New Canon!
Hey everyone, I just got myself a new Canon Rebel T2i.:barb It's not a professional camera but boy is it packed with some neat features and awesome quality. I am still getting used to it and finding new things as I play around with it. I got the 18-55 kit, I was thinking of purchasing some glass for it and had my eye on two, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS. I need some insight from people who have actually paired the 18-135 with the T2i and used it for and extensive period of time, is it worth purchasing it to replace my kit lens? The 50mm is a no brainer:rolleyes and will actually be my next purchase but I would greatly appreciate any advice or suggestions as to what to purchase to pair with my new camera. I have absolutely no gear at all as I got rid of my old Canon and gear to be able to afford this one, so I have to restart my kit. I do mostly portrait and landscape photography so suggestions on that field would be great. I am open to any suggestions and advice, thanks to everyone for all your help:thumb
0
Comments
You might find a flash helpful too. The Canon 430 EX II is a good mid-range choice, less expensive (though also less powerful) than the 580, but more flexible than the 270 (the 270 can tilt but not rotate, whereas the 430 does both).
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Glad you are happy with the new camera, it looks great on paper.
I sometimes wonder whether these type of questions should not be sponsored by the camera brands. There is so much else to buy besides glass - flash, tripod, lens cap, filters, studio lights and backgrounds, editing softwares, new display, even a new pc, web-site, etc, etc.
I skipped the kit zoom when I bought my 40D and went straight for the f2.8 17-55 IS USM. This is my workhorse lens and it is really nice to have f2.8 for these aspects. Still, my daughter has an 18-55 on a Rebel and she takes great pictures with it. By the sound of it, your "awesome quality" is also being delivered by the 18-55.
I look forward to opinions from people who actually used the 18-135. It looks like an awesomely ambitious lens. I would find it very convenient for walking around, although I would be missing my f2.8 and I would still need my telephoto and my macro.
Welcome to the world of dslr - so many trade-offs, so many choices.
From your last post:
These are 2 very different lenses.
Regardless, neither is spectacular but both are fine for general snapshots and moderate enlargements. Beyond maybe a 5" x 7" I would consider other lenses. Not that all subjects would be excluded but simple subject matter would tolerate greater enlargement.
As usual it all boils down to what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot it. At large apertures neither of the above is all that sharp, but stopped down they can be better.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'm sorry, I meant to say the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS from the beginning but I was also looking at the 18-135 as well. What do you think about the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM? What lower priced glass would you suggest for my style of shooting (mainly portrait and landscape)? I know the lower priced lenses aren't going to be extremely sharp but I want to go as low as possible with some decent output.
billytheks idea to check out an f1.8 prime is a good one - these lenses are relatively cheap, especially the 50mm. Then you can see how fast primes compare with your 18-55 and help figure what you value most in your glass.
When you are on a tight budget and just starting out it is not worth paying the extra for f1.4. You can get good bokeh on the cheaper lenses, even on the zooms once you figure out depth-of-field and manual mode.
The Canon EF-S 17-85mm, f4-5.6 IS USM is an OK lens but not really suited for portraiture and it lacks that crispness that help landscapes to pop as well.
The least I recommend is the Tamron AF 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF). For a standard zoom it is one of the better lenses with an extremely sharp center and middle 2/3rds. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is considerably better at the edges and corners and it adds a very usable IS, but it's a lot more money. The constant aperture of f2.8 on these lenses is terribly important to your goals.
The next lens I would add is the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM. For head shots and head-and-shoulders (if you have the room) it's a very capable lens and not terribly expensive.
Make sure to budget for a capable and appropriate flash as well. Proper lighting is more important than lenses and both are more important than the camera.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
All of these are ~$300-$400.
For what you're looking for the 17-50 is right in your price range. The non-VC version is about the price of any of the primes I mentioned.
But if you want faster apertures then there are some really nice primes out there. For what you want I say the 20 2.8 (although it's not as good optically as the 24mm, it'll be wider on the 1.6x sensor) and the 85 1.8. And the 50 1.8, or save and get the 50 1.4.
I agree with all of this, I started with the 17-85 and had to move on to the 17-55 when it came out. The 17-85 had too small of a maximum aperture, only made worse by the lack of constant aperture, making it a slow lens in general and mediocre for portraits. The 17-55 not only has f/2.8 but it will maintain it all the way up to 55mm...much better depth of field for portraits, and crisper image quality overall. I haven't tried the Tamron.
