i do family pics etc, for anything were i want sharp i switch to the 1.8 50mm. for anything were im at the big end of 200mm ill change over to the canon 75-300usm, another cheapo lens but sharper and quicker than the tameron. I still think the kit is best for general image in my kit apart from the 1.8.
the only reason its not always on is due to the lack of range. i think in terms of upgrade for a "walk around lens" the cannon 18-200+ is sharper than the tamron, but not by masses.
to go better you will need to spend £500+ to get better glass for a general purpose.
sub £500 you will be looking at low range or even fixed to get any quality from the lens. generaly the more glass you put in it the worse it gets, unless its got L level glass.
fyi, i use a 550D

 

[Cup_Phil]

This is the problem with buying a dslr, unless you are prepared to shell out for decent glass you won't get the true benefit from it.

The best money you will ever spend is £550 on the 70-200 f4L from jessops.

It is the best lens for the money you can buy, it perfectly compliments a kit lens starting at 70, is as sharp as they come, very fast to focus, great colours and dof.

Yes yes yes - someone who knows sense

The 70-200 f4L is SUPERB - you can grab mint second hand versions for £400 - had mine for 2 years and it's still absolutely pin sharp
The 50mm f1.8 II is awesome - I upgraded eventually to the 50mm f1.4 which is about £350 but such an amazing lens

I then eventually dumped the 18-55 in favour of a 17-40mm f4L

There's no point having a 500D/550D which is £500 worth of camera and putting shitty Tamron lenses on to it - people will argue they are fine right up until the point where they get their first L lens or Canon Prime. I couldn't keep a single photo taken with a Tamron these days - they'd all get instantly deleted

Sigma do produce some good lenses but they have a really bad configuration process and a lot leave the factory under/over focussing - you can send them back to be recalibrated but it takes a while

 

[.Adam.]

Thanks for all of the advice guys, will have a rethink about what to buy.

As said, I am only a beginner, so all help/info is appreciated!

 

[SamP]

Regardless of what these lot say, the tamron 17 - 50 2.8 is a great lens for the price. I myself wouldnt buy it, but lots do and many rate it. Still, the 35/2 is what I'd get if 200 quids your budget. I'm sick of my zooms, they dont do anything well except be convenient.

 

[Brazo]

Lol nearly everyone has a different opinion, take from that what you will. My own conclusion would be unless your a pro or need edge to edge sharpness then in most cases a cheap lens will absolutely suffice. My advice would be to upgrade when you need to, not when you want to.

 

[.Adam.]

Ok so for the people that say Sigma and Tamrom are fine, how do these look for example?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-Aspherical-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Lens-Suitable/dp/B0007XD4LC/ref=sr_1_57?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322162160&sr=1-57

[URL]http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0007U0GYS/?tag=cliospnet01-21[/URL]

 

[dk]

Regardless of what these lot say, the tamron 17 - 50 2.8 is a great lens for the price. I myself wouldnt buy it, but lots do and many rate it. Still, the 35/2 is what I'd get if 200 quids your budget. I'm sick of my zooms, they dont do anything well except be convenient.

so you've never used a 70-200f4L from canon then?

 

[SamP]

so you've never used a 70-200f4L from canon then?

Is mine.

Rather have the 135/2 and the 100/2.8L macro as they're both much better lenses for their focal lengths. Might be tempted by the 70-200/2.8II one day though as the focal length is fantastic on full frame. Still, IMO the 135/2 is the much better lens if you can get over the fact of it being a fixed focal length.

We're totally off topic now though.

 

[Paul_G]

Is mine.

Rather have the 135/2 and the 100/2.8L macro as they're both much better lenses for their focal lengths. Might be tempted by the 70-200/2.8II one day though as the focal length is fantastic on full frame. Still, IMO the 135/2 is the much better lens if you can get over the fact of it being a fixed focal length.

We're totally off topic now though.

f4L IS at that

 

[SamP]

f4L IS at that

You caught me. I lied. I dont have the 70-200f4L

 

[TOGUSA]

The tamron is the one i was talking about in my last post

These were images taken with that lens on the 550D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37609536@N05/5752193121/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37609536@N05/5752704890/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37609536@N05/5629149412/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37609536@N05/5517901537/

Most of the stuff in my flicker is on that lens apart from a couple of specials

 

[dk]

f4L IS at that

I'll be honest, I've never been in a situation where I've needed IS on that lens, I prefer the light weight, and I only ever use it in the daylight, and at 200mm it's hardly long enough to cause shake its such a fast lens.

I'll see how it does with the 1.4x converter next week with the penguins.

 

[Paul_G]

I'll be honest, I've never been in a situation where I've needed IS on that lens, I prefer the light weight, and I only ever use it in the daylight, and at 200mm it's hardly long enough to cause shake its such a fast lens.

I'll see how it does with the 1.4x converter next week with the penguins.

It's a great lens, although sadly mine is broken.... however I'd hardly call it fast (fast to focus but not really a 'fast' lens) and when shooting on a crop you tend to need a shutter speed of around 1/300s or higher to ensure a sharp image, I am not saying it can't be held at a slower speed - I have on various occasions - but typically a faster shutter is better.

