Options
Recommend 2 lenses for the Canon 60D
As a rookie I'm looking at the Canon 60D as my first DSLR. What two lenses would make great coverage for a start?
I'm looking at the EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM as the daily lens, rather than the 18-135mm kit but have no idea what to look for in the 70-200mm range.
I am also wondering if I should just go with the kit lens until I have learned the basics.
Thoughts and advice is appreciated.
Thanks.
I'm looking at the EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM as the daily lens, rather than the 18-135mm kit but have no idea what to look for in the 70-200mm range.
I am also wondering if I should just go with the kit lens until I have learned the basics.
Thoughts and advice is appreciated.
Thanks.
0
Comments
That might be wise if you are just getting started with photography. We could give you better advice if you tell us a little more about your background and also what sorts of shots you hope to take. Baby pics? Sports? Makes a big difference.
If you really want a telephoto you might be better with a lens with a longer reach. Canon have a budget 55-250 and a more expensive and better 70-300. These lenses cost much less than the 70-200 family, and are much lighter to take on a hike in the park.
Most people take most of their photos on a crop camera around the 30-50 mm mark. This is where I would be maximizing my investment unless you have special requirements and expect to take a majority of macro or telephoto subjects. A sweet lens for the 60D is the f2.8 17-55, pricy but still less expensive than a 70-200 I think.
In your shoes I might take the 18-135mm kit lens to learn on. It is a very brave lens, covering a lot of ground at a very low price. Probably I would keep it for many years as a casual walk-around long after I moved on to more specialized items.
I was thinking of switching the 18-135mm kit lens for the 15-85mm USM as I have heard they are a great starter lens. (and would do better at indoor sports). This or the kit lens would be my only lens until I get familiar with DSLR.
The 24-104 f4 looks great but I'm looking to spend about $300 more than the kit now. I'll look to spend the $1200 on the 70-200 or 24-104 in a year.
My thought pattern here is I'm not a pro so if I had to only get two great lenses for me what would they be? 15-85 now and 70-200 f4 later.
That's why I'm thinking $600-700 15-85 USM now. Make the most of 30-50mm and crop.
On a budget look at the Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM or Canon EF 100mm, f2 USM for indoor sports. Actually, the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM is very nice, but there goes your budget.
The Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (without IS) is also fairly valid and IS is not that important for sports shooting, indoors or outdoors. Unfortunately, there goes your budget as well.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Oppositely, if you're really into low-light photography, and/or portraits, I'm going to recommend a pair of f/2.8 zooms, or one f/2.8 zoom and a 1.8 prime or something. The 17-55 2.8 EFS and an 85 1.8 EF would be great for low-light photography and portraits. Or a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, etc. etc. Or for photojournalism / action, the Sigma 50-150 2.8 is worth checking out; I use mine for the vast majority of my shooting for both portraits and events.
Like I said, it depends on what you find yourself usually shooting. Gotta develop and refine your style before you can know exactly which lenses are the best choice for your particular style.
Good luck!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Check this link for indoor basketball shots taken by the 60D with kit lens (granted the lighting in the Staples Center is better than your average gym) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=36664828
Thanks Matt. This could be an interesting two lens combo; the 15-85 and the 50-150 2.8 Sigma.
That is the plan - Just looking for a good lens to start on then expand when the time (and money) is right.
Thanks Richy. I am still learning ISO, shutter speeds, lighting aperture, etc. and how to pick the right lens and camera setting - So the explanation is much appreciated. (I have a lot to learn).
Off topic: if you haven't ordered your 60D yet, you may want to consider a 50D. All the 60D has that the 50D doesn't is 3 more MP (18 vs. 15), video, and the swivel LCD. The 50D has much better build quality, more fps (6.3 vs. 5.3) and probably better AF. A lot better for sports ;~)
I checked out the 50D and prefer the IQ and ISO performance of the 60D. Also, the 60D felt great even if it is polycarbonate & fibreglass on an aluminum chasis. Canon claim the 60D matches or even beats the 50D in weather-sealing so I am not concerened about the body materials. AF is the same on both. I also like the option of having video and the articulating screen. From initial reports the 60D is a great camera. Also, the 60D fits me like a glove so it all adds up to be the perfect first DSLR for me.
...I hear you re lenses and to buy the best you can afford.
I used to have the 70-200 f4 a few years ago and sold it. I'm still wondering why.
It's a sharp, fast, fairly light lens with great color and contrast.
A Canon 70-200 f4 non i.s. is a great, less expensive lens to compliment the 15-85.
These are from the 15-85 on a 7D.
15mm
35mm (in studio)
85mm
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
The f/4 L lenses will cost a bit more than variable aperture lenses, but they'll be very worth it if you hold out and save up. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Great shots - The Canon 18mp sensor and the 15-85mm seem made for each other. What were your settings and focal point on the above pic?
My philosophy is to buy the best lens or lenses that you can afford right from the start. Don't nickle-dime yourself around buying an inferior lens or lenses and then having to upgrade the glass.