I think the Tam 17-50 and 50 1.8 would be excellent additions for somebody starting out, and well within the budget you've implied by your original suggestions. The 50 1.8 is a GREAT lens - yes, it's plastic, but it's also lightweight and optically fantastic; in some ways I preferred it to the 50 1.4 I have now. Both of these lenses are generally easy to sell on the used market if/when you decide you want something else, so you aren't taking a big risk with either of them. If you're willing to buy used (keh.com if you want it backed by a store, or reputable sites such as here at dgrin or fredmiranda.com if you don't mind buying privatel), you could get both of those lenses for well under $500 (used price for the Tamron Mk I is usually ~$325, and the 50 1.8 about $75-90).
If you don't mind 28mm (not very wide), how about a Tammy 28-75? It's 2.8 and probably better quality than that Canon 28-135. $500, a little more, but the 2.8 is worth it. Check it out.
So even if you throw your camera around, that lens can be replaced easily and without much pain.
I'll third the statement that the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 version I ( no VC ) is another good lens for the price.
I used to have one ... until I let the wife use it. Now she has one and I don't.
As for the popular "walkaround lens" I have a couple that work very well, but not at your price point.
I have a Canon 28-300is that takes very good shots, but the weight of it holds me back from carrying all the time.
Another one for a crop camera is the Canon 15-85. Great lens. I keep it with when I'm out and about.
But, it's $720, about what your budget is. So that one is out.
Starting out as you are, this is my opinion.
Sell the kit lens, get a Tamron 17-50 without vc, get the 50 f1.8 so you have something for low light,
and then I'd get a Canon 55-250is for those times you want more zoom. (and those times will come)
My suggestions will keep you under budget, get you two quick lenses that will work well with todays cameras
that can be used at iso 1600 and get very good results, plus you'll have the zoo/park/outdoor lens with the 55-250.
Use these lenses for a year. After that amount of time, you'll have a great feel about what's working, and what isn't.
At that time, figure out what part of your kit is holding you back, and replace it something more to your liking.
A lot has been said about the build quality of lenses.
I own and have owned quite a few lenses over the past 6 or 7 years, I've taken over 100,000 shots in that time.
I can't remember ever having a lenses failure.
I will say that many of my lenses are "L" lenses, but I'd guess that at least a third of shots were with consumer or 3rd party glass.
If you take care of it, it will take care of you.
Good luck in your quest for the perfect kit, I'm still trying to figure out what should be in my kit.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I'll agree with the 18-55IS and 55-250IS suggestions - two sharp lens for the money
Thrifty-fifty. That's a new one:D I'll add it to my ever-expanding list...
Nifty Fifty
Fantastic Plastic
Thrifty Fifty
And I know there are more I just can't think of them right now:D
--buy very little at first. (Someone else said that too.) Until you have some experience, you won't know what will be good for you. Unless you have a huge amount of money, buying lenses is a matter of tradeoffs, and you won't know for a bit what tradeoffs are most sensible for you.
--at the risk of overgeneralization, be wary of zooms with large ranges. The best-performing zooms usually have zoom factors of about 3 -- e.g., all the Canon 70-200 lenses, and the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 f/2.8. (BTW, I have the latter, and it is a very good performer on a crop sensor camera, particularly for the price.) The next step is zoom factors of around 5 or a little more, which usually involves some price. E.g., the Canon 15-85 (not 17-85) is generally considered a very good lens, but it has some problems from the large zoom factor, such as barrel and pin-cushion distortion and vignetting. I have a copy of that arriving in the mail today, but I bought it recognizing those issues. Lenses with zoom factors larger than that often get worse reviews.
-- You mentioned that you already feel that you need some additional reach. Rather than replacing your kit lens, which is pretty good and has the short end covered, you could consider an inexpensive telephoto, such as the 55-250. Yes, you would have to change lenses now and again, but that is the point of an SLR. You mentioned an interest in the Tamron 28-75. I love my copy of this. It is superior in optical quality to the 55-250, and it will give you a faster lens. However, it overlaps a lot with the kit lens and does not go all that much longer.
I suggest you play around with your kit lens, taking the shots you most like, and see how often you (1) go shorter than 28, and (2) want something longer than 55. Depending on that, one of the two Tamrons might be a good substitute, or adding a zoom might be a better alternative. But again, practice first.
This is the first I have heard of problems with this lens. I have one. What should I do to test mine to see if it is flawed?
Thank you very much Paddler
First off +2 on the Tamron 17-50 (mine is the older non-IS version). I use it for walking around/landscape and some indoor group captures.
Yes the 50 f/1.4 is a very nice lens and I have one - but I just do not use it very often. I recommend you set your kit lens at 50mm for a while and shoot like it was a prime.
For me the 50mm is too short portraits - (I prefer the 85 or 70-200) and too long for landscapes. So based on the areas of interest you mentioned above I am not sure that a 50mm prime is the way to go.
Andy
http://andygriffinphoto.com/
http://andygriffin.smugmug.com/
Canon 7D, 70-200mm L, 50 and 85 primes, Tamron 17-50, 28-135