When I get around to replacing my broken f4L it will either be a f4L IS or the f2.8IS, but that will have to wait until I've saved a few buttons (my Euros might well be worth as much a buttons in the coming months ).

Looking forward to seeing the penguins shots!

 

[Revels]

Steer the hell clear of tamron - dire lenses
Sigma are "ok" but have focusing problems

You really do talk complete and utter b****cks.

 

[SamP]

I'll be honest, I've never been in a situation where I've needed IS on that lens, I prefer the light weight, and I only ever use it in the daylight, and at 200mm it's hardly long enough to cause shake its such a fast lens.

Not so sure about that. Without IS I can maybe get a sharp image at 1/160th at the long end. Compared to 1/25th when I've got IS on. Sure people move around and its not a useful advantage all of the time, but without it shots like this at f4 simply wouldn't be possible...

Now if it was with a 200/2 or a 135/2 it wouldnt matter as 1/25th becomes 1/100th which is doable.

 

[dk]

Like I said, I mainly use my outside, I can happily pan Motorsport shots at 1/50, but then I don't think you're supposed to use is with panning anyway are you.
The twice I can remember using my lens inside was at a Chicago bulls basketball game, wasn't a problem, got some great shots and the other times were ice hockey games, again, no issue with hundreds of shots.

I've not tried to use it at a concert though like yourself. I did hear that the f4L (non IS) is the sharpest of the group of those lenses? (f4L IS and the 2.8 IS) Not sure how true it is.

When I said fast, I did mean fast to focus, not fast as in f4 is fast btw. It's the fastest to focus of all my lens'.

Guess I tend to use my 17-55 f2.8 IS for indoors shots, and can't fault that. I even prefer it to my 24-70 f2.8 L, but then I have had to micro adjust that on the 7d as it was front focussing....

 

[Andy.]

I did hear that the f4L (non IS) is the sharpest of the group of those lenses? (f4L IS and the 2.8 IS) Not sure how true it is.

Possibly true a couple of years ago, but that was prior to the IS version. The f4IS and f2.8 IS MKII are two of Canons best performing lenses (sharpness, colours etc).

I have needed the IS and the 2.8 to get shots in the past, so can justify my need for it, but everybody has different requirements.

 

[Cup_Phil]

You really do talk complete and utter b****cks.

Take a photo with a Canon L lens and then tell me you'd EVER consider using a Tamron

It's absolutely beyond me why anyone would pay £600 for a body and then throw a £150 lens on it

I had a couple of sigma lenses and they were soft as s**te so I sold them and got the canon 24-70 f2.8L which was absolutely pin sharp
My 70-200 f4L is pin sharp as well - I do agree the 135mm f2 is a brilliant lens but I tried one back to back with my 70-200 and they were absolutely identical

I would never ever own a tamron lens - and the sigma range that are good are so expensive these days you might as well buy canon

I have a 17-40mm f4L, a 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200mm f4L
Covers just about every scenario. I would like to swap the 70-200 for a 2.8 IS II in the new year though

 

[dk]

I'd like to upgrade to a 2.8 L IS but it's the weight which puts me off, the f4L is light in comparison and I can carry it around all day without worrying about the weight.

 

[dunganick]

I'd like to upgrade to a 2.8 L IS but it's the weight which puts me off, the f4L is light in comparison and I can carry it around all day without worrying about the weight.

Unless your a 4 year old girl - man up


Sigma lenses are fine. Its the QC issues that are the biggest issue with the brand. If you find a good one your laughing, all that lens for half the money! The Sigma warranty service is also excellent and blows even CPS out the water.

 

[Cup_Phil]

Unless your a 4 year old girl - man up


Sigma lenses are fine. Its the QC issues that are the biggest issue with the brand. If you find a good one your laughing, all that lens for half the money! The Sigma warranty service is also excellent and blows even CPS out the water.

Thats the thing with sigma

If you get one that's been calibrated properly and focus's right - they're awesome
Nearly as good as L class Canon glass but cheaper. Trouble is the 3 I've owned in the past all needed to go back to Sigma for calibration

 

[.Adam.]

How do you know if the lens needs to go back for calibration?

 

[Laura]

tbh ill probably go for a sigma 70-200 next, my friend has one and it really is yummy. ive just invested in the canon 28mm f2.8 and its replaced my nifty fifty in terms of favorite! Shot this hand held.

Munich Airport by laurataylor225, on Flickr

 

[Andy.]

How do you know if the lens needs to go back for calibration?

You'll notice that the focus point is either in front of or behind the subject that you actually focussed on. With some cameras it is possible to adjust this yourself on the body, but that can also be a bit hit and miss.
Sometimes it only appears at a particular focal distance (i.e. 10 meters from a subject rather than 10cms) and other times it is across the range.

 

[.Adam.]

Ok cool fair enough. If that is the case, and I buy a lens which needs calibration, the manufacturer will do this free of charge I presume?