There are two lenses for 1.6x cameras with which I do 90-95% of my shooting. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I shoot with these using a pair of 1.6x cameras (30D and 40D). These lenses are extremely versatile and produce incredible imagery - even with the "older" bodies. If there are any shortcomings to these two lenses it would be in the area of macro and or extreme range wildlife photography.
If you first purchase a top-line mid-range zoom and then flesh out your lens collection with lenses on either end (if neccessary); you should be totally happy with your selection. However, until you have the money for a selection of lenses, you will be getting the best quality from the mid-range zoom that you have. On a recent trip to China, I shot 2/3 of my images with the 17-55mm and 1/3 with the 70-200mm. I took a 12-24mm Tokina to China but, seldom carried it out into the field.
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/
Yes, good glass costs money but, also good glass holds its value. One advantage (or disadvantage - however you look at it) of getting good glass is that you can't blame your lens for your personal failings as a photographer.
Note that for sports shooting IS isn't going to be much use to you - it's great for stopping the motion blur from handholding at a slow shutter speed (ie helps counter "camera shake"), but it won't "freeze" the motion of the actual *subject* the way a faster shutter speed will. Therefore, for sports indoors.... fast glass is a real plus.
Thanks divamum. My friend is a pro-photog and I remember him recommending a Tamron lens to me as he has one in his collection. I just checked and it's the same 17-50 f2.8
Thanks Richard. Those two lenses are superb and priced accordingly. As this is my first DSLR I still need to find my feet, let alone test my wings.
Yeah, this lens seems to work very well with this camera.
This link is to the data you asked for. LINK
As for the focus point, it's somewhere in the middle of the shot.
For 95% of my shots I use the center focus point.
I would guess that's what I did for this.
I'm kind of old school on focusing, I use the center point, and then recompose after I have a focus lock.
I'll add in on a few of the other comments.
I have the older Tamron 17-50 f2.8, it is a very good lens. I lost this lens to my wife, she won't give it back.
The problem with 3rd party lenses is the price drop if you go to sell it.
The Tamron 17-50 was around $500 new, I bought used for around $350, about 3 months after it hit the market.
If I would have bought the Canon 17-50 f2.8, it would have been around $1000 if I remember right.
A person could sell that lens 4 years later, and with the inflation rate, probably get close to what they paid for it.
What I'm saying is, Canon lenses will hold there value much better than the 3rd party lenses, and for the most part
will give you at least as good results, and most of the time better results than the 3rd party lenses.
My 70-200 f4 that I bought new 5 years ago for around $560, (canon rebates were going on at the time)
I sold that lens, in minutes, on FM (Fred Miranda), about 4 years ago for $480.
I have looking to maybe buy another one lately, but for one around the year that I had, will cost almost as much as I paid for it new.
"L" lenses hold their value.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
...I'm sure I'm not the only rookie who get's great value from these discussions.
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a definite upgrade from the 18-55IS if you don't need the "IS"
I don't disagree with Dave, but another POV to throw into the melting pot: if you buy gently used, you lose next to no money when you swap lenses out. KEH is a great source if you want to buy from a merchant rather than privately; you can still often save enough that if/when it comes time to sell, you don't lose much on the deal. I've had EXCELLENT experiences with their "bgn" rated lenses, which are very well priced. They usually have some external marks and rubs but are optically great. Refurbished items (Adorama and other sources) are another great option, IMO - I've had fantastic experiences with all three of my Adorama refurbs, in fact (55-250is lens, 430ex flash, 7d). I've kept the flash and the camera
Also, while L lenses do hold their value better than most, once certain models passed out of production and/or Canon no longer warrants them because are out of date and/or have been superceded by a replacement lens, they are VERY hard to sell on the private market. Check the date codes (on the mount side of the lens) and just be aware that lenses older than about 8-10 years, even if once the absolute creme de la creme, can be difficult to sell.
Having said all that, I still think in your case a Tamron 17-50 would be a great choice. It also holds its value well; if you can find it used or with a rebate, you'll lose very little money if you choose to sell it at a later date and, frankly, even if you buy it new you'll get your money's worth out of it. The MkI sells on the used market privately around $300-325; not sure about the MkII, but it's probably worth checking it out
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
My understanding is that doesn't relate merely to lenses made by Canon, it's an EF-S (in)compatibility issue!
I can use the Sigma 10-20mm, f4-5.6 EX DC, a crop zoom lens, on the 5D MKII without danger and from about 16mm it does a pretty good job filling the image frame.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have an extensive lineup of Canon lenses but, going back to my days with my 50D... here's my recommendation. Canon makes the best glass for Canon bodies but Sigma and Tamron have less expensive models. I've used them both and the performance is pretty good. I should note that these are L-Series lenses.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS
- Tamron 70-200 works well. Never tried the VR (IS)
Canon 17-40mm f/4 USM
- It's wide angle enough and about $500 or so less than the 16-35 f/2.8 model. I tend to use that with a flash for super wide angle shots so the f/4 is not a problem.
If you've got the cash and the need, obviously the 300mm & 400mm f/2.8 will set you apart when you are shooting sports or action/low light from a distance.
If you just want to stay in the EF-S family... the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm OR the 70-300mm will cover a lot as long as having a low-light capability or consistent aperture are not imperative. They are IS at least.